AngelaHunter February 1, 2018 Share February 1, 2018 49 minutes ago, Florinaldo said: Now, if it were some Chartreuse That is not happening, so I guess I'll drop the lawsuit and we'll have to 'squash our beef' out of court. Never trust anyone! It is what it is!! 7 Link to comment
SRTouch February 1, 2018 Share February 1, 2018 2 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said: That is not happening, so I guess I'll drop the lawsuit and we'll have to 'squash our beef' out of court. Never trust anyone! It is what it is!! Oh no, she's coming to key your car! 5 Link to comment
califred February 1, 2018 Share February 1, 2018 Now I have the caissons are rolling along song stuck in my head. 6 Link to comment
SRTouch February 1, 2018 Share February 1, 2018 (edited) oh dear, recap just vanished into the twilight zone (oh, and tomorrow no recap, as it will be monthly Friday errand day) exes fighting over breakup fallout: just a summary, not blow by blow recap. Couple of bodybuilder gym-rat types end their 3 year relationship in a mess - but neither is ready to air their laundry on tv for the curious MM. At time of breakup, they had been together for three years, and had just re-signed their lease after living together for a year. Oh, and we eventually learn he has a daughter and plaintiff was 18 when they got together. Anyway, 1 night they have a big fight (neither will tell us why) and he moves out, blocks her number and hasn't seen her since. So, he won't talk to her, and she's left to negotiate breaking the lease. Turns out she does a terrible job negotiating - ends up agreeing to pay every fee imaginable - plus a few that has MM scratching her head trying to decipher. Ends up plaintiff pays over 10 grand to get out of the apartment, and she wants defendant to pay half since both were on the lease. Sounds pretty cut and dried - but there's a fly in the ointment. The contract agreeing to break the lease has both their signatures - he says not his signature and MM says it looks forged. Ok, defendant is a jerk - MM calls him a jerk more than once... and he's irritating in the extreme with his talking out of turn in court (oh, and he looks like Howdy Dooty), but MM is ready offended by plaintiff insisting the signature is real. Final result - MM orders defendant to pay half of what she thinks the landlord SHOULD have charged to break the lease - so $3100 instead of asked for 5 grand. I would have given plaintiff more. Seems part of reason MM let defendant pay less is that MM thinks he would have never agreed to some of the misc charges... well if he had been acting like a responsible adult he would have been there to protect his interests... but I see MM 's point, and the plaintiff didn't help herself insisting he signed. auto shop screwup: again litigants who can't find their spot in court. - plaintiff and witness don't hesitate, just come in and choose defendant's lectern, then stand there looking around looking lost (some staff person probably standing just out of camera range frantically waving and pointing). Ah, well, intro says dude took his limo to defendant, and defendant returned the car with bad carpeting. Says shop left his car out in a snowstorm, water leaked in, and shop should pay for new carpet/interior. Defendant doesn't argue the bad carpet - but he says reason limo was in shop was that floor was rotting out - so like was old and a POS, floor already rotten, carpet not his problem. He fixed the floorboards, but replacing the carpet was never part of the deal - hey, I can buy that, he did the metal cutting and welding, and then an auto upholstery place was to do the carpet. Ah, but surely these jokers have a work order/estimate of what was to be done and what actually was done. Testimony reveals plaintiff bought the 2001 limo in 2016 for 6 grand - not to rent it out, but for him and his buds to party - go to the casino, the game, or whatever. Oh, and defendant is one of the buds who has gone along on these excursions. Anyway, after buying the limo, plaintiff notices the passenger floor is rotten. Takes it friend (defendant) with a body shop, and ends up paying almost 4 grand on metal work. Picks up the car, pays, is happy, even invites defendant to go to a game in the recently repaired car. On the trip, they get to talking about the carpet not being glued down very well, and defendant tells plaintiff to bring it back and he'll try to make the old carpet stick. Ah, but this second time it IS there for a carpet problem, so he WAS supposed to be fixing the carpet. OK, after a month the carpet has been glued down, but when plaintiff goes to pick up the car he finds it has been out in the snow and the carpet is wet.... uh, maybe the sunroof (if it has one) leaks. Unless defendant did something wrong, his work on the floor in no way is a warranty on the weather seal. Was he obligated to store the vehicle inside? Nope, not in my opinion. Ah, apparently these two grown men, not spring chickens, engage in teenage text war which MM says reads like her teen age girls. Ah, back to whether body guy had any obligation to store the car inside.... uh, maybe he DID. MM discovers a earlier text where defendant says car must leak like a sieve - yeah turns out he's the one who first told plaintiff the seals must be bad... so he knew before the snow storm that the seals were bad. Ah, but texts also reveal he offered to put in new carpet for free as long as plaintiff bought the carpet - but no, plaintiff got an estimate somewhere else and wants 2 thousand - a third of what he paid the car (well the purchase price, I think they said he already spent big bucks on the new floor). Soooo, defendant probably should have known to park it inside (said earlier he can park 25-30 cars inside), but put it outside because car was at the shop for so long... but does plaintiff get new carpet for his 17yo limo. MM decides the carpet now needs to be replaced because of defendant, so she awards the 2 grand. Hmmm anyone else suspect these two cooked up the case, used the 2 grand to buy carpet, let defendant do the install, then went to the game together (or maybe use the leftover money for new seals). good friends fight over wig: ok, not really my interest when they fight over hair/wig/nails - but really this is a contract case. Plaintiff says bestie from middle school was supposed to make her a wig, and plaintiff wants $500 (400 she paid, then 100 in interest) because it's been over a year. Defendant argues she made the wig (she brought it to court), but they had a tiff, plaintiff never came to pick it up, unfriended her and demanded the money back. Oh dear, even worse than I thought, not really a contract case at all. Defendant ready to fulfill her end, did the work, but Minnie Mouse voiced playing stupid games. Seems she wanted the wig to wear on her bd, wasn't ready, so the tiff and demand for full refund and outrageous interest. Even worse, she tells us only $85 was for defendant's work, rest of the $400 was for the hair/materials and a tip. Once again we are being shown why you shouldn't pay in full (plus tip) in advance - and I suppose we could add doing business with friends who might decide to put your work on the back burner while they're establishing their new business. Anybody else find her high voice grating - and that's not even with all the "like's" "uh's" etc this girl is throwing around. Then, a big part of me giving plaintiff anything besides the wig sitting on defendant's table is her ability to show defendant knew about the deadline and didn't meet to deliver the wig when plaintiff said she'd come get it. She says she texted defendant that she was coming to get the wig the next day.... but can't show the texts. Lots of texts back and forth, but none to show us. Nope, I'm bailing on this one... zip zip... Whatever was said (and I'm not backtracking to find out what - it turned back into contract case and defendant maybe torpedoed her own case), MM decides for plaintiff - she gets $400 and defendant keeps the wig. Edited February 4, 2018 by SRTouch 6 Link to comment
AngelaHunter February 2, 2018 Share February 2, 2018 5 hours ago, SRTouch said: Oh no, she's coming to key your car! Or "gently" toss a brick through his windshield, or maybe even ask him to come out and fight me! Thanks for the recaps. Dinner guests today and no time to watch. Thanks to you I see there are no dog cases, so I can watch at my leisure, confident I'll see nothing today that raises my blood pressure, well, other than Levin the Shyster but Mute and FF takes care of that little dirtbag. 4 Link to comment
teebax February 3, 2018 Share February 3, 2018 I don't know if it's a new episode, but the defendant in the daycare case was vile. 6 Link to comment
AZChristian February 3, 2018 Share February 3, 2018 11 minutes ago, teebax said: I don't know if it's a new episode, but the defendant in the daycare case was vile. She sure was. I googled the plaintiff, and there were several new comments on care.com today, making sure that everyone knew that the defendant was giving a bad review because of the money issue. JM sure seemed pissed with her. 6 Link to comment
teebax February 3, 2018 Share February 3, 2018 6 minutes ago, AZChristian said: She sure was. I googled the plaintiff, and there were several new comments on care.com today, making sure that everyone knew that the defendant was giving a bad review because of the money issue. JM sure seemed pissed with her. I honestly think she should have awarded more. We finally get a legitimate libel claim. Not sure why they kept saying slander; I thought libel was written. 7 Link to comment
AZChristian February 3, 2018 Share February 3, 2018 1 minute ago, teebax said: I honestly think she should have awarded more. We finally get a legitimate libel claim. Not sure why they kept saying slander; I thought libel was written. You're correct: Libel is written untrue statements meant to defame. If this case doesn't qualify, I don't know what does. 7 Link to comment
Florinaldo February 3, 2018 Share February 3, 2018 18 minutes ago, teebax said: I don't know if it's a new episode, but the defendant in the daycare case was vile. Quite a loathsome lack of character, and her mother was complicit in her attempt to fool the court and defame the plaintiff; they apparently did not care about the welfare of the child and so would never think of reporting suspected abuse to the police or child protection services. The fact that they started saying nasty things about the plaintiff only after the latter kept insisting on getting paid definitely points to them rewriting history to suit their goals. Her strange choices of lisptick and hairdo did not help since it made her look like a sinister robotic anime character. 7 Link to comment
califred February 3, 2018 Share February 3, 2018 (edited) Omg that woman was disgusting. If you think your child was burned at daycare you take them to the doc and call the authorities... and if you work for the Pediatrician this shouldn’t be difficult. Also how would a 6 mos old eat pot roast??? Most aren’t full of molars. She deserved the entire 5 grand. Edited February 3, 2018 by califred 11 Link to comment
SRTouch February 3, 2018 Share February 3, 2018 (edited) as warned yesterday - no recap, but here's a short summary of today's two care giver cases and the comb over handyman case child day care: Betty Boop came to life, had a baby, and took the infant to Angela of Angel Wings Daycare (I mention Angela and her business since a big part of the case deals with a post made by Betty (aka Elinor C) on July 28 - checked https://www.care.com/b/l/angel-wings-daycare/manchester-ct and several clients jumped in and sang Angela's praises so much that I was thinking about seeing if she'll take care of old retired dudes (also some trolls popping up with nonsense).... geez, home-cooked meals, fresh veggies she and the kiddies raise in the back yard, day trips to the zoo, visits to the lake and forest adventures etc.) Anyway, several others have already posted about the lovely BB (the hair, too small mouth and bright lipstick), who was happy with the day care until an almost-Aunt offered to take over day care duty. Sooo Betty yanks daughter out of day care, but needs to come up with a good reason not to pay the no-notice termination clause in her contract. Nobody believes her stories, well except HER mommy, who is in court backing BB's stories but adding her own story about a cigarette burn on baby... anyway, MM is outraged by the nonsense, but not as much as the above viewers who wanted the max for libel/slander/defamation. old lady care: this is the opposite end of the spectrum, with dude hiring care givers so that 99yo mom can live out her life in her home. Plaintiff is again the care giver, and is suing for money she is owed. As expected, MM makes a personal connection with guy paying for 24/7 care for mom. Oh dear, those of us tempted to move cross country to use Angela's day care will be moving in the opposite direction to make sure NOT to have this plaintiff providing care. Ok, not that bad, but definitely not good. The plaintiff is the night time care giver. Not a hard job, just spend the night in the apartment in case mom needs anything - heck, even allowed to sleep on the job. But, noooo, her day job is taking care of an old man who just happens to live in the same building. While old man's wife is out of the country for a couple weeks, plaintiff gets the chance to get paid to spend the night in two different apartments at the same time. When defendant learns she's getting paid to be in two places simultaneously, he fires her. Now she's here wanting to be paid for the time she had two jobs. Plaintiff insists she had her hubby, another care provider, come and spent the nights with old man, while plaintiff stayed with mom - even brought an affidavit from hubby. Ah, but why did bring an affidavit from hubby when she could have had her second employer (plaintiff still has same day job, so she sees that employer daily) swear she paid hubby to spend the night... nobody believes plaintiff - not as much scorn heaped on her as first case defendant. impatient home owner suing handyman: plaintiff (a hard to understand litigant) fixing up a rental, and hires defendant for some handyman work. Actually met when defendant was part of a crew who came to do new gutters, and they worked a deal on some side/off the book work. Dude starts the work, then some family tragedy - death in the family - tells the plaintiff too much going on, can't do the side job right now - returns the $1200 deposit. Couple days later, plaintiff decides he's willing to wait for defendant to get things together, he rehires handyman and gives another check. Ah, but then big kerfuffle because part of what handyman is hired to do has to be completed before another sub contractor can do HIS job, and plaintiff has potential tenants appear.... time now an issue and no longer willing to wait. Plaintiff starts blowing up defendant's phone wanting to know when he'll be there to complete the job - unfortunately, he's calling during the actual funeral so defendant isn't answering. Ah, but he has the number for gutter contractor, defendant's boss for his regular job, so he starts blowing up HIS phone. Not cool, gutter boss has nothing to do with these side jobs... thankfully, defendant wasn't hiding the side jobs from bossman so he doesn't get in trouble for working off the books. Everybody's mad and no longer want anything to do with each other - MM decides for plaintiff as defendant is ready to return the money, but plaintiff wants a lot extra for the delay. Truthfully, didn't pay close attention, so not sure where MM came up with the dollar amount. Handyman was okay with returning the amount, even though MM didn't give him credit for materials he said were delivered to the house - no receipt, no credit. Edited February 3, 2018 by SRTouch Added link and noticed some typos 4 Link to comment
SRTouch February 3, 2018 Share February 3, 2018 (edited) 5 hours ago, califred said: Omg that woman was disgusting. If you think your child was burned at daycare you take them to the doc and call the authorities... and if you work for the Pediatrician this shouldn’t be difficult. Yes, don't know what her job is with the pediatrician, but surely she should have at least heard of mandated reporting child abuse/neglect. Yet, a suspected cigarette burn on infant daughter/granddaughter and mommy and grandma don't even text the daycare asking WTH? Ah, grandma in hallterview is upset the judge called her a liar... she probably doesn't want to know what I'd think of her if she DID find a burn and ignored it. Edited February 3, 2018 by SRTouch 4 Link to comment
aemom February 3, 2018 Share February 3, 2018 I had to google "caisson" to see what all the fun was about. I am not familiar with the bends term, the watertight structure term, or the song, so I've learned something new today. The great thing about living in a no fault insurance province is that none of these accident lawsuits can take place and waste everybody's time. The insurance companies fight it out and that's the end of that. I cannot believe that guy was stupid enough to let some guy do bodywork on his car in the Best Buy parking lot. The bodywork guy was quite the shyster. We have laid way too much sod over the years and if there is one thing I've learned is water it, and then water it some more. We easily would set the sprinkler on it for an hour twice a day when it was hot. The best time to lay sod is spring or fall when it's cooler. But even if it burns out a bit, it will usually recover if you water it some more because grass is pretty hearty. I remember one summer we hardly had any rain and we were under a watering ban. Everybody's lawn looked terrible, but it basically goes into a dormant state. When it finally started raining again, everybody's lawn looked fine again. 2 Link to comment
aemom February 4, 2018 Share February 4, 2018 (edited) On 02/02/2018 at 11:04 PM, SRTouch said: as warned yesterday - no recap, but here's a short summary of today's two care giver cases and the comb over handyman case child day care: Betty Boop came to life, had a baby, and took the infant to Angela of Angel Wings Daycare (I mention Angela and her business since a big part of the case deals with a post made by Betty (aka Elinor C) on July 28 - checked https://www.care.com/b/l/angel-wings-daycare/manchester-ct and several clients jumped in and sang Angela's praises so much Truthfully, didn't pay close attention, so not sure where MM came up with the dollar amount. Handyman was okay with returning the amount, even though MM didn't give him credit for materials he said were delivered to the house - no receipt, no credit. Thanks for the link SRTouch, I would have also given her more than $1000 for libel/slander. If your child was burned you would at the very least speak to the daycare owner and go to the doctor. As for the handyman, the amounts he had to return was for the work he didn't do. The only sticking point was that he couldn't prove that he left the roof materials at the plaintiff's hoise, so he didn't get credit for that. The lady taking care of two people at the same time did look very suspicious indeed. She should have had the Norway lady provide an affidavit if she was telling the truth, but sadly, she probably wasn't and got caught. In a way, I'm glad that my inlaws have been cared for in facilities because there are lots of people there, so it's hard to get away with bad behavior because there are witnesses. When you have a single person alone caring for someone, you need a lot of trust, and I don't have it. Edited February 4, 2018 by AEMom Forgot something Link to comment
Blissfool February 5, 2018 Share February 5, 2018 On 1/29/2018 at 11:55 PM, Bazinga said: I may be wrong, but I think the reason she was friendlier and less harsh to the defendant was that the defendant had this "cool", "chill", hippie-chick, vibe that JM was grooving on while the plaintiff seemed stiff. The big thing that bugged me was that the defendant called the judge "dude" without being admonished. Just finished watching an episode where a male (a low-life user boyfriend, true) called JM "Miss" twice. Both times she went off on him, saying, "If I was a male judge, you wouldn't call me buddy, would you?" I don't think (my opinion) calling a judge "Miss" is disrespectful and didn't think that guy, even though he was a jerk, meant any disrespect and, IMO, "Miss" is the equivalent of "Sir" not "buddy." I don't think saying "Sir" to a male judge would get a litigant admonished. "Dude" is way closer to "buddy", IMO, then "Miss" is. In the same episode as the "Miss," JM was twice called "sweetheart" by a piece of trash defendant but she nailed her both times, as well she should have. I agree with your assessment on the usage of the word "dude" in this case. JM liked the cool defendant. Also agree with you regarding "Miss." I used to teach in a district where the students used "Miss" when talking to me. I loved it. I didn't know I was supposed to be offended until JM said so. Now I teach in a district where the students use "ma'am." It makes me feel old. Re: custom shoes case....I can't believe JM didn't pull out her plastic gloves for this one. She has certainly worn them for less questionable items. 4 Link to comment
SRTouch February 5, 2018 Share February 5, 2018 bait and switch real estate deal: plaintiff says defendant was his broker. Says guy found him an apartment he liked, but place wasn't ready when it came time to move in. Then, defendant tried to get him to take a not-as-nice place - but he refused the second place and wants back the $1500 broker fee. Defendant says reason the first place was lost wasn't because it wasn't ready, but because plaintiff took too long getting his application completed. Says by the time plaintiff had everything completed, apartment was off the market. He argues he did a lot of work for plaintiff, and deserves to be paid his fee. Hmmm sounds reasonable, but don't particularly like the way he staggers into the court... oh, and as MM is telling us defendant doesn't want us to known his last or the company name, and that she'll be calling him Michael he interrupts to tell her she can him Mikey - ah, what a boon, and so gracious with a wave of his hand as he makes the offer - not sure why MM laughs and says no, she'll call him Michael - ah, but she's read the papers and probably knows where case will go. May turn out plaintiff is just as big an a-hole, but I'm starting out rooting against defendant - even though he has a point about deserving to be paid if he found defendant 2 apartments that defendant lost through no fault of the broker. Plaintiff testifies broker was working on his behalf, finding and showing plaintiff multiple apartments beginning end of July into August. Says he (p and "his lady") found a place that was going to be available September first. Ok, MM hits pause on p's testimony and asks if they had any written agreement hiring broker dude... yep, Mikey passes up a signed agreement dated August 5th (slight hiccup when he misspoke and said it was signed October 5th, but quickly corrected to August.) Hmmmm what MM is looking at is an application on the 5th - and she points out, and Mikey agrees, that his broker fee should not be charged unless the application gets approved. Oh, and it gets turned down on August 24th. Turns out, according to broker, application was turned down due to "my lady," who turned in an application as a co-tenant, having three strikes on her record with past landlord cases in housing court. Ah, makes sense landlord would avoid renting to her, but plaintiff says not true. MM calls up his lady to ask her - well, not so much ask, but confirm, as MM asks did you have 3 prior landlord's suing you - yes - Ok sit down. So, they've lost that place, but on the application plaintiff indicated his fall back position was a different apartment in the same building. Broker contacts landlord, finds a different apartment, and turns in the app for THAT place - minus plaintiff's lady as co-tenant. August 25th, landlord agrees to rent the second apartment to plaintiff with lady as a roommate - not co-tenant. Hmmm sounds like broker did his job. Ah, but plaintiff is expecting to move in on the first, and when he calls he's told place won't be ready on the first. Oh, and it seems he was happy with the second apartment because this one had a balcony where first one didn't (even though it was in a different building, it had the same landlord management company). Ok, seems a key point is when broker collected his fee. Remember, MM already checked and defendant agreed he wasn't to charge until plaintiff was approved for an apartment. Plaintiff says he paid when he signed that first agreement, but defendant says he didn't collect until the 28th... we go to commercial with MM telling both of them to prove it, as she sits back and crosses her arms. When we come back MM asks plaintiff when he paid, he says the 5th and starts to look for his prove. MM turns to broker - again Mikey is acting like an a-hole - MM asks is plaintiff's story accurate? Instead of answering Mikey answers, that's lala land! Didn't pay until the 28th. And now is when MM tells them to prove it. Broker dude Mikey immediately passes up a contract, but plaintiff is still looking. Nope, not really proof, all it says is that he paid, not when - plainyiff says he paid cash when he hired Mikey... but no receipt. Sooo, nobody can prove their version of the timeline. Ah, not going to get an answer, so we move on to the contract where plaintiff agrees to the new apartment - signed on August 28th. No question here... plaintiff accepted and approved the new place and signed the lease - so at that point broker is due his fee. As I understand things, at that point whether place is ready for move in on the 1st is between landlord and plaintiff (though often brokers get involved if there's a dispute). Ah, but is that true in this case? Everybody agrees first place was to be ready on 1 September, but Mikey just admitted second apartment was under construction and not ready.... did he pull a fast one or did he inform his client, the plaintiff. Ah, and now Mikey is really proving he's an ass, as he pulls out his legalese to argue that the contract clearly states a meeting of the minds. Ah, MM, asks, what is the meeting of the minds? When