AngelaHunter April 5, 2018 Share April 5, 2018 18 minutes ago, Katy M said: It's corny, old, and unfunny, but I wouldn't call it insulting or disrespectful. I think it is. If I were standing there as plaintiff and heard Levin say about me, "Copper/Jumper/Liquor? - he hardly knew 'er!" I'd be infuriated. How dare that little shit? 7 Link to comment
aemom April 5, 2018 Share April 5, 2018 33 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said: I think it is. If I were standing there as plaintiff and heard Levin say about me, "Copper/Jumper/Liquor? - he hardly knew 'er!" I'd be infuriated. How dare that little shit? Seriously, I would pay money to watch AngelaHunter dress down Levin in real life. 5 Link to comment
AngelaHunter April 5, 2018 Share April 5, 2018 (edited) 48 minutes ago, AEMom said: Seriously, I would pay money to watch AngelaHunter dress down Levin in real life. Well, let's just say I'd bring a shaving cream pie (would never waste whipped cream on that little POS) in with me so I could shove it in his ugly face on the way out. "HE HARDLY KNEW 'ER!" I wonder if he stands on a box out there the way Judge Wapner said he used to on his show? Edited April 5, 2018 by AngelaHunter 2 Link to comment
Brattinella April 5, 2018 Share April 5, 2018 4 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said: I wonder if he stands on a box out there the way Judge Wapner said he used to on his show? LMFAO!! I had forgotten that! 2 Link to comment
AngelaHunter April 6, 2018 Share April 6, 2018 28 minutes ago, Brattinella said: LMFAO!! I had forgotten that! Found it! Here's the wonderful Judge Wapner, commenting on short-ass Levin's "little box" (of course it was little!) and how Levin "loves to make comments." 4 Link to comment
SRTouch April 6, 2018 Share April 6, 2018 1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said: Found it! Here's the wonderful Judge Wapner, commenting on short-ass Levin's "little box" (of course it was little!) and how Levin "loves to make comments." Love it... and then watched a couple of the other clips which showed up at the end - and remembered watching them on the show. 3 Link to comment
SRTouch April 9, 2018 Share April 9, 2018 (edited) ah, new cases! towing fiasco: plaintiff, Larry, is suing tow company for $272.18. Says he's handicapped, and evil tow company goons caused such great hardship towing his car that he couldn't afford Christmas present - or even his medication. Tow company goon says Larry parked in a well posted (claims there are 36 signs) private lot. The multitude of signs all say it's a private lot for customers only. Larry parked, then left the premises to go do business somewhere other than the resturant owning the lot. (Turns out resturant had gone out of business - which really has no bearing on case.) Seems pretty simple - if lot is posted Larry has no case... and actually, depending on where this lot is, $300 doesn't sound THAT outrageous for towing an illegally parked car. Ok, maybe not so clear cut - if it was it wouldn't have been picked to go on air. Way Larry tells it, he went there planning to eat at the resturant - parking in the handicapped spot (says he has all the proper handicap permits) - went around to the door and found resturant was closed. He decides to duck next door to JC Pennys, after all the resturant manager has let him park there and run errands in the past. Yep, he's a serial parking violator... he got away with it in the past, why not leave his car illegally parked where it is since the lot is otherwise empty? Anyway, I gather it's Black Friday - all the LEGAL parking places at Pennys are full. Ok, I get that, may have taken my chances and done the same thing. Yeah, I'd be miffed if my vehicle was towed from an otherwise empty lot, but, hey, if the lot is posted it's posted - tow goon is just doing the job he was hired to do... Larry broke the rule one too many times... MM wastes time trying to get one Larry to see that he can't just park wherever it's convenient for him, especially on private property... even when the place is closed and he just wants to go next door for 10 minutes... nope, in one ear and out the other - Larry figures he's above the rules. Over to tow guy... we actually have both the company owner and the evil goon who did the deed. Ok, MM asks, did they have a spotter watching the empty lot who called in as soon as poor Larry stepped off the premises? Nooo, your honor, no spotter - someone called in reporting illegally parked vehicle requesting a tow. Ah, SOMEbody's lieing here - the timelines don't sync. Tow guys say call came in 15 minutes before Larry says he arrived. Oh, and despite Larry saying the lot belonged to the out-of-business resturant, turns out the lot is shared by three resturants - 2 of them still in business. So far I'm buying tow guy's story. I can see one of the other resturant's managers arriving to get things ready for the lunch hour rush, seeing Larry's car in the lot, and calling tow company asking for it to be gone before his customers start arriving (or, like in the case where I work, the 18 wheeler supply truck pulls in to make weekly delivery expecting an empty lot and finds Larry parked in the way.) Ah, but I guess this time it was the property manager for property where the businesses are located that called it in - yep, I can see that, too. My Dad used to have a part time job after he retired where he went to check a strip mall every morning before the businesses opened up. Oh dear, poor Larry never had much of a case, but the little bit he had is getting blown out of the water. Tow guy really seems to have his bases covered. He has the contracts showing he's been hired to tow illegally parked cars from the lot, and turns out property manager was on hand when tow driver hooked up Larry's car and signed an authorization for the tow. Oh, and the $275 that I said didn't seem TOO outrageous - actually that's for two tows. Seems the original tow was $125 plus tax, but Larry paid for them to tow his car back from impound - so he was charged for a second tow. Now silly Larry is arguing with MM when it's obvious to everyone she's about to toss the case. Only question is... is