SRTouch January 4, 2018 Share January 4, 2018 (edited) 7 hours ago, TresGatos said: We had a friend whose tomcat had to be put down after he mauled an 87-year-old man. I would never trust pitbulls (or any dog) who have mauled to death a small animal not to maul to death a small human, particularly ones with neglectful owners. For a dog to have killed other animals before attacking a human is not at all unheard of. The woman in this case, in my strongest opinion, should have followed up with a vicious dog report. Not saying every animal that has ever killed another will go on to attack a human. But, when an animal has shown it WILL attack/maul/kill an animal, even when there are other humans verbally and physically trying to stop the attack... well, in my mind that sort of defines a dangerously out of control animal. What's more, in the case at the root of this case, the owner of the attacking dog doesn't even acknowledge his dog is a problem. He admits the dog got out, but figures a 4 foot fence can keep his dogs in his yard... so obviously someone must have let it out. Yes, his dog was out, animal control had it. Yes, he admits lady's dog was mauled, but claim she has no proof because she was the only witness. Next, yes her dog was mauled by his dog, but she lied about the extent just to get more money, despite the fact that she brought the vet records. The main problem I have with plaintiff not following through with her complaint is that dude was in court using the fact that animal control dropped the case as vindication that he and his dog did nothing wrong... no, animal control had to drop the vicious dog case because the only witness refused to follow through and go on record that his dog was off his property and attacked her leashed dog as she was screaming trying to stop the attack... what I don't understand is why animal control didn't at least cite him for the dog being loose - don't they have the authority in that jurisdiction to do more to make him secure his 3-4 big dogs. Edited January 5, 2018 by SRTouch 4 Link to comment
Destiny74 January 5, 2018 Share January 5, 2018 On 12/28/2017 at 5:18 PM, AEMom said: I'm finally almost caught up with the new shows, only one to go. I've been enjoying all the recaps and comments from everyone. I normally watch the shows over 2-3 days of the week as I work on laundry, but my machine was broken for 2 weeks, so I really fell behind on my watching while going elsewhere to get it done. The tractor guy was unreal and I loved how Dusty finally picked it up and then gave it to Tommy. The ragey tow truck guy was such a first class asshole. So glad that MM kicked him out. Finally the guy who slipped on the water with the Islamophobic sign - what an awesome neighbor. I've blanked out of my memory all the assorted women who threw money at more loser guys. This episode was gold. Guy leaves the tractor for over a year!?!?! But he visits it regularly so it's ok. ABANDONMENT. The wet sidewalk guy? Whatever. I've tripped on sidewalks while out in the dark. Never thought about suing. The last one won me over. Why did the tow guy think it would be a good idea to get mouthy with THE JUDGE? Then, after he was kicked out but let back in, he insults her again? I think he knew he was in the wrong, was gonna lose, and just decided to show how macho he was and how big his balls were. He came across as a gigantic ass. She should have held him in contempt of court and jailed his ass. I would have loved to hear a hallterview from him. I just might keep this episode for laughs. 3 Link to comment
SRTouch January 6, 2018 Share January 6, 2018 (edited) First, the good news - program info says new cases start airing next week. No recap for today's rerun (from October 13 - previous discussion pg 84) spend the day spending money - morning here doing preventive maintenance on my vehicle, then a trip south of the Red River (Oklahoma/Texas border) just to circulate the new oil and make sure my wheels still turn round and round, oh, and a visit to the Best Buy in Wichita Falls - but left my wallet in my pocket in Texas. Cases were so bad that the previous discussion centers on how boring the cases were, Angela Hunter was happy her DVR didn't record the whole thing, and the big topic of discussion was bozo mispronouncing his dog's diagnosed injury. Anyway, we had the dude suing his neighbor over a dog scuffle. He loses because it took him a week to decide to find out why his dog was limping, brought no vet report (just bills) and defendant brought affidavit from HER vet which blew his story out water. (Her vet said the diagnosed injury would be VERY painful, dog would have likely been non-weight bearing from the get-go, and usually caused from quick turn while running - none of which matches his testimony.) Second case was the Shanghai travel agent trip/travel agent case. Plaintiff waited three years to sue for a refund over a canceled trip. Another case where MM was the only one speaking that I understood. Last case car repair nonsense that I didn't even watch the intro. Edited January 6, 2018 by SRTouch 3 Link to comment
SRTouch January 8, 2018 Share January 8, 2018 (edited) NEW episode today bad roofer: plaintiff hired neighbor, a roofing contractor, to install a roof on his house. Says guy sent an inexperienced crew of nitwits who did a terrible job. Says new roof leaks, and won't even pass inspection, needs $2000 in repairs. How about this, actually have a written contract - not totally legible, but it's in writing. Since contract needs some explanation/interpretation, we get an early chance to hear from defendant. (Actually, the contract confusion seems to deal as much with defendant using roofer terms as sloppy writing - though we have sloppy writing as well.) Defendant may be a lousy roofer, but he talks the talk and claims almost 20 years experience. Ok, back to plaintiff... plaintiff is hard to listen to, not only a bunch of "you know," and hand waving, but I'm wondering if he needs upper dentures. Seems a few months went by, and plaintiff brought in a home inspector because he had put his house on the market and had a potential buyer lined up. Home inspector came and found problems with the brand new roof. Not only that, dude says he noticed problems even before the failed inspection (but apparently never climbed up and checked it out). Says he made numerous attempts to get contractor back to address his complaints, but guy was dodging him. Plaintiff has both the written inspection report, and pictures of what he thinks is shoddy workmanship. Ok, like I said, dude may have problems with his diction, but when they show a picture of a gap between the chimney and flashing, yeah, looks like a problem. At first I questioned his complaint about the flashing being on top of the shingles, but after a second look I realise he may be showing us the uphill side of the chimney. Ok, yeah, IF that's the higher side then yeah, shingle should be on top - just not sure from the picture. Ok, flashing may be a problem - just not a 2 grand problem. No biggest problem sounds like a dip around a skylight... just guessing, but I figure a poorly done reno at some point that left that section of the roof not properly supported. Ok, if that's what it is, it wouldn't be covered in their contract.... not that that lets contractor off the hook, as he should have pointed out the problem at the time - sure would have been easier/cheaper to correct while the old roof was torn off than after the new one was installed. Oh dear, more pictures, more shoddy workmanship. Heck, even I know better than nailing on top of shingles and leaving the nail heads exposed and it sure looks like some of those nails were left exposed. Thing is, plaintiff sounds like he was giving contractor every chance to come back and make it right, but getting nothing from the guy... even though the contract included warranties. Oh dear, turns out plaintiff knows a thing or two, as he was a general contractor for 30 years himself.... so why, asks MM, did he pay the guy before he climbed up and checked out the job - oh, he liked and trusted the guy. Hmmm, now defendant is called up to explain what we're looking at... again, he sounds like he knows what he's talking about, could be right, but I think I need more than words - too bad we can't go and look at the roof, cause, like I said, sounds like he knows the job. Ah, but an inspector did go up and look, and didn't like what he saw. And, even if it turns out roofer is 100% right, why the heck didn't he go back up on the roof and show the homeowner why he thinks the inspector was wrong... hmmm possibly defendant is all talk and a lousy roofer. Or, maybe the inspector WAS wrong, did anyone ever consider a second opinion. Now MM pulls out the inspection report... yep, inspector didn't like the roof, but a lot of the problems he noted could be from before the new roof (problem with most home inspections is that inspectors aren't allowed to really investigate problems - here sounds like inspector noticed water damage on ceiling, rotted soffits, etc, but couldn't tell if it was from before or after the roof was replaced, so just recommended monitoring for future leaks)... but after the commercial break defendant starts off with the city inspection saw no problems and passed the job... still, back to the warranty, and why didn't defendant just go back and talk to the plaintiff when he had concerns. His explanation is that dude shorted him $60 on the $6000 job, so he walked away and washed his hands of the cheapsteak plaintiff... but you don't get to do that when you have a written contract with guarantees and warranties. Plaintiff did get an estimate for the repairs to what he says needs to be done, but admits the estimate is questionable - guy stood at the top of the ladder, gave it a quick glance, then left to answer a phonecall, then gave a $1400 estimate. Why, asks MM, are you suing for 2 grand if your estimate us for $1400. Oh, pain and suffering and MM laughs. Oh, and when asked, dude looks down and admits that the roof hasn't leaked since being replaced. Ok, these two just that their backs up over perceived slights... roofer mad because he was stiffed $60, homeowner mad because roofer wouldn't come address his complaints. Based on what she saw in the pictures, MM awards $500 to plaintiff, but says that doesn't mean the warranty is over. Nobody happy in the hallway. Plaintiff saying not enough of the roof decking was replaced... hey, couldn't he have someone go up in the attic and check the deck underside? motorcycle purchase gone bad: whoa, lady plaintiff sure looks stern - quite the outfit and stringy hair look - is that all one eyebrow?. Anyway, plaintiffs bought a '09 motorcycle, chain broke and trashed the engine, they figure defendant sold them a bike in dangerous condition after detailing it to look good before putting it on the market. Ah, sounds like your usual AS-IS case. Was there a warranty, did they do their due diligence before buying, and can they prove defendant knew there was a problem when he sold it. Defendant says bike had been sitting for years prior to the sale, and plaintiff had it for 2 months (plaintiff says 3 days) before he came back saying chain broke. Ok, once we get back after first commercial it's the usual nonsense, just with two wheels instead of four. Do litigants really think it helps when they start off by saying they noticed a problem, but went ahead and bought the POS. We see people buying cars that won't start, or have check engine light on - people buy boats without putting them in water to see if they float - this time buyer tells us he noticed right away the chain was loose, but when he asked seller changed the subject... uh, dude, that's when you leave and go look at a different bike, not pull out your checkbook and pay the guy 7 grand. Heck, idiot, you have a bike and notice the chain loose, you ought to know better than going for a 40 mile ride until you tighten it. He lost his case right there as far as I see it... unless, of course, seller dude gave him a guarentee. All the rest of plaintiff case, him whining that defendant faked him out by doing a half asked repair, diverted him when he asked questions is just yakity yak unless he has proof defendant misrepresented something - unless this is a jurisdiction where big brother watches over dummies who buy crap and get to undo the deal. More this guy talks more he sounds like a mental midget. After seeing the loose chain, he pays the buyer and rides it 40 miles to get home. After the ride he notices a funny smell... does he immediately investigate? Course not... hmmm, can it really take two hours to take off the fairing enough to look at the engine? Couple days later he notices it leaking oil and finally decides to have it checked out. Took it to the dealer, who found all KINDS of stuff that needed to be done. Over to defendant. He says he bought the bike 6 years ago, it was used when he bought it, but ran fine for 3,000 miles. Says he never had any problems with it, but had an accident (not on the bike) a couple years ago and hasn't been able to ride since. So, except for the occasional ride around the neighborhood by his brother, it's been sitting the past 2 years. Sooo, we have a report from the dealer saying at some point the chain came off and damaged the sprocket and engine, then someone tried to epoxy things back together. Plaintiff says defendant must have done the repair, he sure didn't, and no way defendant had the bike for 6 years without knowing about the epoxy repair job. Defendant agrees chain was loose when he sold the bike, says easy 5 minute adjustment... yeah sounds about right, in my bike riding experience, more time looking for the right wrench than doing the actual repair/adjustment. He figures plaintiff never did the adjustment, rode it around til the chain came off, tried to repair it himself and then took it to the dealer. Hmmm sounds plausible, dealer sees the epoxy but no way to tell when it was applied.... my feeling - probably WAS done recently, just nothing to show who did it. Besides, plaintiff was a dummy for making the purchase knowing there was a problem, then riding it home with a loose