will the apartment be ready for move in? Mikey answers the meeting of the minds is "that there is going to be presented an unexecuted lease". Huh? What does that even mean? MM answers my question when she says that's what us called NO meeting of the minds. Actually, he points to a clause saying that the place is under construction and the estimate is that it will be ready "on or after the first." MM looks for the clause, and what it says is estimated for the 1st, but could tract good until the 16th. Ok, MM asks, was it ready on the 16th? Yes, answers Mikey (when really should be here as a used car salesman). No says plaintiff, look in the phone for the text from the 20th where I says it's still not ready, and give me a refund. So, kind of zero switch, turns out Mikey failed to deliver as he promised. Now, Mikey is changing his defense to this was a good faith deposit, and it's nonrefundable. Hoboy, this was a LONG CASE, which I just about zipped through, but it's worth it to watch the ruling. MM calls Mikey a crook and ignores his interruptions and and tempts to talk over her to rule for the plaintiff. Hmmm, wonder if he might have gotten to keep anything if he hadn't proved to be such an ass in court - after all he did do some work. Probably not, as what he did proved to be useless to plaintiff. homeowner vs contractor: this time it's a case involving a fence damaged by a hurricaine. Apparently, she's a good dog owner who needed the fence to contain her pups, and wasn't happy when the new and repaired fence failed in this vital task. Ah - she has never right until the end of her intro, seems she wants over $2600 - what, complete refund and pay someone else to put up a good fence? Defendants argue they were doing the job - never finished because homeowner wouldn't pay, and they eventually put a lein on the house. Ok, makes sense if she stopped paying when she saw their job wouldn't do what she wanted done. And, lest we forget, defendant's have a $2300 counterclaim for not getting paid $200 (yeah small that's two hundred not two thousand), harrassment, and the ever popular pain and suffering (ok, for me as soon as someone claims harrassment I'm thinking strike one, and pain and suffering in a dispute over putting up a fence? What, hit you thumb with the hammer?) Anyway, after commercial we can forget intro nonsense and learn what the case is really about. These are Florida folks, and after a hurricaine they decide a wooden privacy fence just isn't up to the task, so want a chain link replacement. She found defendant through an online home advisor, Angie's list type site. Ah, right away, communication problems. Seems elderly homeowner's daughter started replacing the fence, finished 30 feet and decided better to hire someone (don't blame her, putting up fence is WORK - we get a laugh when MM asks daughter how she put up 30 feet of fence and daughter strikes a bodybuilder pose) - hey, I like these two women. Anyway, communication problems start when dude shows up - he measures from the end of daughter's 30 foot new fence instead of planning to replace the whole fence. Well, actually, we learn daughter did just enough to bridge the gap in the wood fence cause by the storm as a temporary fix to keep in the dogs, and now they wanted a pro to replace the whole fence - including her diy stopgap fix. Soooo, they expect a completely new fence. The fence repair dude (defendant sctually a landscaper and subbed out the fence job), the professional dude, does the measurements, puts up the new fence, and runs out of materials. His story in court is that she saw him measure, saw that he didn't measure the whole fence line, so it is one her that he, the professional, didn't measure correctly. Whoa, if that's the best he can come up with he might as well pull out his checkbook! His theory/explanation of why she didn't correct him is that she said she was on a budget.... uh, who thinks this lady, whose daughter went out and closed the gap caused by the storm, would agree to a 7 foot gap in her fence? Ah, more failure to communicate. He's saying when asked he told her it would cost an additional grand, because he thought she wanted the 7 foot gap - plus the other side of the yard done, which had a wood fence. She says, no, she just wanted the 7 feet done. Ok, I'm with her... except that she's asking for $2600! His story falls apart once MM gets pictures and asks him to explain what he thinks he was to do. I could accept that maybe there was miscommunication about one side... but the picture shows he left a section of old wooden fence on the side replaced with chainlink... sorry makes no sense to me, and when I see the picture I'm thinking scam, do a partial job, then jack the price up to get homeowner to do more than originally contracted for or walk off the job. It does not help that dude knew all about slapping a lein on the house to get $200 additional, which grew into a $2300 countersuit. oops running out of time (first case dragged, but this one seems to have gone by fast). MM is ready to give these folks a chance to explain the outrageous damage claims. Plaintiff admits she paid someone else two hundred bucks to get what she claims she originally wanted - chainlink across the back of her yard - so how does she come up with $2600+? Ah, turns out maybe not so ridiculous. She has closeup pictures which show a pretty crappy fence job - not what I would expect of professional fencing. So her damages is for a completely new fence, not just that 7 feet. Oh, sort of an aside... she said she has two large dogs (a pit bill and a Russian wolfhound) and I would NOT trust a fence that tall to keep in a large dog - so maybe I need to rethink my opening about her being about responsible dog owner. I wonder if the new person she hired put in a taller fence - if not want much of what defendant used us reusable. Of course, another case of getting what you pay for. She paid this guy a grand, but the estimates for a replacement are more than double. Ok, cross the aisle for the countersuit. First, she booted them off the job when she saw the gap they wanted to leave and still owes a couple hundred on the original contract. Their "harrassment" stems from a complaint she made to a watchdog group set up to protect elderly homeowner's from scammers and the BBB... uh. Not harrassment, but homeowners right to make a complaint and have suspected scam investigated. For some reason - probably because of time - we don't get to hear the pain and suffering complaint. Over to main complaint... plaintiff wins - no bonanza, but more than what she paid, as MM says he has to provide what he said he would - a good fence across the back of the yard. tow case: plaintiff wants back what it cost to spring his car from impound plus all the associated fees - plus an aggravation fee. Defendant says car was towed because of expired tags - he did everything by the book and with police permission. Hmmm, off the top of my head we'very only seen a couple tow cases where tow-ee won over tow-er. 99.999% of the time tow-ee figures the rules don't apply when THEY'RE involved. Ok, right off the bat - only a couple reason to watch: on the off chance that plaintiff has a chance of winning; or that the litigants will be entertaining. Nope, I'm finding plaintiff irritating rather than entertaining, and just the little bit I've heard doesn't promise much chance of a win. Ah, but once dad, who thinks he's a comedian and keeps calling defendant a young man stops his one man show and daughter starts talking things start to swing. Seems Pennsylvania, which is where the van is licensed, no longer issues tags to put on the license plate. Instead, that issue a sticker which goes in the window. So, an expired tags WAS on the plate, but current registration sticker was in the window. Soooo, van was towed in NY, but reason for tow was mistaken... maybe an honest mistake, but still a mistake. Hey, we may see tow company have to refund the fees! What I'm wondering is, who made the call to get it towed? If driver followed NY laws, and had go ahead to tow, who is liable because the rules are different in a different state. Ah, tow guy is spinning his wheels here. He's trying to argue hypothetically instead of what happened. Arguing why his driver looks at the license plate doesn't matter - if the vehicle is legally registered and displaying the registration as required in its jurisdiction, it should not have been towed. Arguing about switched plates... what, plates here weren't switched, so where did that come from. Nope, car legally parked and was legally registered... like MM just said, why is this case in court? Heck, I'm about to agree with this plaintiff's request for an aggravation fee. Heck, defendant even got a lawyer involved and the lawyer told defendant the outdated sticker doesn't matter in Pennsylvania, defendant still wants to keep plaintiff's money... not because plaintiff was wrong, but because defendant thought plaintiff was wrong. Once this guy gets something stuck in his head, he just ain't about to change his mind, even though the judge tells him he's wrong. Wow, tow company loses! And, of course dude still thinks he was right - it is what it is! When winning plaintiff comes out he tells Doug he's been watching 17 years and knew exactly what he needed to win. 1 4 Link to comment
AngelaHunter February 5, 2018 Share February 5, 2018 (edited) 55 minutes ago, SRTouch said: bait and switch real estate deal: plaintiff says defendant was his broker "Call me Mikey"(JM, while appreciative, declined that invitation) - shady, arrogant, but not overly bright, was he? "My lady" - does that mean girlfriend in simple English? Too bad Milady got the boot from three different apartments yet still thought another landlord was going to approve her? Of course not - who would? - yet Mikey can help them bypass all that stuff. Except he doesn't. He seems to think that the contract says "On or after September 1st" means that it could be anytime after that date, maybe even months in the future? Doesn't matter since that's not what it said. I just love when litigants proclaim they have a document to back up exactly what they are claiming, only it doesn't. Do they think JM has a reading disability or that she should agree that it doesn't matter what a contract says if the parties had some other vague understanding? 55 minutes ago, SRTouch said: homeowner vs contractor: The donkey-like braying of plaintiff's daughter was annoying but I can just picture def. - a landscaper - when he gets plaintiff to agree to hire him to build the fence. He must have gone to some gas station Minimart, rounded up various characters who hang out there and said, "Hey, wanna make 50 bucks?" and then "sub-contracted" them. That must be how it happened, since whoever put the fence up - not the def - had no idea how to do it. Plaintiff said def. was recommended to her? I wonder by whom. When I decided to fence in my 1/2 acre backyard, I called a well-known and long-established company in my area. I had a clear contract outlining what they would do, they put up the fence quickly and properly and surprise! there was no 7-foot opening left there, which would make the rest of the fence utterly pointless. Def now has his name out there and I'm sure this case will do wonders for his business. 55 minutes ago, SRTouch said: tow case: plaintiff wants back what it cost to spring his car from impound plus all the associated fees - plus an aggravation fee. Tow guy was such an asshole and I just wish JM had told him to button up his damned shirt. No one wanted to look at his chest. Well, I certainly didn't. Was dad being facetious when he kept calling def "this young man?" Anyway, tow guy's defense was a bunch of shoulda-woulda-coulda. He made a mistake, didn't bother checking these laws and should have just refunded the money instead of coming here and boring all of us to tears. Edited February 5, 2018 by AngelaHunter 5 Link to comment
babs j. February 5, 2018 Share February 5, 2018 I thought the last two cases - especially the one with the 99-year-old mother seemed very familiar. About the pot roast - how would the mother know that the pot roast had been sitting out for 5 days unless she had been there for all five days? 3 Link to comment
AngelaHunter February 6, 2018 Share February 6, 2018 15 hours ago, babs j. said: About the pot roast - how would the mother know that the pot roast had been sitting out for 5 days unless she had been there for all five days? Dimbulb, sneaky, lying Clara Bow and her lying mommy would say anything to get out of paying what they owe. Yes, I'm sure plaintiff kept a pot of rotting meat on her counter for five days and fed it to an infant. But never mind that. The baby came home with a cigarette burn on her arm! Neither Clara nor Mommy thought that was worth mentioning to anyone though. I just saw this and had to comment although I know it's been discussed. On 2/2/2018 at 7:28 PM, Florinaldo said: Her strange choices of lisptick and hairdo did not help since it made her look like a sinister robotic anime character I cackled for about two minutes straight at that. On 2/2/2018 at 11:04 PM, SRTouch said: several clients jumped in and sang Angela's praises so much that I was thinking about seeing if she'll take care of old retired dudes I know! Sounded great to me too. lol 4 Link to comment