this going to be a short case, is there a switcheroo coming, or is MM just going to drag this out for the next 8 minutes? Ah, a short case, as MM announces Larry has wasted enough of everyone's time, makes a quick ruling, and walks out. Poor Larry is dumfounded, and has to laugh at the abrupt ending, "oh, God, that was rough!" wages/loan case: plaintiff, Steve, says defendant owes 4 grand - combination of payment for 15 days of work and a loan. Defendant, Balram Ramsunhoye, denies everything - says Steve was just helping him out, never agreed to pay for the help, and there was never any loan. (Poor Balram must be freezing, has his down jacket zipped ALL the way up.) Course, Steve has no evidence - I mean Balram was like family. Apparently, Steve's regular job as a doorman was kind of slow, so when he heard Balram needed someone to drive him around for awhile. Not sure what Balram's deal is, as it seems to cause him pain to answer in complete sentences when MM asks him anything. MM, trying to find out why B needed a driver, you don't drive? B, yes ma'am MM, do you drive? B, yes ma'am MM why did you need a driver? B, my hand (mumble mumble) - turned on CC and it interpreted the mumble as (indistinct) when asked, Steve says the agreement was $120 a day to drive him around (must be the "like family" rate). Course, B says they never discussed payment, says Steve was just doing it out of the goodness of his heart ("we never arranged no payment" - guess that's sort of a sentence)... yeah, Steve wasn't making it on his doorman pay, so decided why not work for free and drive Ole B around. Oh dear, we were better off when he wasn't talking - English IS NOT this guy's forte. Somewhere in his mangled answer, he admits to paying Steve $100 a day while he was paying - but Steve says there's 15 days where he didn't get paid. Ok, can anyone tell me WTH B does that he needs a driver? He says he was "doing a guy's house" - but what does that mean if his hand was (mumble mumble) and he couldn't drive - maybe a contractor with a crew?. According to Steve, he drove B for months right up until Steve had a wreck and was hurt - while running an errand for B, but B wasn't in the car.... ok, totally lost here, no evidence, conflicting stories, stories I hear make no sense... wow, weeks of reruns and second new case has me reaching for the remote. Zip zip. Ah, apparently B stops paying when Steve had the accident, says Steve was texting while driving and alcohol was involved.... hmmm thought he wasn't there, is that an assumption or does he know Steve was boozing and texting? Anyway, that's when things fell apart and he stops paying. Ah, and B comes up with a new way to address MM - he calls her Your Worship, Your Honor - which of course she likes. Hmmm now she wants to know about the alleged $1500 loan that broke ass Steve made to his sort of boss. Ok, more nonsense that makes no sense. Steve doesn't answer the question of where he got $1500 to loan B, he's too busy mud slinging about how B needed to pay the lawyer for the trouble B was in. Hmmmm what trouble? Did I zip past that or is this just mud slinging? Something tells me it's just BS, as MM is having trouble keeping a straight face. More nonsense - and sounds like maybe bank fraud where B wrote Steve a $700 check, told Steve it was rubber, but cash it anyway because sometimes the bank slips up and gives you the money when there's insufficient funds. From Steve's own mouth B is guilty of writing a check knowing get it wasn't good - but Steve tries to cash it after being told it was no good. Tsk tsk, Stevie Boy, you can get in trouble cashing checks you know are going to bounce. Hmmm maybe MM heard something I zipped through, as it sounds like she's considering paying Steve for driving even as I'm thinking everybody has dirty hands and making no sense. (I agree that B probably owes $700, why else did he write the bogus check). Ah, then Stevie screws up, contradicting the "running an errand for B and had an accident" story when the schedule he hands in shows he didn't even work that week. Ok, B is pissed his van was wrecked and wants to withhold some of the driving money, whether it's $120 or $100, but he's so mad his story here is nonsense (still have no idea what he does that he was willing to be driven around). Steve is also full of crap, cause he is pulling dates out of thin air - and nobody believes the $1500 loan story. Been awhile since we heard the "wouldn't believe even if tongues were notarized" line, but she throws that out yoday. MM tosses most of the 4 grand case, just makes B make the rubber check good. Ah, but ruling doesn't go smoothly, as now B is saying Steve is threatening to vandalize his vehicle (or maybe already has - not clear on THAT either). Oh, and a new element, which came to late in the case for MM to explore, Steve's "best friend" turns out to be B's wife... could the hard feelings between these guys be linked to some inappropriate canoodling. contractor/handyman flues a job: uh oh, this one may play into MM's old folks soft spot. Seems plaintiff hired defendant to work on 93yo dad's deck - power wash and repaint. Defendant did a poor prep job, and paint is peeling - suing for 3 grand. Whoa, says defendant - he did Dad's deck three years ago. Hmmm, maybe conflicting soft spots... old folks soft spot versus family history of contractors. Testimony starts with plaintiff telling us how defendant is a roofing contractor who had previously done good work for the family - but his deck job sucks big time. He argues the paint started flaking off within the first year - and, oh my, his pictures look bad. Only way I see maybe giving defendant a pass (even with the 3 year claim in the intro) is if plaintiff has taken a pressure washer to the deck. Uh oh, contractor is in trouble here. He's the professional here, just said he used a product sold by Home Depot specifically made for decks and that the product should last several years.... but he can't answer when asked about a warranty - duh, if I had an unhappy customer - especially a customer whose family is had done work for in the past - I think I might have checked about a warranty before being dragged into