chain. hmmmm wonder if he tightened it when he got home or kept riding it with a loose chain. Uh, and this is a classic crotch rocket bike, so I can see a buyer cranking the throttle and working those gears on the way home. So, yeah, I can see high RPM, chain breaking and causing major damage instead of just slipping off. Oh, as if dude didn't look stupid enough, now he argues he never went for a test drive! Oh, but he says he watched defendant drive around. (Which makes me wonder about defendant's claim that he's selling it because he can't ride because of a construction accident.) One of those times when MM spends WAY too much time explaining her decision, so I zipped through that part as this idiot just doesn't get it... Anyway, we're back on schedule after long first case. traffic accident: plaintiff claims defendant made illegal left turn and smacked her brand new car. Defendant argues plaintiff wasn't paying attention, and it was her that caused the wreck. Ok, simple case, even defendant's own testimony has him making a left in front of oncoming traffic... oh, he's one of those folks who figure he always has the right of way and others should slow down if he wants to cut in front of them. Says he saw her coming, but thought he could make it so tried... her fault! Ah, he says she must have been going twice the speed limit - speed limit was 35, but he figures she had to be going 70mph based on the damages. Hmmm, maybe there was some speeding... lots of damage for a 35mph collision... but she has a letter from her insurance saying their investigation found defendant 100% at fault. Oh, and he admits his insurance agreed, and found him at fault... ah, but nobody has a police report, no tickets issued. Ah, but is this case ripe to be before the court. So far, his insurance (Geicko) hasn't settled - supposedly still waiting on some paperwork. Her insurance, Progressive, has partially paid her - probably minus her deductible. Sooo, will she be getting more once his insurance settles? Ah, she's after what she paid for her almost brand new car, and her insurance figures it had depreciated over 5 grand in the 62 days since the purchase. Ah, a tough one, says MM. It sucks, but legally, you're only entitled to the value of the car when it was wrecked, which is what she's already received. I'm really hoping MM finds a way to award her more... especially as he argues that he didn't cause the accident. ... yep, still think's he was in the right even after MM tells him he caused the accident - several times. Verdict for defendant, even though MM says she wishes it wasn't. Just in case anybody isn't already disgusted, defendant comes out happy he won and demonstrating even more ass-holiness when Doug talks to him in hallterview. Geez, he actually caused a three car accident - luckily no one injured (plaintiff had baby in car) - and he's not the least bit sorry after being told repeatedly that he was at fault - nah, he's celebrating not having to pay any of the 5 grand plaintiff is out. Edited January 8, 2018 by SRTouch 1 7 Link to comment
Silver Raven January 8, 2018 Share January 8, 2018 Our station that used to show the JJ reruns all of a sudden today was showing Judge Faith for the first half hour and the fake Supreme Justice show for the second half hour. I don't know what happened to the JJ reruns, nor what is on now in the slot that Judge Faith used to have, the hour before the JJ rerun show. I am not pleased. 2 Link to comment
Brattinella January 8, 2018 Share January 8, 2018 41 minutes ago, Silver Raven said: Our station that used to show the JJ reruns all of a sudden today was showing Judge Faith for the first half hour and the fake Supreme Justice show for the second half hour. I don't know what happened to the JJ reruns, nor what is on now in the slot that Judge Faith used to have, the hour before the JJ rerun show. I am not pleased. https://nypost.com/2017/08/08/judge-judy-sells-show-archive-to-cbs-for-95m/ This may be the reason. Link to comment
AngelaHunter January 8, 2018 Share January 8, 2018 58 minutes ago, SRTouch said: bad roofer: plaintiff hired neighbor, a roofing contractor, to install a roof on his house. When I needed a new roof a few years back, I contacted Home Depot who sent a bonded, insured contractor in my area who has been doing roofing for nearly 40 years. Yes, it was expensive but it's properly done. 5K is extremely cheap to do a roof, and as we all know and JM reiterates frequently, "The cheap comes out expensive." I'm not sure what happened here since I couldn't understand most of what plaintiff said. 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: motorcycle purchase gone bad: whoa, lady plaintiff sure looks stern - quite the outfit and stringy hair look - is that all one eyebrow?. Plaintiffs looked like they came from really bad repertory audition for an off-off-off Broadway production of "Mad Max". She was scowling mightily through all this and her man? All the gaudy, tacky silver bling, tats, facial piercings and earrings - he needs to work more on other things. "The poxy was heatin'" he proclaims. Yeah, the whole bike needed to be taken apart, a job that requires hours of work, to find the heatin' poxy, but somehow def should have known about it with his x-ray vision. Plaintiff couldn't be bothered taking it to be checked out by a mechanic, nor even trouble himself to take it for a test drive. He just automatically and totally trusts strangers. Don't we all? Even if def. knew there were problems, plaintiff needs to pull his big boy panties and take some responsibility with his purchase of a nine-year old vee-hickle. Buyer beware, and plaintiff is old enough to know that. 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: traffic accident: plaintiff claims defendant made illegal left turn and smacked her brand new car. I can't remember the last time I saw a litigant and felt he deserves a serious beating. The smirking, arrogant Uncle Fester is a complete and total asshole and I truly feel for the plaintiff who had to lose a lot of money and face all kinds of inconveniences because Fester doesn't know how to drive and has not an ounce of integrity. JM hated him and truly regretted being unable to make him pay for any of the chaos he created. "I won" the fugly creep proclaims triumphantly in the hall. I just hope the day comes when he won't. Ugh. 7 Link to comment
meowmommy January 8, 2018 Share January 8, 2018 On 1/5/2018 at 7:11 PM, SRTouch said: Cases were so bad that the previous discussion centers on how boring the cases were, Angela Hunter was happy her DVR didn't record the whole thing, and the big topic of discussion was bozo mispronouncing his dog's diagnosed injury. Must be pretty bad when the recap of recaps and snark is better than the actual show! On 1/4/2018 at 5:06 PM, TresGatos said: We had a friend whose tomcat had to be put down after he mauled an 87-year-old man. Of course I don't know anything about your friend's situation, but would suggest that if your friend had denutted their tomcat, the cat would most likely never have gone after anyone, much less an old man. That's just sad. 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: bad roofer: plaintiff hired neighbor, a roofing contractor, to install a roof on his house. Says guy sent an inexperienced crew of nitwits who did a terrible job. MM drove me crazy with her pronunciation of "chim-a-ney." As one who's had half a roof replaced recently and whose house is closing in two weeks, I am taking this case personally. I know about home inspection reports and what they say and don't say. I've had a house that I moved into that I had to call a plumber on moving day because the washing machine connection was so badly rusted out and worn that the movers didn't want to hook up my washer for fear of a flood. My inspector, chosen by my agent without my input, completely whiffed on that. And this house I'm selling now--the buyer's inspector claimed there's a crack in the downstairs toilet and leaking. The toilet has never leaked, still doesn't leak, and when I went to examine the "crack," I discovered it was a hair. Not a hairline crack, a hair. 27 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said: Yeah, the whole bike needed to be taken apart, a job that requires hours of work, to find the heatin' poxy, but somehow def should have known about it with his x-ray vision. And he figured if he kept saying it over and over and over, that MM would be dazzled by his legal premise and change her mind. 6 Link to comment
teebax January 9, 2018 Share January 9, 2018 Do not buy a new car without gap insurance! Do not buy a new car without gap insurance! Do not buy a new car without gap insurance! No, it's not required, Uncle Fester (thanks Angela), but it damn well should be. Hello, everybody! Happy belated new year! 7 Link to comment
meowmommy January 9, 2018 Share January 9, 2018 3 minutes ago, teebax said: Do not buy a new car without gap insurance! I honestly had never heard of gap insurance for anything other than medical. But now I've educated myself. (OTOH, my car is almost seven years old, so I'm just praying it holds on because a replacement is not in my financial purview.) 3 Link to comment
AngelaHunter January 9, 2018 Share January 9, 2018 On 1/5/2018 at 7:11 PM, SRTouch said: and the big topic of discussion was bozo mispronouncing his dog's diagnosed injury. I forgot all about that. The CRUCIBLE! Every time he said it Daniel Day Lewis and a shrieking Winona Ryder kept appearing in my head. Dog got the crucible injury when her idiot owner panicked and dropped her on the ground. 52 minutes ago, teebax said: Do not buy a new car without gap insurance! Couldn't agree more. I got it when I bought my last car. I ignore what dealers try to peddle - extended warrantys, some super-sonic rust proofing (ha!) and other bullshit, but gap insurance I got because there are many nuts on the road, like the smirking Fester who needed a good swift kick in the buttocks. 5 Link to comment
Guest January 9, 2018 Share January 9, 2018 20 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: I can't remember the last time I saw a litigant and felt he deserves a serious beating. The smirking, arrogant Uncle Fester is a complete and total asshole and I truly feel for the plaintiff who had to lose a lot of money and face all kinds of inconveniences because Fester doesn't know how to drive and has not an ounce of integrity. JM hated him and truly regretted being unable to make him pay for any of the chaos he created. "I won" the fugly creep proclaims triumphantly in the hall. I just hope the day comes when he won't. Ugh. I am not a violent person. Years ago I chose to think in an opposite manner perhaps because I hear about violence and pain on a daily basis. But. Let me tell you this - if given the right opportunity I would take that doughy bastard to a new level by continuously slamming his Halloween-inspired face into the cement. I would then take my pointy toe boots and ram them in his testicles so far that you'd be able to tell the color of them through his soulless eyes and while on the ground I'd break both legs slowly so the last thing the prick would ever want to do is pull out in traffic again. It seemed Doug was disgusted by this idiot too. Link to comment
AngelaHunter January 9, 2018 Share January 9, 2018 12 minutes ago, PsychoKlown said: Let me tell you this - if given the right opportunity I would take that doughy bastard to a new level by continuously slamming his Halloween-inspired face into the cement. I would then take my pointy toe boots and ram them in his testicles so far that you'd be able to tell the color of them through his soulless eyes and while on the ground I'd break both legs slowly so the last thing the prick would ever want to do is pull out in traffic again. Don't hold back. Tell us how you really feel about this repulsive waste of oxygen who finds it amusing that he smashed plaintiff's car and caused her all kinds of headache and financial loss. I think JM felt the same way. I"m pretty sure I saw disgust on her face. 5 Link to comment
Guest January 9, 2018 Share January 9, 2018 22 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said: Don't hold back. Tell us how you really feel about this repulsive waste of oxygen who finds it amusing that he smashed plaintiff's car and caused her all kinds of headache and financial loss. I think JM felt the same way. I"m pretty sure I saw disgust on her face. I must control my anger but honest to pete this guy really chapped my fanny. The sense of entitlement he oozed out of his puffy-pasty skin nauseated me. I am going to yoga tonight. I need it to cleanse this disgusting sub-human from my memory. Link to comment