SRTouch February 6, 2018 Share February 6, 2018 phone case: ok, at a loss here, trying to figure out WTH this case is about going by the intro - but since intro is wrong more often than not I'll give it a look. (Maybe take a few potshots at the gallery - at first glance we may have some characters in the courtroom. Maybe red lipstick is the latest fad, first Betty Boop the other day and today plaintiff is bracketed by women in the front row... oh, and I wonder if dude with the odd hair is with these two women - both seem to keep looking in his direction.) Heck, going to have to watch just to figure out the pre-show clip which has MM asking why dude kicks off his shoes and is laying on stranger's bed - uh, what WAS he waiting for? How is he going to go from that to paying for defendant's phone?... loan or gift - makes no sense to me to buy a stranger a phone. This could be WAY off, but first impression - older dude paying for some playtime with defendant's "friend," then defendant, who is built like a tank and double old dude's size, barges in, makes a scene about her broken phone, scams old dude into paying for a new phone to get away... like I said, just first thought - maybe all wrong. Ok, when testimony starts, first surprise is dude saying he's a handyman, and was at defendant's place because she might/maybe/sort of/might need a job and want to work for him... hmmm how do we get from that to him in the bedroom with her friend, just kicked back killing time waiting for defendant? Ok, guess his explanation sort of makes sense - not the way I went about hiring when I was looking for a part time helper. Ah, MM had the same thought I did, as we go to break she asks, were you doing the nasty with your co-worker? (coworker is defendant's friend who brought the litigants together that day - and presumably the only witness but is noticeably absent - plaintiff says he thinks she's in rehab but not sure). Ok, maybe dude is telling the truth (yeah, sure). Over to defendant. More nonsense and a story which makes little sense. Two people, 1 a friend and other a potential employer, show up in the middle of the day. You all end up in your bedroom doing whatever (MM wonders if there might of been some street pharmaceuticals being used). You're waiting on a phone call to see if you're getting a full time job - otherwise you might go to work with dude sitting on your bed. You decide you need to make a quick trip to the store, so you leave your company sitting in your bedroom... oh, not to forget, you're waiting on this important call, but you leave the phone - oh oh, and your guests are just there on a lunch break, so who knows if they'll be there when you get back. More nonsense, dude says he was napping and missing witness was going through defendant's closet exclaiming what nice things defendant has (guess she dressed down for court). She admits her phone was on it's last legs, wouldn't hold a charge, etc, but when she comes back from the store bed has been moved a few inches (?), and must have (maybe) bumped the phone - it's kaput. Somehow, that ends up in a trip to get a new phone (must be this guy takes LONG work breaks) and guy fronts the bill. Yep, guess no hurry for plaintiff and his coworker to get back to work, and defendant would rather phone shop than check on that important call she was waiting for. He says he was to be repaid, she says it was a gift from the magnanimous stranger - I say I haven't heard a word of truth since the case started - well, I guess I believe missing witness may well be in rehab, but that was hearsay evidence from plaintiff saying that's what he heard. Anywhoooo, case only half over and I need another cup of coffee to stay awake... ah, what's this!? So much for a gift from a stranger! Dude did something right, she picked out her new phone but didn't have the money, so before he fronted her the money he got her to sign an IOU - on the back of a business card... we get the toilet paper-crayon story. Oh dear, defendant didn't expect to see that again! (Don't blame her, I just about guarantee I would have misplaced or tossed it.) Her defense is... well it's been a year, she figured he forgave the $150, and even though she agreed to pay $50 a month for three months, it's been this long, so all must have been forgiven. Ok, no defense... and case a waste of time watching. thankfully, MM pulls the plug and ends this one early. granny wants a refund: (new folks in the gallery, check out that black lady with the blond wig in back row on defendant's side!) this one seems to be a contract case, and might prove interesting. Little old lady, who needs walks in holding onto grandson's arm to help with her balance, signed a contract with defendant for his company to provide heating oil, and paid him upfront. Ah, but when she found a cheaper supplier, she bought from his competition. He canceled the contract when he found out, and refuses to refund the unused portion of the prepaid contract. She wants the $205. Oh, yeah, turns out his contract was that he service her heating system, but she has to buy her oil from him... so when he realised he'd been servicing her system for 4 years and she never bought any oil he canceled the contract. He feels he more than made up the $200 in service calls... yeah, his oil price is higher, but he services the system... when she bought oil elsewhere he lost his profit margin. Oh, and he didn't cancel the contract, he refused to renew it when it expired. That $205 is the charge for cleaning the furnace the previous year, contract was signed and furnace cleaned the next month. Not sure why lady filed suit, sounds like she renewed the contract every year for 10 years, only bought oil from defendant the first year, so has been cheating defendant every year since (or, maybe just last 4 years - that part kind of unclear). Now she's suing because he finally realised what she has been doing and refuses to return the money. Says he finally got a computer, which gets a big laugh from MM. Case makes no sense... but feisty old ladies make for good TV - heck, even grandson has to laugh at granny's attempt to get something for nothing. Ah, but maybe not good enough to last a full 20 minutes. No hard feelings, granny laughs as MM rules against her. Defendant barely said anything - just the bit about getting a computer and passed up evidence whenever MM wanted a copy of a contract/service call. Sage advice from defendant when he gets to Doug. Doug comments about how little he said in court, defendant mumble something that he didn'the need to talk, he had evidence... a truly novel approach on court tv! employer suing employee over loan: plaintiff sort of makes me think of an old John Wayne - with bad teeth. Anyway, audience from first case has been rearranged - extra person seated between the two red lipstick girls, and not as many looks across to dude on other side - but I'm still thinking those three are part of a group, just not as obvious as first case. Hmmm, seems employer thought highly of young employee, sort of took him under his wing, mentored him, and loaned kid money. Ah, but kid turned out to be an entitled punk, hide the fact he felt resentful of the older guy's interest in his life, and ended up walking off the job and stiffing dude on the loan. Ah, doesn't promise to be my favorite type of case... ungrateful ingrate being two faced and feeling entitled.... and we have an extra 5 minutes still left over from short first case. Hopefully there's more here than first impression. Ok, not really straight out loan... what employer did was, when he learned kid had a lot of student loan and credit card debt which he wasn't paying, employer would give him $125 a month if kid matched that and applied the $250 towards his debt. Thing was he wanted to see kid's statement showing the payments. Eventually, when kid had balances under control, he was to repay boss. Ok, I could see kid thinking that's great - but then getting resentful first time "the old man" lectured him for missing a payment. Also, kind of hard to treat this as loans unless plaintiff put what he's saying in writing or there's texts spelling out the agreement. Ah, seems he has emails for six months where he would give kid $125 that kid would acknowledge and promise to pay once he got the balances down to a reasonable... ah, but kid isn't following through with providing the statements showing payments. Not only that, but it turns out part of kid's job involved driving, and the insurance for the business notified plaintiff that they wouldn't insure defendant because of his terrible driving record. Soooo, plaintiff gets tired of paying money without the agreed upon proof it's going towards the debt. Add to that now mean employer yanks kid's driving privileges and makes him ride with ano insured driver... wow, yep sounds like defendant was being treated like a kid - because that's the bed he made. There's a kerfuffle, kid is irritated at being treated like a kid instead of thankful for receiving help. So, at the end of 6 months the hard working kid walks off the job. Hmmm about time to switch sides to see if kid Brandon can redeem himself any. Brandon claims he quit when he learned he was no longer covered by the business insurance policy. See, according to him, he didn't know, and plaintiff admits he still sent Kid Brandon out without the aforementioned insured driver. Brandon says he feared his commercial license would have been in jeopardy if he had been involved in an accident.... hmmm maybe so if his driving record was so bad that the carrier refused to insure him. Oh, and now Brandon is disputing the $125 a month - not, I notice, that plaintiff was giving him money, but he disagrees with the amount, and says he never kept track since the amount varied and he's saying it was weekly rather than monthly.... hmmm, didn't plaintiff claim to have responses to emails where Brandon acknowledged receipt and promised too pay. Plaintiff may have trouble with his case, but Brandon's own testimony has me thinking entitled punk who thinks the world owes him. Yep, email does it for me and blows young Brandon's defense out of the water. MM reads us the email, you owe this amount, I expect to be paid, and where are your statements. Answer, yeah I know I owe the money, I'll bring you my statements and start paying you back. Six months later, same exchange - you owe x amount - yeah I know, I haven't forgotten, I'll pay. Right after that, Brandon quits - and of course hasn't made any payments. Not sure what his defense is - really don't see what there is to talk about for the next 10 minutes as I just checked and DVR says we're at the 49 minute mark. Seems memories on both sides may have been rewritten to support their own position... not sure if they're lieing, but think both sides are bending the timeline a tad. Sounds like Brandon is right that he wasn't told about not being insured and getting very upset when he found out he was making a delivery while not covered... so plaintiff's story about talking it over with his son/partner and only sending Brandon out with a licensed driver on two man jobs was right - but that conversation happened later than his testimony indicated, or at least plan was never implemented or discussed with Brandon. Sounds like that may be what we'll talk about for the extra time... but really not what I see as part of the case... case is about money plaintiff loaned, and has never been repaid. Question for me is - is the case ripe for court. Sort of sounds like terms were very vague, plaintiff even says he was willing to wait til Brandon paid down his debts. Well, if he still has all these credit card bills and student loans, is it time to sue? Ah, maybe, if the story about providing statements showing payments was a condition of the loan and it never happened - didn't one of Brandon's emails say he was going to start making weekly payments and would bring in his "statements." Seems like it would make since, if we believe both sides, that when Brandon offered to make payments Plaintiff told him to keep the money... not that the loan was forgiven, but pay that money towards other debts. Oh my, things hit the crapper at this point. When Brandon finds out the boss is sending him on deliveries while uninsured, he brings the truck back to the shop and walks out - quitting via text since no bosses are around. Whoa, some who gets upset when they find out they've been driving without insurance! Plaintiff comes in, realises delivery hasn't been done, ends up delivering it himself (pretty good shape for, I believe he said, 74+yo). He's pissed, no you can't quit, you're fired - and, oh, BTW, I'm calling in the loan, so keeping the money out of your last paycheck. Brandon says no way, can't keep my paycheck - so he files a grievance with the labor board, and wins. Ok, plaintiff turns around and files this case. Oh well, MM decides case is ripe... that makes sense sense the only evidence of a payment plan was Brandon's email promise to make weekly payments - so even though at the time plaintiff said keep the money and pay other debts, now he can decide it's time to pay. Have to say, I like young Brandon more now than when case started - but still think he's an entitled punk who should have thanked old boss instead of making him sue to get his money. MM jokingly tries to get Brandon his old job back (turns out he's still unemployed) but he burned that bridge, when asked if he needs a driver plaintiff gives a pretty firm NO. 6 Link to comment