court. Geez, the side with the warranty information is the homeowner (well, the son)... product is "very expensive" and should last ten years. (Product is Deckover - yep, kind of pricey, google says $162 for 5 gal - I did my deck 3 years ago with a mid range Sherwood Williams deck paint and mine looks way better than his pictures - BTW, I skipped prepping my deck, or it would probably look better instead of needing to be redone.) Hoboy, plaintiff is like tow guy in previous case - he's prepared - contracts, warranty info, canceled check, even email from years ago when he first complained - less than a year after job was done (remember 10 year warranty), not to forget pictures. Only problem with the email - it's not to contractor asking for him to make the job right, instead it's to plaintiff's brother asking bro to contact contractor. Doesn't matter, though, as contractor helpfully admits that the family was complaining less than a year after the job was done (so much for intro saying 3 years). Oh, and the pictures plaintiff has were taken way back when during the summer after job completion. Contractor dude is going down this time - only question is how much is he going to have to pay. And why in the world didn't he storm down to Home Depot demanding they honor the warranty for his customer when he received the complaints. Instead, he's standing here in court arguing he did the job correctly, prepped it per instruction, applied it correctly... and MM is holding up the photo saying you couldn't have if it looks like this 10 months later. Not often I say give a full refund, but that's where I'm leaning - yep, that's the ruling - full refund. Hallterview has plaintiff still sticking up for defendant, saying maybe this was just a new product for him as he's a roofer not a deck guy. Edited April 9, 2018 by SRTouch 7 Link to comment
AngelaHunter April 9, 2018 Share April 9, 2018 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: Says he's handicapped, and evil tow company goons caused such great hardship towing his car that he couldn't afford Christmas present - or even his medication. Yes, he's so handicapped that he could park wherever it was easy, and then cross the street in the wind and the rain to do a little shopping. He needed an umbrella. Why, if he just was planning to go the restaurant but found it was closed? Wouldn't he just go home, especially with his handicap and all. Well, Black Friday can overcome a lot. How dare the tow company tow his illegally parked car? BTW, I'm pretty sure we've seen def here before. Go home Larry. You struck out. 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: wages/loan case: I couldn't understand the def and the extremely oily plaintiff was annoying. I'm with JM - I wouldn't belive anything either of them said, except for proof in black white in the form of a 700$ check. 1200$ in interest? Even the Mob would be gobsmacked at the nerve of that. The only good part was def. calling JM "Your Worship." That may be how judges are addressed in his country and maybe he's had enough dealings with the legal system to call her that. 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: contractor/handyman flues a job: Plaintiff had all his evidence neatly catalogued and def was a pin-headed mumbling idiot who made an utter fool of himself as he gave ridiculous excuses as to why the 3000$ job he did was utter crap. Yeah, we know it's not your fault, Yogi, but I painted my own deck by myself about 7 years ago - with decking paint from the hardware store that was 34$/gallon and somehow it's not peeling at all. Go figure. I accidentally forgot to hit "mute" at the beginning of this case and caught Leven shrieking, "WHAT A DECK!" Omg, Levin - that was so freaking funny I laughed til I cried. A play on words, right, Harvey? You really meant "What a dick" didn't you, you sly, clever fox? Right? I got it! You're so funny! I bet all your little nit-witted fanclub in the doorway were just in stitches. 7 Link to comment
Broderbits April 9, 2018 Share April 9, 2018 That last case was very interesting to me because I used DeckOver last spring to cover the hideous color the previous owners used on my deck, and it's peeling just like the plaintiff's photos. I freely admit to being a rank amateur at the job, but am disappointed in the quality of the product (plus it was a total pain in the ass to apply). It seems like the peeling is due to the thickness of the product - it's much thicker than stain or paint, kind of the consistency of instant grits. I can imagine the deck would have to be sanded for it to adhere properly. But it only cost me about $50 for materials; where does the defendant get off charging $3000 for a job like that? That's insane. 5 Link to comment
babs j. April 9, 2018 Share April 9, 2018 On Black Friday I don't go NEAR any retail store - not on Friday, Saturday, or Sunday. That's one of the nice things about being retired - and even before I retired I didn't go shopping any of those 3 days. 7 Link to comment
DoctorK April 9, 2018 Share April 9, 2018 Just to add my two cents worth on Deck-Over. I have recently used it on some 20 year old decking. The required prep is very demanding. I sanded with 40 grit belt sander, pressure washed, then used the recommended (not cheap!) wood cleaner/prep. Let it dry through two sunny days then applied the first coat, working it down in to cracks and crevices with a brush. Let it dry the recommended 6 hours then rolled on a second coat. It has been a couple of months, so far so good and I have dragged stuff like a small shed across it. It is pricey (about $35 for a gallon which covers about 75 square feet. So far I only fault it only for its fantasy based claim that it will fill in holes and cracks up to 1/4". Unless mine starts to deteriorate over the next year, I will stick with the belief that the defendant didn't understand the product and did not prep the deck correctly. 29 minutes ago, Broderbits said: It seems like the peeling is due to the thickness of the product Sounds logical, it is a thick coating, and since it cleans up with water, I suspect that if applied on damp wood, the surface layer dries while the the damp wood never forms a good bond with the product. 4 Link to comment