SRTouch January 9, 2018 Share January 9, 2018 hmmm, if I'm reading the schedule right, new episodes all this week - reruns next week, then a new one on the 22nd (which is far as my schedule goes) Busted sewer line: listening to the intro, this should be a simple contract case. Plaintiff hired defendant's company to install an in ground swimming pool at her Mom's house. Workers screwed up and excavated the hole without first checking for pipes. Luckily, pipe they broke was a sewer line - could have been gas. Anyway, according to defendant's intro, he notified plaintiff's hubby that their contract said he wasn't responsible for the damage, it was up to his customer to repair it. His guys leave and return later to find the broken sewer line covered in dirt. Ok, they figure it was repaired, so they get on with the job of installing the pool. Uh, time passes, sewer backs up into Mom's house... sewer never repaired. Seems like a crappy way to do business. I've never had a pool installed, but seems to me the installers should have the existing pipes marked before they start digging... just googled and it looks like 811 works in all 50 States and Canada http://call811.com/before-you-dig/how-811-works hmmmm, and I'd think twice about hiring a company to come in and dig a massive hole in my yard with a clause in the contract saying they have no liability if they damage the utility/sewer lines - or run their freeking excavator into my house. Really, was this guy licensed and bonded? Could this be another "cheap becoming expensive" situation? I guess the case centers on whether or not defendant informed the plaintiffs his guy had broken the line. Ok, commercial over and on with the case... anyway, deal was plaintiff and hubby were moving in with her mom, Mom is 94yo and time has come where she can no longer live alone. Ah, but Mom has lived in her house since the '50s, so major reno job, inside and out - including a new pool. When renovations are over, before everyone moves back in, they have a plumbing pressure test done... only to have house flooded. Seems the busted sewer line was never fixed, so several feet of pipe was missing and they're no longer connected to the sewer. Big communication break, even if defendant told hubby as he claims, hubby sat on the info and didn't tell the general contractor, so damage never fixed, the break was cover over, and expensive travertine tile pool deck installed over the break. To me, just common sense would tell me not to have my workers, who had to leave the job site while the pipe was to be fixed, go back to work until I'm sure it has been fixed - no matter who was to be doing the repair. Surely if major reno was being done defendant knew how to contact the general contractor (GC) just so they could coordinate and keep out of the other subs way. Ok, plaintiff presented her case - a little more friendly than maybe called for in court, but then this is court tv. Now, MM turns to defendant for his side. Dude already had a couple strikes - digging without checking for utilities, then putting his guys back to work without making sure break was fixed. Now he starts off by denying everything, and saying he wasn't on site so has no firsthand knowledge... uh, so why isn't his foreman who WAS onsite standing next to him to tell us WTH happened. He did bring an affidavit, but I'm with JJ on affidavits - I'd want the witness in the hot seat answering questions unless there's a VERY good reason he can't appear... yeah, he may need to be on a job somewhere, but this case is for a couple grand, so maybe it should be worth him missing some work (otoh, maybe not if he would have to shut down a crew of workers and delay someone else's job to appear - and if they lose they won't be the ones having to come up with $2400+ anyway). Ok, this is where plaintiff's case takes a hit. Hubby says he pointed out a broken pipe in the shallow end of the future pool, but the foreman's affidavit is talking about the sewer line in the deep end - but no pictures of broken pipe... sure would be nice to turn and clarify what we're talking about with someone from the defendant's side who was actually there... anybody else get the feeling plaintiffs knew exactly what foreman was talking about when he wrote in his affidavit about his joking about the broken sewer line. So, yeah, I think he told them, but also think he should have made sure the GC knew. I thought this was going to be a contract case, but even if there IS a no liability clause what I'm listening to sounds like negligence on the part of pool guy... defendant's answer is that the contract says in 4 places his company isn't liable. Yep, MM agrees, contract does deny liability. We also get an answer to my question about 811... yeah, they were called - they came - they just failed to locate the sewer line... so maybe that was a foul ball rather than a strike for defendant's company... still, my biggest thing is they came back after stopping work so the line could be repaired, then went back to work without making darned sure repairs were completed. So, back to whether or not plaintiff can get around contract denying liability by claiming pool guy was negligent. I'm thinking maybe he can get away with damagingredients the sewer while digging, but can he deny liability for going back to work before making sure it was fixed - and the subsequent flooding and digging up of the new deck. Ok, MM says this IS a contract case, so asks plaintiff why she should ignore their signature on the contract. Nope, not happening, she rules contract valid and protects defendant, case dismissed.... hmmm sounds like plaintiff still denies foreman ever I formed them of the broken line, but MM says even if he never informed them it would still be on them because they can't prove defendant's guys maliciously covered up the broken pipe... so questions remain in my mind, but time's up so on to next case. auto repair shop coverup: not your normal, every day, where plaintiff brings in a junker and expects a new car warranty - this one plaintiff has a case and I don't know why repair shop didn't settle before coming on national tv. Seems lady took her car in and job done satisfactory.... ah, but while it was at the shop an employee dented the car, then did a make shift repair and tried to pretend it never happened. When she confronts owner, he reviews security video, and sees the accident and botched repair. Now, owner is offering to repair it, but customer has lost confidence in the shop and wants them to pay for someone else to do the repair. Defendant admits his employee did the deed. His argument is that he offered to replace the bumper, complete with matching paint, for a quarter of what plaintiff says the other place will charge. Soooo, question is whether plaintiff had to let the defendant do the repair, or can she go to someone she trusts... oh, and of course the ever present question of whether plaintiff is padding the bill to score a couple grand. I see it as a normal traffic accident... guy with the damaged vehicle is under no obligation to get it repaired where the guy who caused the damage wants. This isn't an implied/expressed warranty where customer is dissatisfied and wants shop to pay someone else to redo the work. I get why defendant would rather do it in house, but also get why plaintiff may not trust shop to do a good job. Looking at the pictures, the cover up is a really - really - poor job. {Oh well, turns out this is the day my channel does their test of the emergency broadcast, which always means I can watch but not hear - so I miss audio for the middle portion of the case (though I get cc).} Part of the customer's reason for not trusting the shop - even though owner offers to pay, he never admits he watched the tape and caught his guy trying to hide the damage.... yep, if he had called and said one of my guys did it, tried to hide it, and I fired his ass as soon as I saw the video, the customer may have been satisfied, but instead he offers to repair it, but doesn't admit how it happened - and this was after shop owner's wife had already 'fessed up and said they had video and would review it. Oh, and when MM asks, it turns out employee wasn't fired, just told to take an unpaid vacation - but plaintiff didn't learn this until court. Hearing that, I would have gone elsewhere as well. Ah, but the shop wasn't going to do the repair, he was going too pay a third party, independent shop, to do it. Nope, I get plaintiff not trusting defendant, so why should she trust the job where he can get a discount.... I'm still going with she gets to choose the shop just like any other fender bender - it's just that she has to provide reasonable estimates. MM looks at the damage, looks at the estimate, and announces estimate looks fair to her. Pretty much like I said, defendant is trying to do the right thing by offering to pay, but plaintiff has reason not to trust him as he didn't tell her what happened, just offered to pay. Heck, she was even willing to let his body shop do the repairs, but defendant wanted his guy - who she doesn't trust - do some of the work to save money... which is when she decided to find her own body shop. Plaintiff wins and gets what she's asking for. Hey, but defendant admits decision is fair, apologizes for his employee's dishonesty, and says he's happy it worked out for plaintiff. Hey, maybe not such a bad idea to cone on TV and admit... but still, she had to come to court to get her money. cell phone case: I get why people hate these cases. Here defendant wants a phone, plaintiff adds him to her plan, he racks up a couple grand in charges, doesn't pay his bill, her phone is suspended, credit ruined, and 30 year friendship in the toilet. Far as I know, anyone with decent credit can get their own phone without a lot of upfront money. So, before I put my credit on the line I'd need to know why this dude can't get his own phone. If he doesn't pay his bills to protect his own credit, why would I assume he would pay to protect mine. I haven't even watched the full intro, but I'm betting when he signed up he got some high priced phone that would put my old phone to shame - well, except mine has been paid for for quite awhile, now. Hmmm, after watching defendant's intro, I may have to go back and change the name of the case. According to his intro, they were roomies, got into a kerfuffle about chores, and now she's after him for unrelated money. After commercial, when testimony starts up we quickly learn his intro is a bunch if baloney. Plaintiff thought of defendant as almost a nephew since she had been friends with his mom for 30 years. Seems her 26yo biological son has mental issues, so when 28yo defendant offered to move in and help with her son she was delighted. So, when he moves in she just asks that he pitch in and helps with chores around the house. (Time out for MM to swat a fly... hmmm, guess when she starts making JJ type money she'll be able to afford a flyswatter - til then she has to try to swat them with her legal pad.) Aw, but now plaintiff isn't just after her son to do chores, now she has two adult boys that she's hounding to help out around the house. Time goes by, he's helping with the son, but there's also friction about not helping enough around the house. Then the phone thing comes up. Seems his phone, had some problem, so he's looking to switch phones. She hears this, and offers to add him to her family plan... win win, cheaper for everybody. Starts out fine, he's paying his bill on time... ah then he "comes onto hard times." I don't know, did we hear if he has a job? And was he paying towards rent/expenses besides the chores and helping with her son. He not only stops making the payments for service, but of course he has payments on the new phone that he's not paying. He's falling further behind every month, but she says she's paying her and her son's bills. Eventually the service is suspended and AT&T wants all three phones returned - she says because of him, but MM has reviewed the statements and she's also a couple hundred bucks behind. Yeah, her story doesn't sound right to me... but then it seems to me that phone companies do have some pretty outrageous contracts that people sign. So, when AT&T pulled the plug, MM says defendant owed $500+, but plaintiff owed $250+ and nobody was paying anything. At that point $750 odd owed in service, and AT&T wants to be paid in full for three phones. Ok, dude really doesn't have a defense for his portion of the phone bill (chore kerfuffle nonsense not even brought up as a defense - just usual intro nonsense ). So he had to pay the $500 he owes... but not the charges incurred when plaintiff decided she might as well stop paying her portion. MM tells her she needs to negotiate that directly with AT&T. Once dude makes his way to Doug, he spouts off with "just a lesson learned." Yep, plaintiff learned he's a deadbeat, but what exactly did he learn. And, Doug points out his failure to pay his way has caused big problems for plaintiff, and maybe ended her 30 year friendship with his mom. Oh well, all he has to say to that is "Correct." Ah, what a prince - mommy is no doubt proud of her baby (28yo) boy - uh, is that mommy he's handing hands with in the hallway or a gf? And was this guy paying rent? Who's paying his way now? When plaintiff comes out she's good with decision still loves her almost nephew and says she'll always be ready to help him - not to sure about her friendship with mom. Hmph, no wonder defendant is a 28yo kid. Side note: still had cc on during the hallterview and notice cc indenting Doug as Levin - he ought'a sue! 1 4 Link to comment
AngelaHunter January 9, 2018 Share January 9, 2018 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: Busted sewer line: Really, any contractors who come to dig a hole for a pool or whatever have no way of knowing what's down in the ground. It's up to the homeowner to find that out and plaintiffs signed a contract agreeing to that. What I loved is the way Mrs. Twist gazed so adoringly - the way Hillary used to gaze at Bill - at her hubby while he was speaking. The dumpy house was fine for Mom, but now it's got to be reno'd from end to end. You wanted a pool. We don't need to take a walk down Memory Lane about why you wanted. She also thought JM was her new BFF and that her win was a shoo-in because they have very elderly parents in common. I have no idea if def. was hiding some misdeeds, but legally he did nothing wrong. People need to start reading contracts before they sign them, as tedious and annoying as that may be. 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: auto repair shop coverup: not your normal, every day, where plaintiff brings in a junker and expects a new car warranty That was so interesting. At first when we hear plaintiff took her car in for repairs, went on vacation and found it damaged when she returned weeks later and blamed def. I thought, "Oh here we go again." The moron who works in the shop smashed her car up and instead of just leaving the damage and hoping she'd only notice too late, he tries to repair with what looks like a gallon of glue and some house paint thrown on it. I mean, if he were working for me, I would have fired him just for his abject stupidity, never mind the screwing up and lying. That defs were willing to appear here and say they kept this employee isn't going to help their business. That they would only fix plaintiff's car - wrecked by their agent - if she agreed to go a body shop of their choice and nearby so it would be convenient and cheap for the people responsible for fixing it was likewise pretty outrageous. "We tried to do the right thing," def says. NO, you didn't. If you wanted to do the right thing, you would have told her to take her car to a body shop of her choice, to bring the estimate and they would pay the other shop. But they didn't. Here's plaintiff, who paid a bill have her car fixed, gets it wrecked, and then has to have the inconvenience, phone calls, trips to a shop she didn't want to use and suffer a major PITA to drag these people to court to get them to finally pay her what she's owed. They were more considerate and caring to their idiot employee - just a week without pay. Big deal. That lady suffered more than that, and she never did anything wrong 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: cell phone case: I get why people hate these cases. Seriously. A 28-year man has no credit, and has "fallen into hard times" ,(did we hear he ever had a job?) so foolish plaintiff thinks it's a good idea to get him on her phone plan and that he really really needs a very expensive phone. Trendy phones we must have, even if we're broke or deadbeats or even homeless! He's lying in bed and sees the phone "blew up". Well, you can't expect him to keep paying for it. Problem is, plaintiff didn't pay for her phone either. Are all these people secret agents, CIA or something that they need pricey phones to be in constant touch with government bodies? Anyway, plaintiff has the first utility company in history to refuse money. Well, they said even if she paid a little bit they would take the phones away. That would be disasterous. We need our trendy phones! WTH is with plaintiff calling men in their middle to late twenties "boys" and JM agreeing with her it's tough to get boys to do their chores? Like, WTF? A 28-year old man shouldn't be sponging off anyone or be so irresponsible he has credit or money and needs his faux-Aunty to get him a stupid phone. A man would say, "No, thank you. I'll get two jobs if necessary and pay my own way." Silly me. No one on this show has said that, ever. 1 3 Link to comment