AngelaHunter February 6, 2018 Share February 6, 2018 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: phone case: ok, at a loss here, trying to figure out WTH this case is about going by the intro As we used to say back in the Dark Ages - "Far out!" Weird old man and his "good to look at" assistant (whatever they do does not preclude mid-day naps)who is now is in rehab go to visit very burly, husky, neck-tatted def. Despite the fact that he and def are total strangers, def. decides she needs to go to to the store right then and there leaving her visitors to do what they will. Weird old man lies on her bed for a nap - who wouldn't - and def decides he somehow broke her crappy old phone. She lets old man buy her a new one, BUT, and this is remarkable for this show, he has her write a minute but legal promissary note. She feels no need to honour what she signed, because well, just because, so there's the case. The whole thing was just silly. 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: granny wants a refund: To quote nearly all losing litigants, "WOW." Plaintiff is like those people who have been parking illegally and getting away with it for years, yet squawk and scream when they finally get caught. By her reasoning, the fact that the oil company has been doing her a very nice favour all these years means they are obligated to continue doing so. Where do people get this kind of unmitigated gall? Loved the oil man. I wish I could hire him! 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: employer suing employee over loan: plaintiff sort of makes me think of an old John Wayne - with bad teeth. He was rather old fashioned, the type who used to get positive results by helping a young person establish himself or "pull himself up by the bootstraps.". Judging from this show, that is a sadly antiquated notion. I guess he hasn't heard about the new bone-lazy,"entitled generation" who have zero gratitude and just feel legal strangers should be happy to shower them with gifts and money. Def doesn't even work now, but makes sure he keeps up his douchebag hairdo and carefully scaped, but silly, goatee. 9 Link to comment
Florinaldo February 7, 2018 Share February 7, 2018 3 hours ago, SRTouch said: granny wants a refund: MM said she thought the plaintiff was cute; I must dissent. She was morally disgusting as fuck. I wonder how many times she has pulled that tactic of appearing dense and constantly repeating the same argument over and over gain, without acknowledging other people's responses, to the point where they just give in and let her have it her way. She took advantage of the defendant and wanted to be compensated for it, which just proves once again that there is no age barrier for outrageous dishonesty. 12 Link to comment
Guest February 7, 2018 Share February 7, 2018 1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said: To quote nearly all losing litigants, "WOW." Plaintiff is like those people who have been parking illegally and getting away with it for years, yet squawk and scream when they finally get caught. By her reasoning, the fact that the oil company has been doing her a very nice favour all these years means they are obligated to continue doing so. Where do people get this kind of unmitigated gall? Loved the oil man. I wish I could hire him! I just caught the last few minutes of this one but she was one of those old bags who thinks just because she's "of a certain age" she can get away with anything. Definitely belongs in my file of just because you're older than dirt - that doesn't necessarily mean you're adorable. She cheated him all those years then has the nerve to sue him. (Yay!! I'm back after some issues with logging into my account. If any of the mods are reading this please pass along my gratitude for taking care of the problem so quickly. I am very impressed with your ability to solve problems and your kindness. Thank you.) Link to comment
AngelaHunter February 7, 2018 Share February 7, 2018 18 minutes ago, Florinaldo said: MM said she thought the plaintiff was cute; I must dissent. MM has a soft spot for unruly teenagers and oldies. Someone doesn't become cute and deserving of special consideration and not have to abide by contracts they signed just because they're lucky enough to manage to reach a certain age. The only people who can misbehave with impunity and still be considered "cute" are babies who don't know any better. The grasping old bat is not in that category. 16 minutes ago, PsychoKlown said: She cheated him all those years then has the nerve to sue him. No kidding! Instead of saying, "Wow, look what I got away with. I was so lucky to get something I didn't deserve all this time!" she sues him. It's mind-boggling and not adorable in the least. I guess today she found out she's not always right. 7 Link to comment
aemom February 7, 2018 Share February 7, 2018 (edited) Just watched Monday and Tuesday's episodes, and the first thing I realize is that none of the litigants mangled the English language. That must be a first - two episodes in a row! The realtor was a slimy con artist who actually thought he had a leg to stand on. The fence case was interesting in that not only did they leave a gap, but the fence they put up was crap. I agree that the fence was "subcontracted" to people without a clue how to put up fencing, which is probably how the gap happened in the first place. The tow truck guy clearly belongs to the same "I'm wrong and I will never admit it" group as the slimy realtor. The phone case was weird. I do think the guy should have paid for part of the phone, because he might have broken it. I really thought that the old lady was arguing that she didn't get her annual cleaning, but then I realized that she had, but was complaining that they wouldn't sell her a new contract. It was hilarious that she thought she could charm/threaten/sue one out of them, but she was SOL. The loan. I think the kid would have paid some back, but when the guy kept telling him to wait to do so, and then got mad about the insurance, then he had no intention to pay anymore. Edited February 7, 2018 by AEMom Typo 2 Link to comment
Broderbits February 7, 2018 Share February 7, 2018 5 hours ago, SRTouch said: employer suing employee over loan: plaintiff sort of makes me think of an old John Wayne - with bad teeth. Of course that (former) employee needed to repay the money, but the plaintiff's decision to play parent seemed weird. Maybe it's just me. I wonder if he's done that with other employees and I wonder what his real son thought about the situation. 1 Link to comment
AngelaHunter February 7, 2018 Share February 7, 2018 12 hours ago, Broderbits said: Of course that (former) employee needed to repay the money, but the plaintiff's decision to play parent seemed weird. Seems to be a very small business, maybe with only son and Pop, since Pop had to drive the truck when def. flounced off in a huff. I think maybe plaintiff sees himself as a sort of benevolent mentor to put youths on "the right path." I guess no one else would help def - either he has no family or he does and they're fed up with his irresponsibility and refuse to keep giving him money. Or not. 1 Link to comment
SRTouch February 7, 2018 Share February 7, 2018 (edited) 'nother fence kerfuffle: seems plaintiff has ongoing feud with a neighbor over a fence. She HAD a fence, but the neighbor knocked it down. So she hires defendant to built a new fence, but when he doesn't built it she sues for 5 grand - wonder how much of that is actual damage and how much is pie in the sky/boNANza/lottery nonsense. Defendant agrees plaintiff hired him to put up a fence. His story is that plaintiff wanted neighbor to foot the bill, neighbor refused, saying plaintiff is nuts, so he packed up and left.... uh, did he get paid anything? If so, how much time did he waste, and does he owe a refund (maybe plaintiff gave a deposit for materials and wanted neighbor to pay have the cost. If defendant bought materials than he shouldn't be out of pocket because of the neighbor feud.) Once testimony starts we learn that, yes, she gave him a $875 deposit that she wants returned and the rest.... MM can't decipher, and asks why plaintiff thinks defendant should pay 4 times the estimated cost of the fence. Ah, seems "someone in the legal profession" told plaintiff she could sue for 5 times the amount over a breach of contract - yeah, right - MM tells her she needs to consult a real lawyer for legal advice. Ok, now, if plaintiff wins we know MM is going to go based on the $875 figure, not pie in sky boNANza. Backstory time, which actually has less to do with case than normal since we're talking neighborhood feud and she's not even suing the neighbor. Seems lady's house is next to neighbor's business. She's convinced the the neighbor (a not-nice person) purposely and repeatedly backed a truck into her fence. MM asks why not call the cops - oh, she says, she has called in complaints - maybe a dozen times - all the neighbors call in complaints about the neighborhood businessman - but the guy is pals with the cops. So, enough of the neighbor who isn't here, why sue this defendant? Ah, can't get away from neighbor just yet. Plaintiff says neighbor agreed he was responsible for replacing the fence, but she needed to do the legwork of getting bids and hiring the fencing contractor, but neighbor would split cost. Sooo, defendant was low bidder, and was hired. She says she was prepared to pay contractor for whole job as she wanted it done, and then she was going to hound neighbor for his half - contractor was going to be paid, so no need to talk payment with neighbor. For some reason, plaintiff says, contractor went to neighbor anyway, and came up with a second contract - one for neighbor and second for her. Hmmm, she might have a point, so over to defendant to see what his take is. Ah, pretty simple answer. According to defendant, plaintiff was trying to include a replacement fence along a different property line as well as the fence neighbor had agreed to split the cost on. Hence, two contracts, the one property line just for plaintiff, then a second for the shared cost fence. Not sure why. If plaintiff was bankrolling the job, let her and neighbor argue his share of cost. Oops, wonder if dude meant to say what he just did. Turns out simple answer not really truthful. Now he admits he was "doing her a favor" and was going to pad the bill to get neighbor to pay extra and get plaintiff that extra section of fence. Ah, MM says as we go to comnercial, so you were going to commit a fraud. So his story is there was a phoney, inflated contract to show evil neighbor, then the real contract of what the real job would be. Says she showed him the $875 check as part of the scam to fool the neighhor, but he never actually got the check as he wasn't supposed to actually cash it, and in fact never did. Huh? His story makes no sense... but I wonder if plaintiff isn't the real scammer here and is suing for money that she never actually gave defendant. She said earlier, IIRC that she made two checks and gave contractor one as the deposit and showed him the other as proof he'd get paid when job was done - I'm assuming cashiers check not personal. Defendant is saying he didn't cash a check - can she show he did? Ah, one of those back and forth cases where as soon as I ask a question I get an answer that makes me change directions. Dude just said he didn't cash the check, in fact plaintiff never even gave him the freeking thing. When MM asks, plaintiff says he wasn't supposed to cash it (actually turns out it was a money order) but she later found out it was deposited/cashed the next day. This does NOT appear to be headed defendant's way. As we go to commercial MM is calling him a crook. We come back from commercial and dude is insisting he never had the money order given to him, all he received was a photocopy to prove it existed. Uh oh, turns out someone at his company DID deposit it.... oh no, how did that happen. So, who owns the company - oh 5 or 6 people, but not defendant - uh, is your wife one of those people - uh, yeah - so why AREN'T you? Could it maybe be there are several judgements against you? - uh yeah, maybe there are some judgements... once again MM lured some poor sap in and then trapped him in a bunch of half truths and lies. (Still think plaintiff is a nut and WAS trying to scam the neighbor by padding the bill.) Now defense has changed from she never gave us the check and we never deposited it to the new defense, we would have returned the money but were never asked. Uh, yeah, we were served with papers, but never considered picking up the phone and offering to return the money cause she didn't ask first it. Dude is really swirling down the ole toilet drain now. And now we get the "you're a crook" line. Ok, plaintiff is a nut, and a scammer... defendant is liar, scammer, and a crook - just slinging mud at plaintiff to divert attention. Forget the outrageous 5 grand claim, but she does get back the $875 for the check which was never received yet somehow deposited. Yet another time when I wonder WTH this defendant was thinking, coming on tv and looking like at best a fool. Hoboy, MM REALLY doesn't like defendant crook, she not only awards the $875 but slaps on an additional thousand in punitive damages. And what does loser have to say to Doug - well at least not the 5 grand she asked for, he's okay with the grand in punitive damages - of course, not coming out of his picket anyway. Ah, another cheap is expensive story, turns out fence defendant estimated at $1600 will cost $2600 from a reputable contractor. landlord stiffed by friend: plaintiff rented to a friend, and after 7 months finds out guy isn't paying utilities. Defendant claims nothing in their agreement said he had to pay utilities - besides place was moldy and some of his stuff was ruined. Hmmm back when I was a renter looking for a place, I always just assumed ultilities, cable etc were on me unless landlord said otherwise. Course, now that I think about it, don't think I ever rented without a written agreement. Well, this landlord DOES have a written agreement - but he's kind of hesitant about showing it as it's kind of amateurish - ah, heck, he flips through his binder and can't find it - course defendant doesn't have a copy. So, once again two friends and coworkers enter into a legally binding agreement, sue each other for breaching the agreement, and come to court without the freeking agreement - it's worse when they write it out and just don't keep or bring it. Ah, well, at least both sides agree the missing agreement didn't mention who was going to pay the utilities. Defendant even agrees he thought was supposed to pay, his excuse for not paying now is they never got around to switching the name on the bill... not sure what kind of excuse that is. Hmmm plaintiff sort of helps defendant's case when he admits there was a preexisting mold issue. Not much help, as defendant didn't raise the issue until the third month - dude was month to month, and plaintiff is suing for 7 months utilities (same thing with dude's countersuit - wants a grand in damage to personal property because of mold, but remained in the place at least 4 months after complaining). Oh, and before defendant moved in plaintiff was controlling the humidity with a dehumidifier, and he told the guy to run that if there was a problem. So, defendant goes on vacation, and when he returns everything is covered in mold (brought pictures - yep lots of mold). Hmmm was dehumidifier left on during vacation? And, still dude stayed, with wife and two youngsters, for months - remember month to month rental, so at most he was tied to place 30 days, not even that when a judge sees mold covered infant toys. At that point, big kerfuffel, they stop talking (but continue up to work together). Turns out landlord is 50/50 partner with his brother, and since the "friends" aren't talking bro steps in to mediate. His solution, according to defendant, is defendant owes about a grand in utilities and defendant claiming about the same in damage to his stuff - call it a wash and move out. Sounds reasonable, they shake on it... but also hearsay since brother is not here to testify... besides, it was plaintiff who was owed a grand in utilities, not brother. Ah, but brother wrote a letter about their little settlement agreement. Defendant doesn't have the letter, but plaintiff does.... more and more this one seems fake, as litigants seems happy when they present evidence supporting the other. Ah, but letter is really a settlement offer, move out by such and such date and we'll call it even.... dude stayed 2-3 months past the date, racking up more in utility bills each month. Oh, and his personal property damage claim about doubled. Sort of seems like at the time of what he says was a settlement agreement his damages was under $600, so I wouldn't give him any more than that... but he just kept adding to those utility bills each month. Actually, I wouldn't give him more than an estimate of what was damaged before his vacation since he knew about the mold at that time, stayed, and my guess is didn't have the AC and dehumidifier running while gone - which caused most of the damage. Ah, but of course no way to know if he left them running. MM decides to accept the $580 he claimed after his vacation, but nothing later. Plaintiff gets the utility bill (plus a little for trash removal after dude moved out) minus the $580 - around $650. (Still wonder if this might have been a fake case.) event planner case: (alternate name - battle of the wigs... plaintiff wearing Cleopatra wig, while across the aisle we have two black ladies - one platinum blond other green tinted) plaintiff hired defendant to plan her 40th bd bash event, ended up canceling the event, wants a refund on the deposit. Defendant agrees with the first part, she was hired, did the work and arranged all the details, then less than 2 weeks before the bash plaintiff canceled. This is not one of those megabucks events, plaintiff suing over $498... still, seems wrong to spend a bunch of money throwing yourself a party (worse when you sell tickets to strangers, as we've seen more than once). Plaintiff's story is she fired defendant because costs were spiralling out of control - way over the estimate defendant provided. Ah, but defendant claims not only did she do all the planning, but plaintiff actually used those plans after she fired defendant. Hmmm, guess the $498 is a $200 deposit plus a day of lost wages. Kind of hard to go from plaintiff wanting almost $300 for lost wages, to hearing about defendant travelling to plaintiff's friend's pool where the event is to be held and spending hours going over ideas for the event... even if defendant did nothing else, she wasted at least one evening. Ok, her story is they met, talked about her wants for the event, was given a quote for $1500, made a $200 deposit, and after giving the deposit (cash required) price jumped to over $2500. Instead of immediately asking for deposit back, plaintiff stews about it for 3 days, then tries to talk to defendant but defendant is dodging her. Hmmm that scenario sounds like a bait and switch, and if plaintiff's has phone records or texts backing up claim defendant was dodging her within days of taking her deposit - well doesn't sound good, and definitely not last minute cancellation as stated in intro. Ok, over to blond defendant - not liking much of anything she's saying. She's running a business, she well known for her events in Brooklyn and plaintiff knew her reputation as a great party planner, normally has written contracts and requires 50% deposit, but cut plaintiff this special deal because plaintiff knew her reputation (and no written contract, why?) Ok, defendant has problems, but then MM tells us about a problem with plaintiff's story and testimony. Seems she put in her complaint that she knew the new and revised estimate (which defendant had a reasonable explanation for) when she made the deposit. Hmmm if she knew, it wasn't a bait and switch at all. No, if, as defendant says, the $1500 was the initial estimwte, then more and more stuff was added as they talked - well, extras cost, and estimate grew to almost double. At that point, plaintiff should have slammed on the brakes and started crossing things off her dream list - not hand over $200 and go away to think about whether that was too much. Oh, and plaintiff has definitely timeline problems. Her complaint says she reached out the following day after their meeting and canceled. Her testimony her is that she waited three days before canceling. And defendant has her waiting 2 1/2 or 3 weeks before canceling. Ok, somebody is lieing or has memory problems - time to collect phones and go through texts and check dates. Ah, plaintiff trying to get over on MM and play fast and loose with the dates. Apparently what she does us send a text asking if defendant received a text two weeks earlier canceling. Course she can't show MM that earlier text, and defendant's reply is WTH, I've been working on your party all this time, out of pocket putting down deposits on stuff, now you're claiming you cancelled weeks ago!?! Really, plaintiff thought that was going to work? Surrrreee, see here's a text dated August 11(?) talking about an earlier text - no reason to scroll back and read the earlier text... heck, MM is just as likely to go back and read texts from before you even thought of throwing a party! Edited February 11, 2018 by SRTouch 5 Link to comment
AngelaHunter February 7, 2018 Share February 7, 2018 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: 'nother fence kerfuffle: seems plaintiff has ongoing feud with a neighbor over a fence. Disabled crook who can't have a bank account looking for a boe-nanza (because someone who probably watches court dramas told her she could rake in 5 times her losses. Lottery time!) conspires with shady, evasive slimy scam artist who has a bunch of cases against him, to rip off plaintiff's neighbours. He knows nothing about the money. The company handles that. JM had to pull teeth to get him to 'fess up that his WIFE is one of the owners. Really, I'm not sure who was the most repugnant. And plaintiff? Get some freaking TEETH! All four top teeth were missing. I guess corn on the cob is not on her menu. Gross. I'm sure her disability would cover that. I could not believe JM gave plaintiff punitive damages, even though def was an outrageous crook. Plaintiff was not much better. What happened to "clean hands?" 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: landlord stiffed by friend: I didn't even care that def. is a married father of two who refuses his pay his electric bills while betting hundreds of dollars on sporting events or that plaintiff has little proof of what he claims. Both of them could actually speak their language properly. What a delight. Restful, it was. 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: event planner case: ... and then we're back to "we wuz", horrific wigs, awful fake talons and about 50lbs of crusty bling. Plaintiff's story was kind of ridiculous as SRTouch outlines. I couldn't be bothered with this one. 3 Link to comment
teebax February 8, 2018 Share February 8, 2018 I'm just starting this episode, but I can't even with either litigant in the first case. Y'all know I can't look at jacked up teeth. The only thing worse is no teeth, so I had to listen instead of watching her. The defendant was a lying sack o' shit. I'm with you, Angela. No clean hands anywhere. I'd have sent them both packing since she admitted to trying to rip off her neighbor. 4 Link to comment
teebax February 8, 2018 Share February 8, 2018 I hope the plaintiff in the second case didn't bet on the Patriots this year. (sorry but I'm still giddy!) 2 Link to comment
SRTouch February 8, 2018 Share February 8, 2018 (edited) mommy sues son's lawyer: intro says plaintiff hired defendant to represent her son after he got in a fight - paid $2500 - guy did a lousy job - she wants a refund. Defendant agrees he was retained to represent the son, but says it wasn't so much a fight as attempted murder - says he couldn't present much of a defense as there was video evidence of sonny boy stomping his unconscious opponent - with spikes on his shoes. Apparently, lawyer dude took the retainer, worked on case early on and made a couple court appearances, then resigned from the case when mommy refused to come up with more money - hmmm that doesn't sound right. Wow, sounds like another parent who thinks their kid can do no wrong... and intro has me questioning ethics of the greasy hair defense lawyer. I guess mommy opened the door to his talking about son's case when she sued. Still, he should be able to show he did enough work on the case to justify being paid without discussing son's case, so is he going to really going to talk about the fight video. Don't really see mom's case having much of a chance... when you hire any professional you pay for their schooling and expertise, and a lot of what they do is done out of your sight so you really don't know WTH they've done - and lawyers don't exactly offer money back a guarantee (least they shouldn't). Yep, once testimony starts, mommy deflects all blame away from sonny, everything was other guy's fault, her kid is just a better fighter - heck she even says the fight video vindicates her son - arguing her son only stomped the guy a couple times. Uh, yeah, video shows mutual combat, shows her son retreating, but also shows son continuing after opponent was down... oh, and all through the video we get running commentary from mommy defending son. Ah, well, guess we're going to talk about son's (ongoing! Criminal) case whether we need to or not for this contract case - I mean this should be simple contract case, did lawyer earn his retainer or not? Sorry, too much like irresponsible dog owners for me - I skip ahead after watching the second video where opponent is motionless on ground, some