Brattinella April 9, 2018 Share April 9, 2018 1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said: I accidentally forgot to hit "mute" at the beginning of this case and caught Leven shrieking, "WHAT A DECK!" Omg, Levin - that was so freaking funny I laughed til I cried. A play on words, right, Harvey? You really meant "What a dick" didn't you, you sly, clever fox? Right? I got it! You're so funny! I bet all your little nit-witted fanclub in the doorway were just in stitches. Well, Levin just stole that bit from the Blue Collar Comedy Tour. Jeff Foxworthy and 3 other comedians. So Harvey, you cannot get credit for this. 3 Link to comment
AngelaHunter April 9, 2018 Share April 9, 2018 3 minutes ago, Brattinella said: So Harvey, you cannot get credit for this. Is there anything for which we can give the wee dirtbag credit? Stick to sucking on your giant sippy-cup and impressing your posse of moronic teenagers on your execrable TMZ, Levin and STFU. 47 minutes ago, Broderbits said: where does the defendant get off charging $3000 for a job like that? That's insane. I had someone sand my deck down to raw wood and he charged me only 350$. Of course I did the painting because, well, I'm cheap, but had he done it it would have been nowhere near that price, especially had he screwed it all up. 5 Link to comment
meowmommy April 9, 2018 Share April 9, 2018 1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said: Yes, he's so handicapped that he could park wherever it was easy, and then cross the street in the wind and the rain to do a little shopping. He needed an umbrella. Why, if he just was planning to go the restaurant but found it was closed? Wouldn't he just go home, especially with his handicap and all. Why he thought the handicapped permit made any difference, I do not know. They didn't tow it because the meanies decided it didn't belong in a handicapped space, they towed it because it was in a private lot and he wasn't patronizing the owners of the lot. And then he complained the signs were too far away so he didn't know the lot restrictions, but at the same time he said he's been to the restaurant a million times and the owner always let him park there. So which is it? Why are tow companies always represented by bald guys with gravelly voices? Who goes to JCPenney on freaking Black Friday because they suddenly decide they need an umbrella? Where does MM go where Black Friday shopping starts at 6 am? Why isn't she out standing on line the night before so she can be there when the doors open at 4 am? [I feel like I'm mentoring the next generation of TPC! Just now my DD walked in and started asking questions about the case. I said, do you want to watch it with me from now on, and she said yes! Hee! Warned her that I FF through the coming ups, the hallterviews, and Levin.] 1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said: I couldn't understand the def and the extremely oily plaintiff was annoying. DD enjoyed this case way more than I did. I should have her posting. 1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said: Plaintiff had all his evidence neatly catalogued and def was a pin-headed mumbling idiot who made an utter fool of himself as he gave ridiculous excuses as to why the 3000$ job he did was utter crap. Last time I did anything with a deck, it cost $1200 to build the damn thing. FWIW, MM seems to have corrected her unfortunate hair color choice. 4 Link to comment
Broderbits April 9, 2018 Share April 9, 2018 57 minutes ago, DoctorK said: Unless mine starts to deteriorate over the next year, I will stick with the belief that the defendant didn't understand the product and did not prep the deck correctly. Agree with you completely and admit that I am guilty of the same shoddy prep work ;-) At least I didn't overcharge myself! 6 Link to comment
AngelaHunter April 10, 2018 Share April 10, 2018 1 hour ago, meowmommy said: Why he thought the handicapped permit made any difference, I do not know. Clearly he was looking for a sympathy judgement, just like the old guys who trot out their medals and declare they were a branch of the service and well, every single silly woman who announces she's a sainted Single Mother or just gave birth to quintuplets. Today's old fraud found out that doesn't work and instead got ripped a new one, which he deserved. 1 hour ago, meowmommy said: Last time I did anything with a deck, it cost $1200 to build the damn thing. Like - yeah! If washing and painting a deck is worth 3K, I'll start offering my services this year. Guess the roofer numnuts just thought, "I'll soak 'em for as much as I can," probably never expecting them to agree to that crazy price. Oh, and when I got my deck sanded and cleaned, I didn't ask the guys who put up my roof to do it. 2 Link to comment
DoctorK April 10, 2018 Share April 10, 2018 2 hours ago, Broderbits said: At least I didn't overcharge myself! LOL 1 Link to comment
Silver Raven April 10, 2018 Share April 10, 2018 3 hours ago, Brattinella said: Well, Levin just stole that bit from the Blue Collar Comedy Tour. Jeff Foxworthy and 3 other comedians. So Harvey, you cannot get credit for this. A propos of nothing ... 2 Link to comment
AZChristian April 10, 2018 Share April 10, 2018 2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: Like - yeah! If washing and painting a deck is worth 3K, I'll start offering my services this year. Guess the roofer numnuts just thought, "I'll soak 'em for as much as I can," probably never expecting them to agree to that crazy price. Oh, and when I got my deck sanded and cleaned, I didn't ask the guys who put up my roof to do it. During my pre-retirement days, I was exposed to this type of price gouging when inspecting air conditioner installations, and referred to them as a "senior citizen surcharge." We old folks are susceptible to being taken advantage of. 5 Link to comment