Katy M January 9, 2018 Share January 9, 2018 33 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said: Seriously. A 28-year man has no credit, and has "fallen into hard times" ,(did we hear he ever had a job?) so foolish plaintiff thinks it's a good idea to get him on her phone plan and that he really really needs a very expensive phone. Trendy phones we must have, even if we're broke or deadbeats or even homeless! He's lying in bed and sees the phone "blew up". Well, you can't expect him to keep paying for it. Problem is, plaintiff didn't pay for her phone either. Are all these people secret agents, CIA or something that they need pricey phones to be in constant touch with government bodies? Anyway, plaintiff has the first utility company in history to refuse money. Well, they said even if she paid a little bit they would take the phones away. That would be disasterous. We need our trendy phones! I know that annoys me so much. If you can't afford an expensive phone, you don't need one. IF you want to help someone out so they have a phone for emergencies or a phone so that potential employers can get a hold of them, get them a prepaid cheapo phone. 1 6 Link to comment
AngelaHunter January 10, 2018 Share January 10, 2018 46 minutes ago, Katy M said: IF you want to help someone out so they have a phone for emergencies or a phone so that potential employers can get a hold of them, get them a prepaid cheapo phone. Oh, please. You expect him to hang out with his friends carrying some cheap, tacky phone? Not prestigious at all. What would they think of him? 1 3 Link to comment
Florinaldo January 10, 2018 Share January 10, 2018 3 hours ago, SRTouch said: I don't know why repair shop didn't settle before coming on national tv. Perhaps because uppity plaintiff was not willing to be reasonable? She has standards and trust issues you see, so she can dictate the terms of how things are supposed to play out. I think there were communications problems on both sides; defendants should have explained more fully to her how all of this happened, especially the part where the technician she suspected was not the culprit, but on her part she could really perfect her listening skills. At least twice she said she did not really hear or listen to what the other person was saying. I think that the usual principle that seller should have been given the opportunity to correct the work, covered by a guarantee I assume, should have applied. As for the sanction imposed on the employee at fault, I think that a suspension without pay is defensible, but it could really have been longer, perhaps one whole month in my view. In the phone case, the plaintiff certainly was partly to blame for making stupid choices like putting the guy on her plan in the first place and failing to pay the bill while the issue was making its way towards the courts system. I have no sympathy for the plaintiffs in the pool case. Failure to read the contract is their main error, but homeowners should know that it is incumbent on them to provide a contractor with all the necessary information as far as underground utilities, structures and conduits. Perhaps they have a recourse against that 811 service if they indeed failed in their duties. 1 1 Link to comment
aemom January 10, 2018 Share January 10, 2018 Watched the Jan 8 and 9 episodes. Uncle Fester (™AngelaHunter) trashing that woman's car and the guy's BMW and being completely unrepentant was disgusting. However, I do strongly believe in karma and I hope that the big bus he threw everyone under will mow him down one day and make him live the rest of his miserable life suffering. I've never heard it referred to as "gap insurance" - we call it "replacement insurance" in my neck of the woods. It is indeed worth every penny and I have bought it on my last 2 cars for coverage as long as they will give it to me. I think it's 4 or 5 years that I have? Yet another ding dong who buys a second hand vehicle (the motorcycle with the guy who must have stocks in a silver jewelry company) without getting it checked out and whines when it doesn't work perfectly. Can we please banish these vehicle cases forever? The shady car repair was interesting and all this could have been fixed with better communication. And she did have the right to get it fixed where she wanted. The pool case contract was interesting. I was surprised that a company is allowed to have a contract that basically says "even if we're negligent, too bad for you." That reminded me of when my kids were little and attending daycare, it was sold and bought by new owners. We got a new contract to sign and one paragraph was basically "if something happens to your child even due to our negligence, we are not responsible." I told them "I understand that accidents can happen, but I am not leaving my small children with you and that the workers can be negligent without repercussions. I'm not signing that." They came back and told me that I didn't have to initial that paragraph and I didn't. I often wondered how carefully the other parents read their contracts. 1 3 Link to comment
AngelaHunter January 10, 2018 Share January 10, 2018 2 hours ago, Florinaldo said: Perhaps because uppity plaintiff was not willing to be reasonable? She has standards and trust issues you see, so she can dictate the terms of how things are supposed to play out. Uppity? How was she not reasonable? I thought she was very reasonable. Someone else might have stormed into the shop in an understandable rage and kicked up a fuss over what was done to her car. I'd have trust issues too if I left my car to get repaired and found out someone there smashed it, defaced it more by trying to cover it up and just hoped I wouldn't notice. She's the person who was totally wronged, had her property damaged and then had to drag the parties responsible to court to get them to do the right thing. All she wanted was her car fixed and she has no duty to accomodate the people responsible for causing her all this trouble. She can take it any place she chooses - maybe to a garage where she can trust the employees a little more. If anyone was uppity, it was the defs. "We'll only fix the damage we did as long as we can dictate that you take it somewhere it's convenient and cheap for us." I don't think so. 1 13 Link to comment
Jamoche January 10, 2018 Share January 10, 2018 4 hours ago, Florinaldo said: I think that the usual principle that seller should have been given the opportunity to correct the work, covered by a guarantee I assume, should have applied. That applies to them correcting the work that the customer originally asked for, not fixing their unrelated screwup. I've seen too many dodgy repair cases on these shows to trust just any old body shop, especially one that can come in that much under the estimates. 8 Link to comment
Brattinella January 10, 2018 Share January 10, 2018 2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: Uppity? How was she not reasonable? I thought she was very reasonable. Someone else might have stormed into the shop in an understandable rage and kicked up a fuss over what was done to her car. I'd have trust issues too if I left my car to get repaired and found out someone there smashed it, defaced it more by trying to cover it up and just hoped I wouldn't notice. She's the person who was totally wronged, had her property damaged and then had to drag the parties responsible to court to get them to do the right thing. All she wanted was her car fixed and she has no duty to accomodate the people responsible for causing her all this trouble. She can take it any place she chooses - maybe to a garage where she can trust the employees a little more. If anyone was uppity, it was the defs. "We'll only fix the damage we did as long as we can dictate that you take it somewhere it's convenient and cheap for us." I don't think so. THIS. In spades! 34 minutes ago, Jamoche said: That applies to them correcting the work that the customer originally asked for, not fixing their unrelated screwup. I've seen too many dodgy repair cases on these shows to trust just any old body shop, especially one that can come in that much under the estimates. Unrelated screwup is the perfect phrase for this. How DARE they try to weasel this? I have seen this crap in action before. 7 Link to comment
Florinaldo January 10, 2018 Share January 10, 2018 8 hours ago, Jamoche said: That applies to them correcting the work that the customer originally asked for, not fixing their unrelated screwup Since the screw-up happened while the car was in their custody and is in fact the result of them working on it, the principle does apply. I stand by my "uppity" assessment; it was clear from the start that she is a rather hoity-toity customer, whose supercilious reaction of bypassing the usual process stemmed from the fact that the shop did not pay sufficient heed to her demands and haughty attitude. Link to comment
AZChristian January 10, 2018 Share January 10, 2018 I thought one of two other scenarios made more sense in the damaged auto in a repair shop case: Didn't auto repair shop have business insurance? That should have covered having the whole job done at a real auto body shop. Or . . . If actual repair shop had to pay for the repair, the employee who damaged the vehicle should have been given the option of reimbursing his boss (via regular paycheck deductions) for the cost of the repair, or he should have been allowed to resign (in which case the shop owner would have to foot the bill). Either way, the car would be fixed right . . . by a reputable auto body shop. 6 Link to comment
Jamoche January 10, 2018 Share January 10, 2018 3 hours ago, Florinaldo said: Since the screw-up happened while the car was in their custody and is in fact the result of them working on it, the principle does apply. If they'd done something like use the wrong part, sure. But if I take my car to a place that is not a body shop and they do something that's going to require a body shop to fix, I do not see that as a reasonable result of them working on it. If I take a valuable painting in to be framed and they damage the painting, I want an art restorer, not a framer. That lady who "fixed" that fresco of Jesus may have created a tourist attraction, but it still is not what the original owners of the painting wanted. 6 Link to comment
Katy M January 10, 2018 Share January 10, 2018 4 hours ago, Florinaldo said: Since the screw-up happened while the car was in their custody and is in fact the result of them working on it, the principle does apply. I stand by my "uppity" assessment; it was clear from the start that she is a rather hoity-toity customer, whose supercilious reaction of bypassing the usual process stemmed from the fact that the shop did not pay sufficient heed to her demands and haughty attitude. Well, what if while they took their car in for work, they had to drive it to see what was going on, they come back and they run over you, should they get the chance to fix you before sending you to the hospital? I realize that's an utterly ridiculous comparison, but if the place isn't a body shop, and they didn't break what they were working on, per se, it's the same idea. 6 Link to comment