bystander is standing there trying to stop sonny, and sonny is circling around and continues to come back to kick guy several more times. I mean, we haven't heard from lawyer, yet, why he dropped the case - may have been money like intro indicated, but I could see him wanting out after having to listen to mommy defend sonny boy while watching the video. MM has seen enough of the criminal case, so focuses on lawyer's bill... my guess is she's decided the retainer question and is now thinking ahead to the additional grand he's asking for in the countersuit. Ah, mommy likes hearing MM asks why charge so much for this or that, but when MM shifts gears and starts saying there's a lot of out of view work that goes on mommy starts shaking her head disagreeing. MM has made it clear she disagrees with a couple of the charges in the countersuit, then asks defendant what he thinks is fair - he says a grand, she agrees that sounds fair... case dismissed, lawyer gets $1000 of his $1900+... rental kerfuffle: yet another case where someone rents to a friend of a friend (or in this case relatives of gf) and ends up evicting tenants from hell and now in court looking for almost 3 grand in damages. Defendant says it was plaintiff causing all the trouble. Say when she kicked them out she put all their stuff out in the rain, so they want almost 3 grand to replace their stuff. Sooo plaintiff and her sweety are a couple of drunks, minor things like passed out drunk on the floor, trying to run over each other in their veHICkle, occasional calls to cops to mediate their drunken fights, etc. For some strange reason, plaintiff decides to rent her upsides to sweety's daughter and her main squeeze - and of course the new tenants get caught up in the drama downstairs between momma and her gf, the landlady. Ok, once testimony starts and right off the bat there's a surprise. Here I thought landlady and momma had a relationship, but nooo, more like of a fling, they were only dating for a week. Wait, not even a week - plaintiff hired momma to do some work around the house as she was in ICU recovering from her second heart surgery. Sooo, not really dating, just met, and yet decides to rent to this stranger's adult daughter, baby daddy and 20 month old kid the second floor of her house. Oh dear, this testimony doesn't sound anything like what I heard it the intro. Turns out she hired momma to help her recuperate, and rented to young couple.... then momma had all these problems, up to and including a suicide attempt and a trip to the ER.... just what someone needs when they're recovering from surgery. So (still going with plaintiff's story) she meets momma from a CL ad, they "date" for a week (at least part of that time she's in the hospital), she rents to defendants, two days after they move in she follows a blood trail and finds momma bleeding out in a closet... whoa, week from hell! Momma is put in psych ward for eval. Anyway, kind of hard to believe defendant's story about plaintiff being a wild drunk - not impossible, drunks get drunk and act like fools even when they have medical conditions (or, for all I know she may have been having some side effects from her mess that had her acting crazy) but chasing momma in her truck sounds far fetched. Anyway, daughter moves in in mid May and from the beginning nobody is happy. Plaintiff doesn't charge anything for May, so first rent is paid 1st of June - and plaintiff gives them notice 6 June that they need to move out. When daughter gets the notice to vacate, she files papers to take plaintiff to Housing Court. So, time to cross aisle and talk to defendant. Ok, now we get the "she tried to run down mamma with her truck story!" Seems that also happened 2 days after she moved in - hmmm, same day of momma's, suicide attempt. Hmmmm somebody here is wackledoodle, but I haven't figured out who. They both SOUND reasonable, but the stories couldn't be more different. Everybody agrees June Rent paid, but plaintiff says they only paid $250 in July since they were supposed to be vacating. Defendant says they paid full $750 rent for July, and give Douglas their "proof" - which proves nothing. Yet again, litigant provides "proof" which only lasts until judge glances at it, and now defendant whining "she wouldn't give us a receipt!" Ok, we're learning we can't trust defendants... but that doesn't mean plaintiff is telling the truth. Rest of the case the same... different stories, limited proof.... not sure how this mess will end, until MM starts reading defendant's texts... oh, plaintiff does NOT like MM's reactions to the texts and we get a glimpse of her "dark side" whoa, not only some nasty harsh texts, but also plaintiff apparently trying to disguise texts as being from momma. Plaintiff ends up making decision easy when she loses it and is kicked out - pausing for some parting shots with MM yelling get out! Mumble mumble Step out!! And Douglas giving her the bum's rush.... not even a visit with Doug after the case. Actually, I was so over with it that I stopped watching at the commercial break and zipped ahead for "the big boot" scene. Really, didn't realise it til now, but reason I got fed up with the case may well be that they gave it 40 minutes instead of normal 20. Anyway, guess MM found defendants caused damage, but that is offset by illegal lockout... nobody gets any money and defendants get 5 days to get the rest of their stuff out of the house.... turns out, Harvey tells us, plaintiff refused to let defendants get their stuff as per MM's order. Edited February 8, 2018 by SRTouch 1 7 Link to comment
patty1h February 8, 2018 Share February 8, 2018 (edited) 59 minutes ago, SRTouch said: rental kerfuffle: yet another case where someone rents to a friend of a friend (or in this case relatives of gf) and ends up evicted tenants from hell and now in court looking for almost 3 grand in damages. That Mahoney (first name?) dame must have been an ass-kicking sailor in a previous life. Even with a bad heart and laying in ICU, she's picking up women online and moving 'em in, she's hard drinking, has a foul mouth (as evidenced in those texts) and fighting bloody with the GF in less than a month. She scared me - she was hard as nails and I believe she could put me in a headlock and choke me out in a second. On the other hand, the woman she hooked up with sounded like a real nightmare and made Mahoney come off like another desperate person looking to have a partner, even when that partner is THE WORST! I was amused by Mahoney lumbering around the podium, when asked to let JM read her phone. She was so busy looking at the screen that she didn't even notice huge hunk Douglas there to take the phone to the judge. Edited February 8, 2018 by patty1h 1 7 Link to comment
AngelaHunter February 8, 2018 Share February 8, 2018 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: mommy sues son's lawyer: Oh, rough looking Momma: "My boy, my snowflake, my precious is a good boy. He only stomped that guy's head once or twice." I guess her son is at his fighting-est best when his opponent is unconscious on the ground. Then he'll really teach him a lesson. Okay, lawyer looked like the stereotypical, oily character but I think he earned all his money just by listening to deluded momma defend her little darling who did nothing wrong but is charged with attempted murder based on evidence in black and white. Mommy should have left well enough alone, since she has to pay lawyer another 1K. 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: rental kerfuffle: Holy moly. What a freak show. That self-described "old dyke" is pretty brutal, heart surgeries notwithstanding. Did she call the police officer an "asshole"? Yet again we see someone who is losing their case not because they're wrong, but because JM is biased against them for their colour, religion, race, sex, age, creed or sexuality. Plaintiff realizes she's losing, slicks back buzzcut and appeals to the audience. Why would JM give a shit if plaintiff picks up nutty women on CL? Only in plaintiff's mind does anyone care or want to think too much about her "sexuality." Newsflash: No one cares about anyone's sex life at all (or at least I don't) and JM always goes out of her way to be beyond Politically Correct but can't bend laws because litigants are offended. Then we have defs. Another one whose "fiance" didn't bother buying her a ring, I notice. Do people think they'll win points if they say they're engaged rather than playing house? Def's mother is not anyone's "Mother-in-law." She's your girlfriend's mother. You are her boyfriend, not her husband. But yeah, I think they swiped bathroom fixtures, and the fan thing? I have ceiling fans and can't imagine how anyone raising her arms could knock off all the blades, unless that person is exceptionally tall and strong and the ceiling is very low. Boyfriend sounded ridiculous. When I was living in an apartment I always paid my rent by cheque, so I always had a record of it. I never went and handed my landlord a fistful of cash. But of course, I wasn't banned from having a bank account for bank fraud, didn't have creditors hounding me, I wasn't collecting welfare (while having a boyfriend living with me on the sly) or declaring bankruptcy and didn't owe a bundle in fines or child support. Makes all the difference, I guess. IMO, all parties were a bunch of janky masons. 1 8 Link to comment
SRTouch February 8, 2018 Share February 8, 2018 (edited) On 2/8/2018 at 4:17 PM, AngelaHunter said: When I was living in an apartment I always paid my rent by cheque, so I always had a record of it. I never went and handed my landlord a fistful of cash. But of course, I wasn't banned from having a bank account for bank fraud, didn't have creditors hounding me, I wasn't collecting welfare (while having a boyfriend living with me on the sly) or declaring bankruptcy and didn't owe a bundle in fines or child support. Makes all the difference, I guess. Ah, you're not fun at all! Next you'll claim you have a JOB and your "residence" isn't even on wheels (oops, MY house DOES have wheels, well axles, and wheels can be mounted if I ever decide to move this here trailer.) Edited February 10, 2018 by SRTouch 1 8 Link to comment
AngelaHunter February 8, 2018 Share February 8, 2018 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: Ah, you're not fun at all! Next you'll claim you have a JOB and your "residence" isn't even on wheels I know. I'm such a bore. I had a job. It didn't pay a lot, but I paid my bills and my rent ON TIME and never got evicted or even arrested. I never lost my license or had my insurance cancelled either. I didn't think that being a young woman living alone was the best circumstances to have a bunch of kids with various sperm donors so didn't do that either. As for living on wheels: I'd do that any day before I would advertise on CL to have total strangers - who might be drug addicts, prostitutes, sexual predators or serial killers - move into my place and then be shocked that they weren't the ideal BFFS I thought they'd be. God, what an uptight drudge I always was. 1 8 Link to comment
VartanFan February 9, 2018 Share February 9, 2018 Smarmy tow truck driver from Monday - I swear we’ve seen him on here before. He and his ‘punch me’ face looked so familiar. 2 Link to comment
teebax February 9, 2018 Share February 9, 2018 Oh, there are plenty of people who care about other people's sex lives. But Marilyn isn't one of them. (That's for Angela since I can't quote right now.) That plaintiff was a disgrace to all of us "old dykes." She's vile. 5 Link to comment
DoctorK February 9, 2018 Share February 9, 2018 6 hours ago, teebax said: That plaintiff was a disgrace to all of us "old dykes." She's vile. She was a disgrace to just about any category of humans (and even some animal species). 7 Link to comment
AZChristian February 9, 2018 Share February 9, 2018 4 hours ago, DoctorK said: She was a disgrace to just about any category of humans (and even some animal species). So . . . Harvey said she would not allow the defendants to get their stuff, in spite of JM's order. So wouldn't it be fun to see a new episode with the former defendants as plaintiffs and the former plaintiff as defendant? How quickly would JM order the old lady to pay for the "$5,000 worth of stuff" that had been in the barn? 3 Link to comment
Florinaldo February 9, 2018 Share February 9, 2018 11 minutes ago, AZChristian said: So . . . Harvey said she would not allow the defendants to get their stuff, in spite of JM's order. What happens in such instances: does the show withhold her share of the awards kitty because she breached the contract she signed with them, in which she agrees to abide by MM's decision? Perhaps that share reverts to the other litigants. 1 Link to comment
AZChristian February 9, 2018 Share February 9, 2018 2 minutes ago, Florinaldo said: What happens in such instances: does the show withhold her share of the awards kitty because she breached the contract she signed with them, in which she agrees to abide by MM's decision? Perhaps that share reverts to the other litigants. That's what Judge Judy does . . . and she announces that right on the show. I assume MM would do the same . . . but have no facts. In this case, the plaintiff would have violated her "binding arbitration" contract with TPC, and should forfeit even her appearance fee. 1 Link to comment