SRTouch April 10, 2018 Share April 10, 2018 (edited) not my baby! Plaintiff court ordered to pay child support, demands DNA test, and it turns out baby daddy is somebody else. Problem is, he has already paid a couple grand in support, and is suing to get it back. Defendant argues it's his own fault that the DNA test was delayed. Says plaintiff missed multiple appointments to be tested, causing case to drag out and wasting everybody's time and money. Says the judge in the case finally got fed up and ordered the support to force Mr Not My Baby to show up and get tested. Does this nonsense belong in a small claims court - which is where these cases are supposed to come from? I'm no legal expert, but shouldn't the court order be reversed in the court that issued it, or a higher court after an appeal. Oh well, not my kind of case - there's actually a court TV show for this type of nonsense where litigants argue paternity and ends up with judge announcing the results.... don't watch that show, not watching this case. I end up watching the ruling, and actually learned something which makes sense when I think about it. Oh, case is dismissed as expected. First, as expected MM says she doesn't have jurisdiction. Second is what I had to think on. We always say the child support money is the kid's money, not the parent's. MM tells us that many States' case law has established that you can't get support money back, because the money should have already been used for support of the child... so it any money that is returned would be from the kid's support. Which isn't happening as it's not the baby's fault. Neither is it mommy's fault that the earlier court ordered him to pay. Now, what is both litigants' fault is the fact that they both engage in casual unprotected sex... but that's a whole 'nother rant which I'm not ranting at this time. big bad little mad biker momma: this one is about a woman who buys a couple mopeds without realizing it. She says she was in the market for a moped, went to defendant's shop, took a couple for a test drive, and when she decided not to buy them defendant told her she already had. Both sides stories are incredible and hard to believe. First, we have plaintiff who says she thought she was just putting down a deposit that defendant would hold to make sure she didn't ride off into the sunset.... uh, but why would they give her the titles for the test drive. Then we have defendant, who owns a moped repair shop, but sells them on the side. He insists she just developed buyer's remorse and he has the contract to prove it... oh, you mean she was supposed to sign it? Uh, yeah, a contract isn't binding til it's signed. Anyway, turns out lady took the two (new) mopeds for a ride, both had mechanical problems, decided not to buy. When she asks for deposit back, she's told she already bought them, but the shop will fix the problems... big blowup/hissy fit/kerfuffle. Oops, sounds like these Idjits never had a meeting of the minds.... and all the above is from intro and previews and may be (usually is) wrong. Oh, and not to forget, defendant gets called out when MM catches him in a lie "we NEVER allow test drives" oh, but here's the document plaintiff was given when she took her TEST DRIVE. Not to be out done, plaintiff also gets caught lying... all this time insisting she was only test drove the mpoeds, but then she presents a police report (yep, cops called to scene of hissy fit) oops, forgot she told cop that she had "purchased" the mopeds and rotten cop actually wrote that in his report. Skipping ahead, he says he reviewed security video of her hissy fit when she was told she had bought the moped... oh good, says MM, you have video!... uh, no, that was a year ago and since then a power surge ate the video. Uh, right off the bat, soon as testimony begins we have problems. Turns out all plaintiff's dealing were with Mike, she sued "Mike," so who is this guy at defendant's table and where's MIKE!?! Turns out, Mike is a mechanic and employee at defendant's shop... hmmm would have been kind of nice if Mike was here to tell his story as defendant has no first hand knowledge - and no video. Case would be easy slam dunk if all the plaintiff wanted was to undo the the deal. Ah, but she ended up taking the bikes, paying to get one fixed, using them for a year - and she figures she's due almost three grand cause defendant stuck her with a couple lemons - one of which gets stolen. Ok, entertaining case as litigants trip all over themselves, and end up helping other side. Plaintiff ends up winning, but not the almost three grand. Turns out defendant helped plaintiff's case when he corrected the judge and said these were both brand new mopeds. Soooo, rules MM, as brand new mopeds they should have had a warranty (he says they DO have a warranty, but her problem is not covered). So defendant ends up having to pay for the repair bill plaintiff produced. Defendant is NOT HAPPY! He wants to see the repair bill receipts. During hallterview he insists he told the truth "I could take a lie detector test... I could take a drug test... I'm clean and I don't lie!" If this was a cartoon he'd have smoke coming out of his ears, he's MAD! Plaintiff says she's not a liar, either. Even though MM decided she was a liar after reading the police report, plaintiff says she wanted cops here as a witness. Ok, maybe neither were lieing but just sort of embellishing their stories. Like I said, entertaining, but not particularly credible as litigants. homeowner vs paint contractor: plaintiff says he hired dude to paint his house and paid him 3 grand to start work (total contract was $9000). But they ended up in a big kerfuffle and cops were called, he fired the painter and wants a partial refund deposit, 2 grand. My oh my, if you want a picture of mad dude, just look at plaintiff. With his bald head, eyebrows, glasses and mustache and the permanent frown, this guy is a tad bit unhappy. Painter dude says problems caused by weather delay. When work wasn't going as schedled, he says plaintiff went nutso. Says only way he got his tools back is that the cops made plaintiff give them back. Well, these two started out right - they had a contract. Work was going along, but slowly because of the weather, and plaintiff wasn't happy. Apparently, what set off the big kerfuffle was contractor asking for more money. Like many folks, homeowner expected to see a little more paint on the house before forking