SRTouch January 10, 2018 Share January 10, 2018 (edited) family drama: sad sack plaintiff suing aunt and cousin over clothes that went missing when they put him up for awhile. Hmmmm, wonder why he had to bunk at auntie's house and not with mommy, who showed up to stand by her son wearing tight, ripped jeans and pink tinted hair - lady does not have the built to dress like a teenager. And doesn't she look happy to be here on national tv to air the family skeletons, geez, maybe she should at least pretend to be mortified... I know it happens, especially on these shows, but I don't think anyone in my rather large extended family ever took out a restraining order on each other. Aunt and cousin, today's defendants, say they housed him when he had nowhere else, then gave him the boot when stuff began disappearing from the house. Ah, maybe special snowflake needed their items to finance his pharmaceutical needs... I do wonder what this kid, who evidently is homeless and bounces around sleeping on couches belonging to the extended family, brought into auntie's home that he figures she stole/disposed of that was worth 2500 bucks. Oh well, also waiting to hear what he is supposed to have stolen from Aunt that was worth over 3 grand. Can't wait to find out where sad sack bunks these days now that Auntie has a restraining order to keep him away. Ah, part of Auntie's claim is the cost to get him out of her house and to pay the lawyer to get the restraining order. Ok, once testimony begins we learn why plaintiff couldn't sponge off mommy and needed to bunk at Auntie's - seems he and 15yo brother had "a little skirmish" which ended with cops being called and a restraining order to stay away from brother... and again, mommy looking oh so happy to confirm that cops were called to separate her little boys, and oh, when asked she isn't the least ashamed to admit that plaintiff, her darling boy, had a pending criminal case "for something else." She brought that up to tell us that the RO banning her sons from being together was imposed by the court and not something the family requested. Oh, and he tells us he was on probation. Hmmm, I'm starting to swing away from special snowflake theory and think gangbanger - and education was not stressed in this family. Anyway, when he gets booted from mommy's house, he calls 19yo cousin, who invites him to move into Auntie's house. Auntie isn't happy to find him in her house the next day, but tells him he can stay if he'll get a job and start saving money to get his own place (wonder if 19yo cousin has the same deal... nah, turns out he's still in school). Things start getting tense when things go missing - a tool box, all the silver out of a piggy bank, "borrowing" cousin's clothes without permission, etc... hmmm, maybe that had something to do with why 15yo brother attacked him at mommy's house (not physical, mommy was quick to point out, all verbal). At first cousin covered for him, but eventually Auntie notices and gets PO'ed - oh, and weeks are going by with no sign of a job, and his gf and her 2yo baby are halfway living there without her ok. Good grief, as we go to commercial we hear mommy going off blaming Auntie for letting her son move in, "I told her to stop letting my boy go over there to her house." And MM saying, why blame her, tell your 21yo baby to stop going to her house! Ok, now we get what sounds like weird info from the cops when Auntie tries to kick him to the curb. Auntie says cops were advising plaintiff he had tenant rights even though she never charged him rent.... hmmm, really? MM says no, wrong, cops need to stop giving free legal advice. I wonder where these folks are, as I've heard about some jurisdictions with some crazy tenant laws. Ah, time for mommy melt down when MM turns to her and starts to ask her why she keeps trying to interrupt defendant's testimony - not sure why mommy has been allowed to stand next to sad sack all this time anyway, thought he was an adult and the plaintiff here, but then I never heard his age. Now's when mommy blames the whole kerfuffle on Auntie, and MM tells her shut up and sit down... she eventually sits, but argues all the way - not sure why Douglas isn't escorting her out. Yep, MM just told us sonny is a 21yo. Now that mommy is sitting, though apparently still trying to talk as MM has to pause mid-rant at sonny to tell her to put down her hand. MM is going over the list of stuff he claims Auntie and cuz stole - 14 pairs of designer jeans (course names meant nothing to me as I usually have on Dickies or Roundup overalls), 7 pairs of Air Jordan's (even I know what those are, will never buy a pair, but I know what they are) etc etc - course not a single receipt or proof any of this stuff ever existed, and MM asks where they came from if sad sack called begging cuz for money when he was ousted from mommys. Remember, cuz ended up inviting him to bunk at Auntie's house instead of giving him hotel money, and Auntie told him he could stay if he'd get out and find a job - so, he had no job, no money, or a place to lay his sad little head - but what he did have was over $2500 in clothes, really judge, he just doesn't keep receipts, he had the clothes and kind hearted Auntie and cousin stole them. Thankfully, we go to commercial and we'll get to hear the ruling when we come back. Good grief, when we come back we find out Auntie really had bad legal advice, either that or things are weird in their jurisdiction... Plaintiff had an argrument - nothing physical - with 15yo brother and an immediate TRO is issued and he's put out of mommy's house. Auntie lets him in rent free, he stays a few weeks and she wants him out, and cops are telling her she has to go to court for a restraining order and/or get an eviction order, both of which she has to wait weeks for - yep, no TRO for Auntie, she has to let him stay even though stuff continues to go missing... yeah, I know, he may not have been physical there at Auntie's, but according to mommy he wasn't to little bro either. Once he DOES finally get booted from Auntie, by now the RO keeping him from living with mommy has been lifted so he's back at home - still no job. Anyway, not much to rule on here. Neither side has any evidence of any missing items (MM says she suspects both cousins may have been stealing from each other.) Only thing that could maybe be proved is the legal fees Auntie wants for the eviction - but that needs to be handled by eviction court, not here, so we never even get to hear if she has any evidence about that. When they get out to the hall, mommy finally gets her say, butting in on Doug's interview with plaintiff to argue (again) all Auntie's fault for letting her 21yo son stay at her house, nothing was her baby's fault, and 21yo sad sack just stands there looking at Doug while mommy fights his battles. Back to special snowflake, this 21yo babe isn't a banger - now mommy..... maybe tenant case: intro paints this as a different type of tenant/landlord/security case. Intro says daughter tripped and broke her arm on the property, she sued management, and they canceled her lease and booted her in retaliation. She says she caused no damage, so should get back the rest of the deposit ($350). Defendant agrees lease was not renewed because of the personal injury lawsuit, but says there was over 6 grand in damages, some of which they weren't going to go after, but now that tenant sued defendant wants an additional 2 grand on top of the deposit they retained. Not sure why, but somehow seems we skip some of the back ground and jump right into damages when plaintiff left. Plaintiff said she moved in in Aug '14 and lived there 3 years. We don't get much on the daughter's broken arm - maybe they're not supposed to talk about that as part of the settlement. First thing that I thought when I heard the intro was whether or not she still had a lease - was the lease canceled as part of the settlement, was she a month to month after the first year ended, or how exactly could management cancel the lease unless it had ended in a mutual agreement. Anyway, for whatever reason, we're straight to defendant landlady listing the damages. Uh, sure sounds like repairs were needed - but are we talking normal wear and tear after three years of a married couple and elementary kid living there. Have to wonder if this is first time plaintiff is hearing this list, as she stares at defendant and keeps making incredulous faces like this is all new. Ok, not liking landlady much. She isn't maintaining eye contact as she lists the damages, a lot of it sounds like normal stuff after anyone lived there, and she answers simple questions with long drawn out answers, ie, claims black out curtains in bedroom ruined, MM asks how much were they, and we get long, multi-sentence answer about replacement cost instead of simple "I paid $x 3 years ago." Oh, and after explaining she isn't entitled to replacement cost, we finally get that she doesn't have any receipt, and she guessimates she bought them in '07 - so ten years old. Next problem I have, a bedroom that was painted without written permission. Did you give verbal consent - uh, maybe, I don't recall - plaintiff says yes, verbal consent and she told me to make it my home - does that sound like something you MIGHT have said - uh, possibly, but lease stimulates she needed written consent... time for JJ to hold up a paper and tell us the 4 corner rule. I am REALLY not liking landlady! MM, why would it cost $750 to repaint 1 bedroom? Defendant, throws up hands and says don't know, but that's what the contractor charged. Uh, plaintiff was there 3 years, right? Unless tenant used some strange paint that needed multiple coats to cover, I'm not sure I'd give anything for repainting, anyway. Now, if there was something weird, a little mermaid mural or black ceiling with glow in the dark stars - yeah, I'd make tenant pay for primer and at least 1 coat. Oh, and that bit in the intro about 6 grand in damages - not sure where that figure came from, not what landlady is seeking. Ok, already said I'm not happy with the defendant, but also not happy with plaintiff. She also has to tell us long stories when asked simple questions - seems there were caps on the balcony railing posts. MM asks why they're missing, and she launches into a story about how she has only been on the balcony 4 times and on and on until MM cuts her off. Like I said, maybe they can't talk about the persoral injury case... but WTH! if the parent of every 5-8 year old who trips and breaks an arm sues.... then the theatrics with the funny faces and stare down while defendant was talking.... not to mention, we see as we go to commercial seems she felt the need to bring sex and race into the case in her filing papers. Oh, and she wants to argue whether or not landlady can charge for stuff not charged for in the initial settlement, but turn around and charge after she sues... like those aforementioned post caps on the balcony. In the initial letter detailing why part of the deposit was kept, defendant noted the missing caps but said she wasn't going to charge for them... uh, yes, just because she didn't charge before, MM tells her, you opened everything up for review when you filed suit, so yes, now she can ask for the money, and the judge will decide whether it's legitimate. Oh well, I'm fed up with both of them, even more so when the landlady with little to no evidence turns out to be a "retired" attorney. Ok, time out for MM to rant to retired lawyer about no before/after pictures, then it's on to giving plaintiff grief about the "black woman" comment in her papers ... hey, at least she has a hubby so she couldn't pull the "single mother" nonsense. Nonsense case, probably more about injury case than the deposit, plaintiff ends up getting $270 of the $350 she asked for... yep, went back and checked, this case is over $350. shoddy workmanship: first two cases ran long, so this will be a short one... plaintiff hired friend to install blinds in her condo, and they fell 2 months later... she wants the $75 she had to pay to get them reinstalled plus the $100 she paid him. Defendant is long time acquaintance/friend from the neighborhood who does a little handyman work on the side. His defense is that the window frame where he installed the shade was cracked - not his fault it fell down. Ok, plaintiff paid dude $125 - 25 bucks to go to Lowes to pick up the shade and a hundred to install them... so she wants $75 more than she paid him do the install. Admittedly, this is just a guess, but from her description sounds like dude didn't know WTH he was doing and attached the shades directly to the window frame. Seems the shade over the terrace - which I'm guessing might have been fair sized, was too heavy, and when she heard it fall it brought down the window frame... hmmm, could it be that the shades she bought were too heavy for the mounting hardware to go on the frame and should have been mounted outside of the frame or even ceiling mounted. No, wait.... when she brings up pictures, looks like he attached the mounting bracket to the window frame - not the wood frame around the window, but the actual metal frame around the glass of the window. Yep, wouldn't let him hang blinds for me... hmmm, dude hasn't said anything yet, but not sure what he can say that would let him keep the $100 she paid him to hang the shades - he should get to keep the $25 for the trip to Lowes, and not pay for the other guy to hang them correctly. (Yes, 2nd guy rehung them all, not just the one that fell.) Uh, did dude say ANYTHING before he got in the hallway? Edited January 11, 2018 by SRTouch 1 8 Link to comment
Guest January 10, 2018 Share January 10, 2018 (edited) 3 hours ago, Jamoche said: That lady who "fixed" that fresco of Jesus may have created a tourist attraction, but it still is not what the original owners of the painting wanted. Are you referring to the Maggie Simpson lookalike? Edited January 10, 2018 by PsychoKlown Not sure if it looks like Maggie or Lisa. They're sisters. Link to comment
AngelaHunter January 10, 2018 Share January 10, 2018 31 minutes ago, SRTouch said: family drama: sad sack plaintiff suing aunt and cousin over clothes that went missing Thanks for posting the outcome of this. I couldn't see it because that little Stephanopolous(?) butted in with earth-shattering "SPECIAL REPORT" news about Trump's conference in Norway. Well, I guess it was earth-shattering since it simply could not wait for the regular news hour. I was so involved, too, in this heart-warming family tale of love and trust. Geeze. Plaintiff's mommy? Not sure why she was there (maybe she had something pertinent to say?) since he's over 21, but anyway - Holy Horror Show, Batman. But yeah - if someone moved into my home and started stealing all my stuff I wouldn't make them leave, but might say, "You can still live here, but no key for you." The cops told her she can't ask a non-paying guest in her home to leave? So, I could just go squat in someone's house as long as I please and nothing short of TNT could get me to go? Far out. 38 minutes ago, SRTouch said: tenant case: I missed most of that too, but found it interesting that if someone tells you, "I'm a lawyer" they must be racist. If anyone ever says anything at all that you don't like, they must be racist/bigoted/age-ist/size-ist or prejudiced in some way. Whatever. Anyway, bigoted, retired lawyer didn't seem overly bright but when do any lawyers here seem to have any brains at all? 39 minutes ago, SRTouch said: shoddy workmanship: Boring. However, plaintiff? I hate long, fake talons enough as it is, but GREEN fake talons? They're like something you'd see on a demon in a horror movie, or that there's some major fungus going on. Yuck, ugh! Nearly put me off my bottom sirloin. Is there someone, somewhere who feels that's a good look? Def. admits he learned something about how to put up blinds, since he didn't seem to know at all. Maybe he should have Googled it before charging 100$ to do a job he had no clue how to do properly. I just hate it when someone is winning, as plaintiff was, but is so damned greedy/stupid they now feel the job should be totally free of charge to them. She wanted back all the money she paid def, plus what it cost to have the job done properly. Not sure why she feels she shouldn't have to pay one cent. 2 Link to comment