AngelaHunter February 9, 2018 Share February 9, 2018 4 hours ago, DoctorK said: She was a disgrace to just about any category of humans (and even some animal species). Exactly. She'd be a disgrace even if she were a Venusian. 2 Link to comment
Florinaldo February 9, 2018 Share February 9, 2018 1 hour ago, AZChristian said: In this case, the plaintiff would have violated her "binding arbitration" contract with TPC, and should forfeit even her appearance fee. It all depends on when the money is paid out. The "apperance fee" can be simply payment for travel and hotel room expenses, which should be made at the moment they are incurred (the show probably makes the arrangements and reservations under agreements with hotels and airlines or other transportation companies). But they cannot know in advance if the person will comply with the order until the decision is fully executed. There may be provisions in the contract which says that the award money will be forked over only when every obligation under the decision has been fulfilled. Link to comment
AZChristian February 9, 2018 Share February 9, 2018 2 minutes ago, Florinaldo said: It all depends on when the money is paid out. The "apperance fee" can be simply payment for travel and hotel room expenses, which should be made at the moment they are incurred (the show probably makes the arrangements and reservations under agreements with hotels and airlines or other transportation companies). But they cannot know in advance if the person will comply with the order until the decision is fully executed. There may be provisions in the contract which says that the award money will be forked over only when every obligation under the decision has been fulfilled. A wikipedia article (not sure from when) says that the losing party will receive a mimimal fee (between $50 and $250 was the amount quoted) for their appearance. I suspect that that is above and beyond the travel expenses. Most fees like that (and game show winnings) are held until the program is actually aired. My favorite JJ episode included a ruling from her that if the losing defendant did not return a dog to the winning plaintiff (def was heard to say, "She ain't gettin' that dog back" as JJ left the bench), the return airline tickets for him and his girlfriend/witness would be cancelled immediately. JJ said, "When I receive word from Plantiff's representative back home that the dog is in her possession, I will release the plane ticket so you can go home. Otherwise, you'll find your own way back to Seattle. Do we understand each other?" Defendant's swagger went away and he agreed. Didn't look like such a big man in front of his gf after that, when a 100-pound woman took him down on national TV. 7 Link to comment
SRTouch February 9, 2018 Share February 9, 2018 26 minutes ago, AZChristian said: My favorite JJ episode included a ruling from her that if the losing defendant did not return a dog to the winning plaintiff (def was heard to say, "She ain't gettin' that dog back" as JJ left the bench), the return airline tickets for him and his girlfriend/witness would be cancelled immediately. JJ said, "When I receive word from Plantiff's representative back home that the dog is in her possession, I will release the plane ticket so you can go home. Otherwise, you'll find your own way back to Seattle. Do we understand each other?" Defendant's swagger went away and he agreed. Didn't look like such a big man in front of his gf after that, when a 100-pound woman took him down on national TV. Yep, a favorite of mine... which I would have totally missed - as the case ended - JJ left the bench - I stopped watching - came here and read comments - thought WTH is everyone talking about - went back to watch the ending - JJ came back out and laid into the defendant and announced no ticket for you or gf until the staff has confirmation from Seattle that dog has been returned - return dog or start hoofing it! (Ah, the joys of DVRs!) Ranks right up there with episode where she tells Byrd to hold the skinny puppy (and Byrd says, hurry you know I don't like puppies, as it licks his face) and ends up telling feuding/neglectful litigants neither deserves to keep the dog - then she finds a new home for the pup - and had to provide an update because so many folks wanted to hear where pup ended up. 3 Link to comment
Florinaldo February 9, 2018 Share February 9, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, AZChristian said: My favorite JJ episode included a ruling from her that if the losing defendant did not return a dog to the winning plaintiff (def was heard to say, "She ain't gettin' that dog back" as JJ left the bench), the return airline tickets for him and his girlfriend/witness would be cancelled immediately. I was thinking of that one also, but the difference was that the defendant announced his intention not to abide by the ruling. In this case, it appears like the plaintiff's pigheadedness was revaled much later. If fees are withheld until broadcast as you report, it would leave enough time for the show to know if all parties fulfilled their obligations under their contract. 22 hours ago, SRTouch said: mommy sues son's lawyer: She seemed so proud of the fact that her offspring stood his ground and, like a real man, was hitting someone else. In many ways, she reminded me of those pet owners who always find excuses for their animal's behaviour, blame the other side for everything and minimise the events and the extent of damage. I am surprised she did not bring a picture of him, showing how good he is with small children, as those dumb pet owners often do. JM should have let all of the lawyer's fees stand. I am sure he must have earned every penny with that client and his mother who seemed to think that he had an obligation of results, instead of an obligation of means, but that is not how such services work. He may not have come across as the brightest member of the legal professions, but he did not apear to be a crook, even if his paperwork was not all there. ETA: My comparison to pet owners seems even more apt considering her son acted like an animal, repeatedly bashing that downed guy in the head, spiked shoes or not. Edited February 9, 2018 by Florinaldo 5 Link to comment
SRTouch February 9, 2018 Share February 9, 2018 all that cat talk in the other group and I almost had to postpone today's recap - yep, Furby (that's her in the picture by my name) was in my TV watching spot and I had to wait for her to wake up and move.... what do you mean my cats are spoiled!? broken family/INS case: intro indicates this is basically a suit over defendant not performing a service as promised. Plaintiff says defendant promised to help plaintiff get her kids into the country from Haiti, and she wants 5 grand because family hasn't been reunited. Uh oh, if that's close to what case is about it's going to be playing to MM's weakness about families. (Uh, and my cat prejudice - look, she's got a bag with kitten pictutes!) Defendant says he did everything he could, but reason he failed to get the kids into the country is plaintiff provided falsified birth certificates. Have to wonder, what qualifies this guy to charge $5,000 to help deal with INS? Sure there are people who make a living dealing with bureaucratic red tape, including high priced lawyers who specialize in Immigration issues, but my understanding is that there are a lot of volunteer/low cost organizations. First thought is that there are undoubtedly a lot of unscrupulous scammers waiting in the wings to prey on people who may be lost in the bureaucratic maze. Yesterday's lawyer, IIRC, was charging $300 an hour, and was probably not out of line... unless this guy is a highly trained/schooled specialist I'm not giving him 5 grand to fill out some forms without proof of a lot of time working for the lady. Ok, time to listen to testimony (and probably see crocodile tears - get the tissues out Douglas) - oh, and turn on CC as I expect thick accents. Ok, right off the bat - not talking plaintiff momma being separated from her children - no, these are 20-30yo nieces/nephews. (Whew, I was thinking must be some cold hearted bxstxards in INS! Keeping little kids from mom - now we learn not only are they adults, but not even her kids - though she says she was close before she came to the States. Doesn't help defendant much, though, as makes me suspect a scam even more.) Not really having much success deciphering plaintiff's testimony, but luckily MM turns to defendant - much easier to understand - but my oh my doesn't he sound like a con man, with his "my name is Smith Georges and I'm the President of the Haitian American International Chamber of Commerce," and I quickly google him - didn't learn much except that both he and the Chamber are listed and that he had a GoFundMe account for earthquake relief. (Is it just me? I hate these accounts asking for donations where there is no accountability. His stated goal was $1000, raised over 2 grand, but have no idea if any of that actually went towards relief efforts.) Seems he's something of a big fish in the NY/Haitian community and makes his living off.... not sure what... he puts on seminars, has a Saturday public service program on local tv, and apparently charges thousands of dollars promising people he can bring their extended family to the States. Sorry, once he got to how plaintiff hugged for two minutes when they met.... not sure why he thought it would help his defense, all I thought was how desperate she must have been to run up and hug this stranger who held out the hope that he could help her family, and got mad that he not only didn't help, but charged her 5 grand. More he talks, worse he looks to me... she had a crush on me... invited me to dinner, yada yada I stop watching and zip ahead. Hmmm oh, this is dude from the previews who gives seminars how how to set up and run businesses and MM gives a hard time... seems while telling folks how to run their business, part of his defense is he can't return her money as he's declaring bankruptcy. Ok, con man with another con - make big promises, when enough people call you on it, declare bankruptcy, rewind, set up some new LLC and start up new elsewhere. Hell, he may get run out of NY, but there are a lot of cities with pocket Haitian communities he can transfer his scam to.... ok, only watched bits and pieces, so could be all wrong, but that's my take. At 20 minutes mark, when case should be ending, I watch a little more and con man is being asked, repeatedly, did he tell plaintiff he needed her to pay for his plane ticket to Haiti because he had a problem with his credit card - this was after she gave him 5 grand! Not sure if he ever got around to answering the question, once he started in again with she had a crush on me, was throwing money at me, offering me a new car, etc I zip zip some more. Ok ran another 5 minutes, but eventually next case starts... oh, didn't stop to hear the decision, but plaintiff got her 5 grand and sang praises to all TV judges everywhere when she got to Doug. ah, bad car deal: oh dear, it's my day off, I need to run the Bissell to clean up couple hair ball spots, and plaintiff is asking for almost 5 grand for a $1300 car purchase. Ah, CL/personal sale/as is/ and cheat the tax man by claiming sale price was $350. Ok, zip ahead and maybe watch later.... yeah, probably watch later just to watch the hutzpa of plaintiff. Seems he asked for over $700 in rental car fees - for borrowing a car from a friend - no really judge, I know I don't have a recipt, but I paid him, you can call him. Surprise - case dismissed - well, sort of. Turns out this jurisdiction requires seller to get car smuggled before the sell. If he doesn't, he has to pay what it costs after the sale. Not sure about now, but at one time California would make seller pay even if the cost of repair exceeded purchase price. almost an iPhone sale: not even starting to watch this one, maybe later after I finish my errands and carpet cleaning. What 30 seconds of intro says is plaintiff bought used iPhone from defendant - but defendant still owes money on phone so he can't get it unlocked to use the phone. Uh, WTH, why didn't defendant return the money - yeah, maybe one of those, I know I owe but got no money. Zip ahead, MM says sale never happened - return phone - return money - go eat lunch. Though Doug gets defendant to flash her shoulder tat on the way - another thing I'll never understand about tattoos - people choosing wardrobe which makes others wonder WTH it is. Ok, I get the peak a boo tat at a club or beach... but why in court? But then, how often do I understand litigant's wardrobe choices? I mean, at least wear business casual clothing - which DOES NOT include plunging neckline showing LOTS of cleavage and part of your tatty tat. 1 5 Link to comment
Silver Raven February 9, 2018 Share February 9, 2018 16 minutes ago, SRTouch said: MM says sale never happened - return phone - return money - go eat lunch. Was it sushi? 4 Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.