get over more money, not realizing how much time and work goes into prep. Heck, from my days spent as an apartment maintenance dude, I know I used to spend more time on prep than actually painting. Ah, but this paint contractor seems to have went about asking for more money all wrong. Seems he was renting a "boom lift" to use to get the high spots - what with the weather delays he needed to extend the rental, and needed money to pay the additional fees.... so he shows up on a Sunday morning wanting (demanding says plaintiff) more money. Plaintiff already not happy, and that sets him off, which sets off contractor, which involves cops as referees... and the firing and court case. Ah, hold on... contractor now saying he made the call to quit - he wasn't fired. Whoa, I was leaning towards his side, but now he's saying he quit because he wasn't going to make enough money? Something about how inexperienced son goofed when he wrote the contract so that contractor had to pay for the paint, and now with the extra lift rental money... he decided to quit. (Later we learned son is a 15 yo kid, dad was right there as contract was done, and dad signed it.) Ah, now I get why homeowner is mad and talked about half finished job and holes left in soffits etc where critters could get into his house... not cool dude, walk off the job to leave a customer in the lurch. Yep even see homeowner trying to hold onto guy's tools until any holes are repaired. Soooo, it's now up to the judge to decide how much, if any, of the 3 grand deposit contractor is entitled to keep. Ok, yeah, they did some work, bought some paint, paid for the lift, etc... but also put homeowner in bad spot if they really left partially repaired holes in walls. Not only that, but contractor sure is a slippery dude. First he says the contract was goofed up because of son - bogus, 15yo kid should not have been making out the contract to begin with, and doesn't matter anyway as dad signed it. Then when he goes up to show what work was done he sure left the impression he did more than he did with his claims about how much more work it was to paint the open eaves - plaintiff call him on it, and come to find out he never painted the eaves, he was just explaining what open eaves are and how much work it is to paint them. (Dude should maybe open a moped shop.) Wow, once plaintiff comes up to the bench with his pictures it becomes obvious (well, kind of - MM does have to break out her magnifying glass... I think she was going back to defendant's pics and seeing if she could spot what plaintiff's showed - defendant showed long range views, while plaintiff had closeups). He goes back to his table and states that he agrees contractor did some work, he feels about $1000 worth... and MM cuts him off, agrees that a grand is fair, and orders defendant to return the 2 grand partial refund plaintiff is asking for. Yep, I agree totally - might have given him more, contractor is out of pocket for some money, but he's the one who breached the contract and left homeowner in the lurch. Oh, and forget the 6-700 countersuit. (Off topic a bit - but this is one time I wish Doug would have asked litigant to pull back clothing so we could get a better look at what is underneath. Not really a fan of the close up of tattoos, but kind of wondered what was on plaintiff's shirt. Looks like a couple birds closing in on something in the middle. Couldn't decide if those were a kind of raptor or turkeys, lol.) Edited April 10, 2018 by SRTouch 4 Link to comment
iwasish April 10, 2018 Share April 10, 2018 Handicap guy was lying thru his teeth. He was going to a restaurant at 930 in the morning? I thought he said the closed restaurant was Joes Crab Shack. They do breakfast? I don’t think so. He knew there was handicapped parking in that lot and that it was closer than JC Pennys own lot and figured since he had the handicapped parking placard he was immune from any towing/ticketing. 7 Link to comment
SRTouch April 10, 2018 Share April 10, 2018 13 minutes ago, iwasish said: Handicap guy was lying thru his teeth. He was going to a restaurant at 930 in the morning? I thought he said the closed restaurant was Joes Crab Shack. They do breakfast? I don’t think so. He knew there was handicapped parking in that lot and that it was closer than JC Pennys own lot and figured since he had the handicapped parking placard he was immune from any towing/ticketing. Think you nailed it. Like I said, I might stretch the rules and take a chance... but sure wouldn't whine and sue the tow company for doing their job when I got caught. (Yes, I'm a serial parking offender myself? - especially when I deliver? pizza.) 1 Link to comment
AngelaHunter April 10, 2018 Share April 10, 2018 (edited) I didn't get all the first case - someone was babbling about Zuckerberg I think - but "Bobby" who is always called Bobby and who is never called "Robert" - he doesn't even use that as an "alias"(who says that?) suing Octavia, who had sex with... some guys, unprotected of course, and decided to nail Bobby with the child support, even though she didn't really know who the baby daddy might be. Whatever. Sorry, Bobby, you're out of luck getting those payments back. Nice scarf, BTW. Then we had the two drunks, neither of whom has a license because both she and her "other half" (who I think might have been drunk today)lost their licenses and want to buy electric mopeds or whatever so they can still get drunk and drive around. Personally, I think people who get DUIs and lose their license shouldn't be allowed to operate any vehicle that is going to be on the roads. The dealer def was a hoot, some not-too-bright yokel who says people can't test drive one of these things unless they buy it. Yes, I know that test driving a vehicle after you buy it is standard litigant practice but it's a bad idea. I didn't understand why JM awarded her the cost of the repairs she made to the bike (she only has one left since the other got stolen. Duh), since the contract clearly states those repairs (electrical) are not covered and plaintiff signed that contract. Didn't she? Or were contracts unsigned? I forget already. Finally we had the mild-mannered Samuel L. Jackson vs the hippy-dippy house painter clown who may have inhaled too many paint fumes. House painter gets his fifteen-year old son to write up contracts! Maybe def is illiterate? I guess he's saying it's the kid's fault? What a ninny. In 19 days, he painted only the dormers of the house and tried to jack up the price because how was he to know he needed a lift truck to reach the second story? Gee, I would never expect that. You can't be too careful when hiring contractors. You might get a shady nitwit like this one who will cause you no end of trouble and waste your time taking him to court. Anyway, the plaintiff's house is lovely, historical looking, and will be even better when someone/non-scammer with connected brain cells finishes the paint job. Edited April 10, 2018 by AngelaHunter 5 Link to comment