Jamoche January 10, 2018 Share January 10, 2018 50 minutes ago, PsychoKlown said: Are you referring to the Maggie Simpson lookalike? This one - yeah, it does kind of look like a Simpson https://nypost.com/2016/03/12/infamous-botched-jesus-painting-now-a-major-tourist-attraction/ Link to comment
Florinaldo January 11, 2018 Share January 11, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, SRTouch said: family drama: I was struck by how empty-eyed both of the young men looked, in different ways. In both cases it looked as if there was nothing behind the eyeballs. Defendant made a common mistake, i.e. trusting a police officer for legal advice. They can make mistakes, work on assumptions instead of knowledge or try to minimize the workload generated for them by a situation. Last year, a friend of mine who is president of a condo board got advice from a cop and when she told me I was surprised, but you never know with the law so I checked the relevant Act. After which I told her to consult a real law specialist because the advice the officer gave them appeared to be wrong; it turns out it would have exposed them to increased legal liability. 2 hours ago, SRTouch said: tenant case: Defendant botched her paperwork and did not follow procedures correctly, perhaps in an attempt to make the problem go away by initially letting the plaintiff get away with a lot. The latter did seem oversensitive about perceived racism imagined from very little. 6 hours ago, Jamoche said: That lady who "fixed" that fresco of Jesus may have created a tourist attraction, but it still is not what the original owners of the painting wanted. That comparison does not quite hold. That fresco is irreplaceable and cannot be fully repaired now. The damage done to the car can be repaired and if worse comes to worse, a car can easily be replaced by another one. Moreover, she was not in the fresco restauration industry, whereas defendants in the case do work in the car repair sector. Edited January 11, 2018 by Florinaldo 1 Link to comment
AZChristian January 11, 2018 Share January 11, 2018 13 hours ago, Florinaldo said: That comparison does not quite hold. That fresco is irreplaceable and cannot be fully repaired now. The damage done to the car can be repaired and if worse comes to worse, a car can easily be replaced by another one. Moreover, she was not in the fresco restauration industry, whereas defendants in the case do work in the car repair sector. So . . . if you are in accident and have to have brain surgery, but your incision gets infected and you end up with a big nasty scar that runs across your forehead . . . should you go back to the brain surgeon to fix the scar, or should you go to a plastic surgeon? They're both in the medical sector. I can crochet like crazy, but am NOT very good at knitting. I have been known to repair other people's botched crochet projects, but due to my lack of skill, I would NEVER attempt to fix a knitting project. But they're both in the yarn craft sector. To me, these are comparable to the botched auto repair scenario. Even the repair shop owner said, "We use MAACO for all our body work." They do that because at his repair shop, they don't DO body work. 6 Link to comment
Zahdii January 11, 2018 Share January 11, 2018 20 hours ago, Jamoche said: That lady who "fixed" that fresco of Jesus may have created a tourist attraction, but it still is not what the original owners of the painting wanted. That lady was a piece of work. When her 'restoration' started to go south, she decided to go on holiday and still claims that if she'd been allowed to continue to work on the painting she'd have been able to fix it, despite the fact that no other art restoration experts would take on the job because they all agreed that the painting was beyond repair. When the story broke and the painting became a tourist attraction, the lady (Cecilia Giménez) was quick to sue for part of the money the church was charging tourists to view the painting. Everyone in the town is OK with how it all turned out because of the increase in tourism to the area, but the descendants of the artist are still upset and have tried to have the painting burned because they don't want the artist's name to be associated with the debacle. I can see where they're coming from. 2 Link to comment
Florinaldo January 11, 2018 Share January 11, 2018 34 minutes ago, AZChristian said: I can crochet like crazy, but am NOT very good at knitting. I have been known to repair other people's botched crochet projects, but due to my lack of skill, I would NEVER attempt to fix a knitting project. But they're both in the yarn craft sector. If confronted with a botched knitting project, you would refer the people to a knitting expert you may know and had contacts with. You could even bring the object to that expert yourself. In effect you would be "sub-contracting" the (unremunerated I assume) repair work. Sub-contracting is a frequent practice in some industries. Few (if any) car shops do absolutely everything from mufflers to windshields and including mechanical and body work. They can give the work to another shop or refer the customer to them. Because they have an established and continuous relationship with the other business, they often get better rates. But that was unacceptable to the customer lady. Not being in the service industry, I have haver had to deal with her annoying type but I have seen it at work at customer service counters and in line at the cash register. Link to comment
AZChristian January 11, 2018 Share January 11, 2018 36 minutes ago, Florinaldo said: But that was unacceptable to the customer lady. Not being in the service industry, I have haver had to deal with her annoying type but I have seen it at work at customer service counters and in line at the cash register. I think what she found unacceptable was that the initial car repair place (NOT a body shop) wanted to purchase and install part of the body molding themselves to save themselves money. She has no obligation to do that. She doesn't even have to use their body shop. If she has estimates that a judge approves, she gets to pick. She is the "wronged" party. She just needs to be made right . . . and she doesn't have to save the offending party a red cent. 10 Link to comment
SRTouch January 11, 2018 Share January 11, 2018 (edited) friends fighting over babysitting and a couch: plaintiff says she sold her friend her couch, and BTW her twins watched defendant's younger kids and are owed babysitting money. I sort of came in midway, watched a little while getting a cup of coffee, then started over from the beginning. Anyway, I already know they had a signed written agreement for the couch, so not sure what defendant will try to pull out to defend on that portion. What they say in the intro is that plaintiff was moving, couldn't take the sectional to the new place, and told defendant to take it. Seems like a silly defense when I already know she agrees she signed an agreement promising to pay installments for it... kind of wonder if maybe these two made up the case to get on tv - as they all look happy to be here instead of being mad at each other. Oh, and of course plaintiff is doing the incredulous funny faces as ex-hall clown reads the seldom accurate intro. Ah, guess her defense to the signed agreement is that after taking possession she discovered couch was an unhealthy moldy mess, so she shouldn't have to pay - oh, and as far as babysitting money, she never agreed to pay plaintiff's daughter's anything, so doesn't owe for their services. When testimony begins it doesn't take long for plaintiff's story to be a confused jumbo of nonsense... she had this old sectional that wouldn't fit through the door, didn't want to sell her furniture, but agreed to sell it to defendant because they were such great friends... oh yeah, such great friends, let her have the sectional she couldn't use for the low low price of only $500 - in installments. Then the story about the babysitting arrangement... hmmm, just doesn't make sense. What I heard plaintiff say is that defendant needed a babysitter so she could work, and if plaintiff's daughters watched her kids then she would apply the money she would have spent on daycare towards the amount owed for the couch. Soooo was an amount specified somewhere for babysitting, or just whatever she would have paid someone else - whatever that was? And, what portion of that was to be wages for daughters to babysit versus going towards what was owed on the debt? Oh, and like MM asks, how did the 15yo twins feel about mommy finding them a babysitting job and getting any of THEIR money? Hmmmm and what's this about the twins living with defendant 24/7 for 2 weeks? Maybe they were looking after defendant's kids while she was at work, but was it up to defendant to provide free room and board? Be nice if those twins were here to ask what they understood the deal to be. Ah, confusing mess, convoluted story, not sure how long it will be BEFORE I GIVE UP. Ah, MM gives up on plaintiff and decides to see if defendant has a better story. (Ok, have to comment.... WTH is with that pink top with black bra straps - heaven knows she needs the support, but the black straps just scream "look at me!") Ah well, back to no defense. She pretty much agrees that plaintiff is telling the truth about their arrangement, she was supposed to pay $500, she asked the teenagers to come watch her two, a 6 yo and a 6 month old... but she argues she never agreed to pay for babysitting. When MM asks doesn't that mean you were getting free childcare so you could earn enough to pay for the sofa? Defendant agrees with a smirk. And then, MM reminds us she not only didn't pay the teenagers anything, but stopped paying for the couch. Defendant still smirking. Then she raises my point, she was giving them room and board, paying for their food lodging and entertainment for those two weeks etc. I really think the babysitting deal is a wash with both sides trying to make the deal up after the fact. Furniture deal is different. There we have a written and signed agreement. Problem is we know what it was supposed to cost, but we have differing amounts for what was paid. Hmmm wonder if we're ever going to hear about how moldy and unhealthy the couch was? Not that that would be a defense, as she was promising to pay long after she took possesion. Anyway, I'm about done with these two - and I see we still have 5 minutes - ah, but MM is fed up, too, and cuts it short. I think the fact that plaintiff offered up her phone to back up what she was saying versus defendant claims that more was said in the texts, including plaintiff bad mouthing defendant's kids... but, oh, she didn't bring HER phone... led the judge to accept plaintiff's figures as to the amount defendant paid. Oh, and judge went the rough justice route and gave plaintiff what MM figures was a fair amount for the babysitting duties ($200) - net judgement $626 to plaintiff (wonder if those teenagers see any of the money THEY earned.) breakup case: one of those where plaintiff decides all the money (4 grand) spent on ex during their 3 year relationship were loans. We'll see how it plays out, but right off the bat I don't see much chance... oh, except that part of this is some cell phone case, so if plaintiff is still paying for defendant she should get that money back. Unlike the first case, which I still suspect may have been faked, these two litigants are PISSED at each other. Hmmm, right off the bat intro and testimony conflict. Intro says plaintiff suing for 4 thousand, but when MM summarizes the case she says $2862.96 - oh, and plaintiff is not just suing her ex, but also exes sister. Ok, and they've already been to court over the phone - sort of. Seems plaintiff sued, but defendant was a no show because she had a doctor's appointment or something. So, plaintiff won... but even that is being debated. Both sides claim they have the settlement papers, but plaintiff claims she was awarded $880, while defendant says it was $420 and that amount HAS been paid. Ok, MM asks for both sides to pass up their respective settlement papers and we move on to the other stuff. Ah, more intro mis-infomation. Instead of a 3 year relationship, defendant is saying it was a year. Ah, in a strange twist, we learn these two continued dating even after the phone lawsuit - made up and got back together. Of course defendant says the stuff plaintiff now wants to be repaid were actually Christmas gifts... could be, as the big ticket item appear to have been purchased in December. Hmmm, defendant's testimony is painting plaintiff as a stalker weirdo, but plaintiff says nonsense, she has had a new girl for two months. Oh, and reason she included defendant's sister in the case is that she heard the sister now has the disputed items. Ok, backtracking a little to those earlier settlement papers. Looks like plaintiff wins that point, as she presents the settlement papers and defendant couldn't find HER papers. Now she's arguing the wrong amount was presented in court, and of course MM informs