babs j. April 10, 2018 Share April 10, 2018 Maybe the painter in case #3 thought his legs would suddenly grow longer or he was going to use stilts. 1 Link to comment
Broderbits April 10, 2018 Share April 10, 2018 1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said: I didn't get all the first case - someone was babbling about Zuckerberg I think - but "Bobby" who is always called Bobby and who is never called "Robert" - he doesn't even use that as an "alias"(who says that?) suing Octavia, who had sex with... some guys, unprotected of course, and decided to nail Bobby with the child support, even though she didn't really know who the baby daddy might be. Whatever. Sorry, Bobby, you're out of luck getting those payments back I wonder if he would be able to sue the actual father for making those child support payments? 2 Link to comment
AngelaHunter April 10, 2018 Share April 10, 2018 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Broderbits said: I wonder if he would be able to sue the actual father for making those child support payments? I kind of doubt it. I've heard both here and on JJ that child support payments made by someone who never bothered finding out if he's really the sperm donor are not recoverable. The money goes for the kid. In theory. Yes, I'm sure Octavia never used a dime of it for herself, not even to buy ugly but pricey sweaters! Edited April 10, 2018 by AngelaHunter 1 Link to comment
knitorpurl April 11, 2018 Share April 11, 2018 14 hours ago, SRTouch said: (Off topic a bit - but this is one time I wish Doug would have asked litigant to pull back clothing so we could get a better look at what is underneath. Not really a fan of the close up of tattoos, but kind of wondered what was on plaintiff's shirt. Looks like a couple birds closing in on something in the middle. Couldn't decide if those were a kind of raptor or turkeys, lol.) Those appeared to be two embroidered Scarlett Macaws facing each other. The thing in the middle was some kind of heavy hook necklace with a huge stone (topaz, a crystal?). I also wanted a better look at all that. The shirt and necklace combined with those distressed metallic pants made quite fashion statement 2 Link to comment
aemom April 11, 2018 Share April 11, 2018 Watched both new cases. No quibble over a security deposit, no dog mauling another animal or person, and no woman trying to buy the love of a loser man! Lots of litigants without a leg to stand on though. The guy who was towed thought he was exempt from rules because he has handicapped stickers and suffered from cancer. Sorry, but the rules include people with bad luck. I'm surprised he didn't just start a GoFundMe to pay for his tows. Seems to be the fashion these days. The guy who painted the deck desperately tried to weasel out of his shoddy work and thankfully failed. That was a lot of money to paint a deck even if the work was well done. The electric bike case was filled with liars as was the driver case. The guy painting the house seemed to be really slow and needs to take lessons on how to write up contracts before trying to teach his son. Finally, the DNA case had me rolling my eyes so many times. First she said several times that she, and only she, pays to raise her son. So why then did you decide to sue the guy for child support? Don't lie, you're entitled to the support from whichever of the guys you were sleeping with who actually got you pregnant. The nonchalance of these two about the random sex and everything else when there's a child involved. I guess maybe I'm a little old fashioned and think that maybe you should sleep with one person at a time. I hope the child is doing okay. 7 Link to comment
AZChristian April 11, 2018 Share April 11, 2018 15 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: I kind of doubt it. I've heard both here and on JJ that child support payments made by someone who never bothered finding out if he's really the sperm donor are not recoverable. The money goes for the kid. In theory. Yes, I'm sure Octavia never used a dime of it for herself, not even to buy ugly but pricey sweaters! Didn't you LOVE when JM made that "aside." . . . "The money doesn't go to pay for her nails, or hair, or nice sweaters. (ASIDE) Nice sweater, BTW." I thought that was JM's way of acknowledging that she knew what happened, but had no legal ability to change things. 5 Link to comment
Schnickelfritz April 11, 2018 Share April 11, 2018 (edited) 4 hours ago, AEMom said: First she said several times that she, and only she, pays to raise her son. So why then did you decide to sue the guy for child support? That's easy! What she really meant to say is that you and I are paying her to raise her child. (And Byrd is tired of paying - shout out to JJ fans). Dollars to donuts, she wasn't suing for support, but rather the state was suing to recoup some of their losses for giving her food stamps, Medicaid, etc. Edited April 11, 2018 by Schnickelfritz Thinking of birds on the shirt and spelled Byrd wrong. 8 Link to comment
AngelaHunter April 11, 2018 Share April 11, 2018 26 minutes ago, AZChristian said: (ASIDE) Nice sweater, BTW." Yes, I love her snarky asides to Douglas. Had to be snark since she couldn't really think that repurposed bathmat was nice. 5 Link to comment