her that that was why she should have appeared to dispute the amount instead of not showing up. Ok, she also claims to have proof that she paid $420 - but unless her proof is from AFTER the court date ordering her to pay $880 it won't help. Sort of a non-issue today, anyway, as our court TV judges don't get involved in orders issued by the regular courts system. Next up, the silver chain and 40" tv that defendant says were Christmas gifts. Plaintiff says no, she bought those for defendant, but defendant had agreed to pay her back the money. Now sister gets to testify - yeah the one plaintiff included in the suit because she heard defendant stashed the items with sister. I believe sister, mainly because testimony has small discrepancies with testimony from both plaintiff and her sister - I mean if she was cooking up a story with sis the date of the TV purchase would have matched. MM has heard enough on those items, so moves on to next part. Plaintiff wants defendant to pay her (plaintiff's medical bills). Seems she contends defendant didn't bother to inform her defendant has herpes. So, she feels defendant should pay for bills plaintiff lab tests went to make sure she's clean. Now I'm having some second thought about sis, who is slinging some unnecessary mud - oh, and says "unrational" two or three times before MM can't stand it and corrects her. Ok, enough of that, MM, forges ahead and asks for the bill where plaintiff claims she paid over a grand for a herpes test. Sure, she passes up a bill - amount doesn't match and doesn't say what the bill is for (yet another litigant who tries to bluff while hoping the judge won't read the "evidence.") Rough justice. Phone bill, nope already adjudicated elsewhere and not gonna touch it - tv and chain, not proven - hospital/herpes bill, nope - plaintiff gets nothing. friendly loan to ex employee: ok, this promises to be a yawner - and I'm already starting to dislike defendant as his meanders into court. (Actually, not so much a yawner, but one of those cases where it's hard to believe either litigant actually goes through life thinking as they do.) Story from plaintiff is that defendant was a part time helper who he sometimes fronted money when there wasn't enough work to keep him busy. Yep, back in my landscaping business I had these guys and would sometimes front them walking around money, but over $400? Nope, guess I'm not that nice - don't think I ever fronted anyone more than a day's pay. Really, this guy's story is defendant, who had only worked for him 2-3 days for maybe 3-4 hours a day, was looking for money to tide him over til unemployment kicked in, and really had no payment schedule. This is one of those times when you want to say plaintiff is so stupid/gullible he doesn't deserve his money back, while at the same time hating that that would mean bum would be getting away with not paying. Oh well, plaintiff was foolish for making repeated loans while never getting anything paid back, at least he says he has texts to prove these were loans and defendant kept promising that he'd pay but had one excuse after the next. Over to da bum while plaintiff looks for his texts. Hoboy, really! He starts off trying to charm the judge with "you're far more beautiful in person!" He tries to continue with the charm routine, but MM cuts him off and tells him to just stick to the facts. Not sure what dude's defense is... when he finally gets to the case he starts off by calling these loans, while telling us what a great guy plaintiff was, how he was like mentor and would quote scripture.... ok, so plaintiff is a great guy, helped bum out with some loans when he hit a rough patch.... not hearing a defence anywhere in this. This guy really needs to save this video and listen to what he says. Now his defense is he gave plaintiff plenty of rides to jobs and never asked for gas money... how many jobs? asks MM def: oh, maybe 2 ... huh? That is supposed to excuse $400 in loans! ok, it's not that this guy's words can't be understood, it's that the words he's stringing together just don't make sense, ya know, I mean, they weren't necessarily loans, well they were loans, but I only had to pay them back if he gave me enough work... huh? Enough, plaintiff has given Douglas his phone, so text time, but I'm done with this one and zip to the judgement... ah after the decision he shouts out "that's not right" then when he gets to Doug he says decision was garbage, yeah plaintiff did him favors, but that shouldn't mean he has to repay the loans. Really! Absolutely, he shouldn't have to pay him back, he tells Doug. Edited January 12, 2018 by SRTouch 1 6 Link to comment
AngelaHunter January 11, 2018 Share January 11, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: friends fighting over babysitting and a couch: How nasty. But really, any time my friends and I have had a disagreement, we always said, "I hope you die. I hope your kids die." Goddam savages. I couldn't take them no mo. What chance in life do any of the kids have with these kind of parents? 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: WTH is with that pink top with black bra straps That just screamed "Classy" didn't it? Well, that and her gum chomping. Can't believe JM didn't see that. 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: breakup case: one of those where plaintiff decides all the money (4 grand) spent on ex during their 3 year relationship were loans. Oh gawd. Okay, it's my fault for watching this while I eat. No. Wait. I need to get with the times so it must be someone else's fault, right? I really didn't need to hear about contracting herpes during my dinner. I swear the litigants here always have the most skewed priorities ever. Rough-looking plaintiff is out buying silver chains (with an owl on it!) iPhone and 40" TeeVee for her disabled girlfriend when she should have been spending all that money on dentists. Her mouthful of rotten/missing teeth was truly horrific. And she has kids. omg. Herpes and rotten teeth. Ew. Unrational! All the litigants today were unrational! JM, who is usually tolerant of most of the the butchered English on this show, just had to correct that. 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: friendly loan to ex employee: Plaintiff told JM she needed to listen because she didn't understand why he gave def. money. Here it is: "He asked for it!!" Oh, well then. Understandable. If anyone really ASKS me for money I just automatically give it to them, even if they're virtual strangers and grifters. I thought he was ridiculous until scummy, low-level con-artist def. starts waxing eloquent over JM's beauty. I wonder how many times he rehearsed that while giving his best seductive expression? Did he think she'd be so carried away, so flattered at slimy ass-kissing from some repulsive little troll with a basket on his head that she'd find in his favour and agree he doesn't owe money to the plaintiff? He basically says, "Well I could have committed crimes to repay plaintiff, but I would not do that." How upstanding he is. I guess he expected congratulations. There are other ways to make money, you little creep, besides scamming and doing whatever illegal crap. I didn't watch the hallterview - I'd had more than enough of both of them by then - but hope plaintiff got a wake-up call. Edited January 11, 2018 by AngelaHunter 1 5 Link to comment
Destiny74 January 12, 2018 Share January 12, 2018 I haven't watched yet but I have a question. If they could get the couch through the door when they moved in, why couldn't they get it out the same way? Did they build the house around the couch? ? Link to comment
SRTouch January 12, 2018 Share January 12, 2018 (edited) 50 minutes ago, Destiny74 said: I haven't watched yet but I have a question. If they could get the couch through the door when they moved in, why couldn't they get it out the same way? Did they build the house around the couch? ? lol I thought the same thing. Actually, if I understood these nitwits correctly, they could get it out of the old place but not into the new apartment... or maybe it was just too much trouble... to many stairs or whatever Edited January 12, 2018 by SRTouch 2 Link to comment
AngelaHunter January 12, 2018 Share January 12, 2018 A day to mark on your calendars (does anyone even have those anymore?) because none of the litigants hacked, butchered or murdered their language. Even though none of the cases were particularly interesting, I shouted "Hallelujah!" with the glee of Robert Tilton counting the money he scammed from his unfortunate and naive fans. People should spend their money however they like, of course and it's probably just me, but I just don't understand a 16th birthday party as a 3K extravaganza. Imagine this girl's wedding? Not my business. But the defendant was a slack-jaw of the highest order, not to mention a liar. Oh, his "guys"(probably some bums he hired that morning and paid in cash) couldn't get there on time because there was so much traffic/a marathon going on(guess he didn't realize JM could check that out)took 6 hrs to get from Brooklyn to NJ( maybe it does. I don't know) they weren't THAT late - half an hour? A few minutes? Oh, and his "guys" forgot to bring some bowls, which were included in the price. They were in a hurrry, you see. Sure. Whatever. Doesn't matter to him - he's keeping all her money. No you aren't, dickwad. Again, someone who prefers to be revealed on national television as running his business this way rather than try to make a customer happy. I mean, things happen and sometimes they are out of our control, but how can someone think he can keep all the money he was paid to provide service and not do what he was paid for? Amazing. Then we had the plaintiff who wanted to give himself a huge birthday bash because he'd reached a milestone - 25 years old. I"ve never thrown myself a birthday party but it seems it's a common thing now. Doesn't matter, since plaintiff rented def's venue for his party, gave a deposit and was emailed an "Okay. Cool." which DOES translate to a contract. In the meantime, annoying little Doughboy def gets a better offer from someone throwing a bigger party, so tells plaintiff eight days before the party, "You? Forget it. Too bad. So sad. Here's another day. Have your party then." This was not agreeable to plaintiff since it was not what he paid for and contracted for, so he declines. 23-year old Big Time Operator, the DoughBoy, decides to keep the deposit and pocket it, even though HE breeched the contract, and squawks, "We didn't sign anything and blah blah blah..." JM gives him the definition of "contract" using words of one syllable so maybe even he can understand. Plaintiff gets all his money back, of course. I bet defendant went home crying to his mommy, who told him he was right! Finally, there was the harried plaintiff, who couldn't conduct his business properly because he "had a 4-year old nipping at his heels" and is suing def contractor for the truly shitty job he did plastering and painting his walls. Def had a few different excuses, none of which held water and even though plaintiff was highly irritating with his butting in and whining about toddlers and babies, he got back a portion of what he paid. Def laments, "I usually only do commercial work, not residential." I guess commercial venue owners don't complain as much about his sloppy, unprofessional work. 1 6 Link to comment
SRTouch January 12, 2018 Share January 12, 2018 (edited) Little late today - ran out of coffee so did some grocery shopping... according to my schedule, reruns all next week, then we start week of new episodes the week after Oops, another day when @AngelaHunter and I did simultaneous recaps party pooper: we've been watching previews of this case for a week. Plaintiff throwing a Hollywood theme party for her daughter's sweet 16th bd.... big deal (60 teenage and 30 adult guests), rented a venue etc, and hired defendant for decorations/props - dude is three hours late arriving to set up, doesn't have everything mom paid for, and some of the stuff he brought doesn't work. Mom wants $2000 refund - total amount she paid was over 3 grand. Once again, a business owner litigant is here giving testimony about events that took place without any first hand knowledge or any of his employee's who were actually there - and I gather at least one of the crew was his son. Defendant admits his guys were late (claims big marathon caused massive traffic problems), but claims party kicked off only ten minutes late, everything contracted for was there and worked. Says he offered her a thousand off her next event, but she turned him down. Like I said, mom planned a big event, visited defendant's warehouse in October to select what she wanted and contract for the big day, May 6th. Party supposed to start at 7pm, and contract says his crew was to arrive and start setting up at 3pm. Frantic mom has her phone records showing a call at 6:18, which she says was a panicked call to find out where the heck the decorations were. MM asks defendant why his guys were late, and he tells his marathon/traffic story. Oops, MM was waiting for that one - uh, what marathon was that? Def, uh don't know, but traffic was terrible - nah, MM did her research and didn't find a marathon between his warehouse and the venue (yes, she found a marathon, just not on his route).... not good try, dude, credibility down the crapper. When asked, he disputes her timeline, saying his guys arrived and began setting up at 6:10... uh, contract specified 3-4 hours for set up and now he's saying setup completed by 7:10 so only 10 minutes late. Soooo MM already questions his marathon/traffic - who will she believes about the start time, I wonder? Plaintiff says guests were stuck in hallway and finally allowed into the venue at 7:30, and party started little before 8. So, 100 guests stuck outside for 30 minutes and party an hour late... hope she wasn't charged extra for the venue, food, wait staff, dj, etc... actually, if she has any evidence at all about her timeline I figure dude owes her the grand he offered, and probably the 2 grand she's demanding if there were any additional costs caused by he tardiness. And we haven't even gotten to her claim that everything she paid for wasn't there and in good working order. Uh oh, dueling videos, both sides have video shot supposedly after set up was completed and before guests allowed in. Dude just testified room was ready at 7:05... twice - he said 7:05, MM, are you sure? What time did you say? You just said 7:05 right? Yeah, defendant answers. Well here's your video shot at 7:23. Ummmm Uh, yeah, I guess you're right, says def. That's horrific, says MM. Don't know if it qualifies as horrific - but this was a BIG deal to plaintiff who paid $3100 just for decorations alone, so maybe it was horrific. Oh, MM just caught dude in another lie... well, he wasn't there, so maybe he's repeating the story his guys told him. I'm about ready to call this one and give lady what she's asking... but clock says we're only half way, so maybe a surprise switcheroo is coming. Moving on, she has the timeline right... but what about the stuff she says was paid for and not provided? Ah, maybe dude has learned his lesson, as he admits everything was not there. Nope, even now he's trying to make excuses and digging a deeper hole when it sounds like MM will rule against him. Even the new excuses make no sense and contradict his earlier testimony.... dude, STFU, you aren't really going to have to pay, so slink on out the door and tell Doug that the mean judge wouldn't let you talk. I mean, sometimes it's fun to watch MM tear into a liar-liar-pants-on-fire litigant - but this guy is just too easy. Ah, but MM is a nicer than I am... I'd give plaintiff the 2 grand, but MM goes with the $1000 defendant offered before the case (course 1 difference is that the $1000 goes in her pocket, not as a discount for a future event). household paint catastrophe: plaintiff says paint contractor and his guys botched the paint job at his house, so he wants 3 grand, paid $3400 so almost full refund. Defendant says he's an experienced painter, and did a great job. Hmmm, sounds like plaintiff might be a bit particular.. . According to his testimony he had someone else paint a year ago, didn't like the job, and now hires his friend Ray (defendant) to redo it. Hmmm, backing up, it was $3400 in prep work and another 2 grand to paint... so $5400 total, but then $500 was deducted because one ceiling needed to be redone - so defendant has been paid a total of $4900. Defendant knows plaintiff is perfectionist and going to nit pick, but sent a crew and didn't supervise. And what's with this double talk from defendant saying he couldn't see a crappy texture skim coat until it was painted? Does this guy think MM is clueless when it comes to what a 5 grand paint job should look like? More doubletalk.... earlier he agreed he was paid $3400 to correct just this problem which was supposedly in several areas in the house after the previous painter, but now he says he was only supposed to paint and not smooth the texture on the living room wall in the picture. Huh? Ok, now he's conceded there are problems with the job that he can't explain, and admits he didn't walk through when his crew was done to check the work. Doesn't help that plaintiff paid for the job before walking around and checking it out. Anyway, picture after picture MM is commenting on the poor job. All defendant comes up with is that he normally does commercial work to avoid picky homeowners, and the can't answer when asked how much should be returned for such a piss poor job. Rough justice - $1500 returned. double booked venue: plaintiff says six days before his event for 250 guests the defendant informed him the venue had been rented to someone else. Defendant has a different take... says plaintiff wanted to use his new party spot for an event, but wasn't going to pay for the space, just guarentee so much bar business... says with no a firm commitment from plaintiff, when he was approached and offered more by a third party he told plaintiff he had to find a different spot. Hmmm, soon as testimony begins I'm wondering where plaintiff came up with his damage figure. If I understand correctly, he never paid defendant any money, so his figure is speculative on lost revenue because plaintiff had to change locations a week before the event - so how did he pick $1539.92? Oh dear, is this another of those people who throws their own birthday party and charges 250 of their closest friends to attend? Says his little to do started out as a party for 75 friends, but when he talked to defendant the deal was he could use the venue if he guarenteed at least $2500 spent at the bar - oh and he could have a max of 250 guests. So, defendant agrees that was their deal, and plaintiff says he has an email exchange confirming the agreement was reached March 20 something. Plaintiff dude is sending out invites, has guests coming in from out of town, hiring djs, everything going great. Then the dj he hired asks about the sound system, plaintiff calls defendant to get the answers to dj's question the week prior to event, and is told they never had a firm commitment, place no longer available. Sooooo, contract case! Does plaintiff's emails show an agreement? Oh, and where did that weird damage claim amount to come from? Over to defendant. Uh, not sure what his defense is. Starts out by agreeing with plaintiff's version. Says the event has up and down stairs venues, and plaintiff was going to be downstairs. Then the upstairs venue canceled, they scramble to find someone else, and ended up renting to a big 800-900 person event and now venue would make more money if they booted plaintiff. Huh, is that a defense? Ah, one of those litigants who argues there was no contract because nothing was signed, just email back and forth. Yeah, don't you know if plaintiff had been sitting no-show on that night the venue would have been fine with not getting that $2500 bar tab. Ok, time for MM to school defendant on what a contract is, then quick ruling for plaintiff - only reason I keep watching is to see where plaintiff came up with his damage amount. Ah, that's what he had to pay the replacement venue to hold the last minute party - ok, he's not trying to make mobey, that's what he was out to the change venues. Ok, defendant has a new, ridiculous defense. Here plaintiff has friends and family coming to his 25th birthday party, some from out of town, and defendant says, "well, I know we screwed him out of the venue we promised to provide, but we offered to give him a great deal to reschedule." Plaintiff agreed to reschedule, was given a new date, then defendant reneged on that date, too. So, twice the defendant promises him the venue, only to be told no, can't party here on that day. For some odd reason plaintiff doesn't give defendant a third try. MM rules for bd boy. Edited January 12, 2018 by SRTouch 1 6 Link to comment
AngelaHunter January 13, 2018 Share January 13, 2018 33 minutes ago, SRTouch said: double booked venue: Thanks for clarifying the details of that transaction. Not only do I have a hard time remembering what I watched 10 minutes after I watched it but I think I was so befuddled/elated/transfixed at hearing not a single "had came" "ain't" "we was" or "Me and him went" that I just couldn't absorb it all. 1 2 Link to comment
SRTouch January 13, 2018 Share January 13, 2018 10 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said: Thanks for clarifying the details of that transaction. Not only do I have a hard time remembering what I watched 10 minutes after I watched it but I think I was so befuddled/elated/transfixed at hearing not a single "had came" "ain't" "we was" or "Me and him went" that I just couldn't absorb it all. Yeah, today's litigants were kind on unrational - yeah, doesn't really fit, but hey, it's a comment about court TV litigants - doesn't need to make sense. Just think of the unique verbiage we get here, along with additions to our vocabulary. Just recently I heard/read "janky mason" and "ratchet THOT" for the first time. 1 2 Link to comment
Florinaldo January 13, 2018 Share January 13, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: party pooper I have no connection for extravagant parties like sweet sixteens, prom nights and (usually even worse as far as excess) wedding receptions, but since I do not have to pay for what gaudy events those people decide to throw I have no bone in such disputes. As she often does, MM made a big deal about the heartbreak caused to the poor young girl and made it sound as if it might have scarred her for life; oh, the emotional distress resulting from overinflated expectations! I see this simply as a contract case: he agreed to terms for his services, he failed in part because his crew arrived late and delayed the start of the event. But he did provid food and decorations, without bowls however. So a refund is in order, but certainly not the full amount because they did get a reception, and they even said that they enjoyed it. A third of the total amount seemed reasonable. 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: household paint catastrophe Another plaintiff reaching for a bigger than reasonable refund. I might have returned a little more than what MM did, but plaintiff got some benefit from defendant's work so verdict is defensible. 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: double booked venue: Another big reception case? Was there a BOGO sale on these? I initially pegged the plaintiff as being an entitled spoiled young adult, but his presentation was calm, rational, and well spoken, plus his claim was well-grounded; he did not even ask for emotional distress! Defendant demonstrated that he as a lot to learn about running a business and how binding contractual obligations can be, even verbal ones. MM got it right I think. On 11/01/2018 at 10:20 AM, AZChristian said: She doesn't even have to use their body shop. If she has estimates that a judge approves, she gets to pick. She is the "wronged" party. She just needs to be made right . . . and she doesn't have to save the offending party a red cent. Then we'll just have to part as being on opposite ends on this matter. 32 minutes ago, SRTouch said: Yeah, today's litigants were kind on unrational I would make an exception in the case of birthday boy, even if throwing yourself a birthday bash seems rather tacky. But I guess I am from a whole other generation (10 years older than him), with a completely different outlook on such things. Edited January 13, 2018 by Florinaldo 1 2 Link to comment
teebax January 13, 2018 Share January 13, 2018 I really disliked the defendant in the venue case. A new business should be worried about its reputation enough that they don't screw over a potential customer, contract or not. He was still complaining in the hallway, which tells me he learned nothing. I missed the discussion about the car repair. We should really move away from using words like uppity, particularly when describing a black person. I've spent my life being called that because I have the audacity not to know my place. I fail to see why someone who damaged her property and freaking covered it up should be allowed to repair it on their terms. What the actual hell? 1 8 Link to comment
Broderbits January 13, 2018 Share January 13, 2018 35 minutes ago, Florinaldo said: As she often does, MM made a big deal about the heartbreak caused to the poor young girl and made it sound as if it might have scarred her for life; oh, the emotional distress resulting from overinflated expectations! I think MM is terrific; but this insistence of hers that family should come before anything, friendships should last forever, and optional life experiences like proms and sweet 16 parties should be hallowed occasions just irritates the heck out of me. Maybe she always wanted to preside over Family Court, but this is mostly contract stuff and we don't need lectures unless they pertain to the law. 7 Link to comment
AngelaHunter January 13, 2018 Share January 13, 2018 2 hours ago, Broderbits said: I think MM is terrific; but this insistence of hers that family should come before anything, friendships should last forever, and optional life experiences like proms and sweet 16 parties should be hallowed occasions just irritates the heck out of me. Yep, to all. Her determination that deep down, people should love each other, in spite of all the horrible, vile things they've had done to them is irksome. If my brother spit in my face, got drunk and crashed my car, stole my money or "took me to the floor" that would be the END. I should love a violent, amoral scumbag just because we accidentally have the same genes? 7 Link to comment
Silver Raven January 13, 2018 Share January 13, 2018 14 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said: Yep, to all. Her determination that deep down, people should love each other, in spite of all the horrible, vile things they've had done to them is irksome. If my brother spit in my face, got drunk and crashed my car, stole my money or "took me to the floor" that would be the END. I should love a violent, amoral scumbag just because we accidentally have the same genes? Reminds me of today's Hot Bench when a guy wasn't paying his mother back for a loan to get a TV because she wasn't using the money he was giving her to actually pay for the TV. The male judge said he needed to give his mother a pass because she's his mother. 4 Link to comment
Florinaldo January 13, 2018 Share January 13, 2018 (edited) 12 hours ago, Broderbits said: I think MM is terrific; but this insistence of hers that family should come before anything, friendships should last forever, and optional life experiences like proms and sweet 16 parties should be hallowed occasions just irritates the heck out of me. Her frequent "this is the only mother/daughter/siblings/niece/best friend/etc. you will ever have" rings very hollow when it comes after 15 minutes of exploring how one party screwed the other out of money or possessions. 10 hours ago, Silver Raven said: The male judge said he needed to give his mother a pass because she's his mother. Corriero's "compassion" (for lack of a better word) often turns his legal brains to mush. Edited January 13, 2018 by Florinaldo 3 Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.