aemom April 11, 2018 Share April 11, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, Schnickelfritz said: That's easy! What she really meant to say is that you and I are paying her to raise her child. (And Byrd is tired of paying - shout out to JJ fans). Dollars to donuts, she wasn't suing for support, but rather the state was suing to recoup some of their losses for giving her food stamps, Medicaid, etc. I guess you're right. In some ways, I guess I'm still somewhat naive and expect that because I cover my own expenses and buy what I can afford, that everyone else does too and uses social assistance as a temporary leg up. This show reminds me that some people unfairly make a career out of social assistance, when they are more than capable of getting a job and taking care of themselves. Edited April 11, 2018 by AEMom Typo 3 Link to comment
SRTouch April 11, 2018 Share April 11, 2018 (edited) neighbor fence feud: we open intro to see older gentleman sitting at the table, open briefcase, paper and pictures spread out... this guy is READY TO RUMBLE! Long time neighborhood resident, Sam Lal, has lived there 35 years, and had his fence for 25 of those years. He says neighbors need to pay him $2500, the replacement cost, because they came on his property to remove his fence. Nope, defendants say old dude has lost it. They say the fence was on their property... oh, and nutty old weird guy has a thing for younger women - they say he sent love notes to the defendant daughter, who looks young enough to be his grandkid. Defendant here is daddy and adult daughter. We'll see, but I'm guessing this is typical intro dude making up nonsense. Ok, simple survey should decide which property fence was actually on. Could get interesting if it turns out to have been on Sam's property - would he get replacement cost or the value of the 25 year old fence? Once testimony starts Sam tells us defendant notified him that neighbor had a contractor coming to repair his, the neighbor's, fence. Says he came home from doctor appointment to find fence contractor tearing up his (Sam's) fence. Sam immediately calls neighbor, who says not to worry, neighbor will make it right. But, hey, even more of his fence is ripped out. Another call to neighbor, who promises to come home right then and set the contractor straight.... then nothing, nada, Sam's fence ruined and neighbor Mr Singh does nothing to fix it (still not fixed). Ok, over to defendant's table, and it's the daughter doing the talking. Ok, maybe Dad has an accent or English isn't his first language - maybe daughter is studying law, or maybe just on the debate team at school... anyway, first impression when she starts is at least her appearance and language seem appropriate for a courtroom. Ah, so much for first impression... not long before MM butts into her prepared opening with one of those pesky questions and daughter is trying to interrupt questions and answer while the judge is talking. Sometimes so busy talking she doesn't answer the question. Turns out contractor was doing as defendants had told him. Defendants considered the fence joint property - no, they didn't bother to get a survey done or get Sam's input on changing the fence, they just told him they were going to "repair" their fence and hired a guy to do the work. Oops, bad form... even if it was 100% their fence (which she isn't even claiming) the neighborly thing would have been to involve Sam in the decisions.. heck, when I was doing landscaping I saw more than one instance where neighbors had back to back fences - maybe a chain link on one side and wood privacy fence right next to it. Sooooo, when Sam saw even more fence ripped out, he called the cops and stopped work. Girl trying to make it sound like Sam was unreasonable, but hey, without a survey for all defendants knew Sam's 25yo chain link fence was set back 2 feet from the property line - Sam was well within his rights to demand work stop at that point. Anyway, upshot of the work stoppage, still according to defendant, was that Sam was going to get a survey done and they, the defendants, would put a fence on the property line. Nope, same objections I had earlier. Why put it on Sam to get a survey? And, sounds like she's saying if existing fence IS on Sam's property, her family is going to leave Sam's fence damaged while they build a fence on the line... sure, they get a new fence and Sam can sit look at his damaged fence from his side. Oh dear, this folks go back a long way, as Sam was there for 35 years and defendants for 20. Used to be good friendly neighbors... ah, intro not so far out. Seems Sam may have been something of a pervert (maybe not in his culture, but unless she's a little better actress than I think he grossed her out). She says as she grew up Ole Sam started paying WAY too much attention to her comings and goings. Says it came to see head when she spends the night at a bf's and Sam asked her where she spent the night. Ole Sam was raising his hand and trying to object as she started the story, so think there's something there. Oh, but it gets worse... on another occasion Sam gave her a love notes with a $100 check - super creepy - says she reported it to police and Sam was told to stop bothering her. Yep, super creepy, and I tend to believe her story. Still, Sam may be creepy and a pervert, but that's not what the case is about. Whose fence did defendant's contractor destroy - did anyone ever get a frickin' survey done? If it is Sam's, does Sam get a whole new fence, or can defendants just replace the portion their guy ripped out? Also, if it turns out it WAS Sam's fence, shouldn't defendants pay for the survey? I mean, Sam was fine with a 25yo chain link fence, why should he be out anything at all? Kind of believe her when she says case is sort of man-scorned revenge more than the fence. I mean, sounds like old rusty chain link fence was being replaced with a brick wall - and WTH is with Sam's super high priced estimate? Looked like a normal 4 foot chain link fence in the pictures, but he's after a boNANza. Ok, back to the case. Sam has his original survey that he says shows chain link fence on HIS property... but when MM look at it she says it's worthless - so faded she can't tell what it says. Ok, now pictures of the ripped out fence. Wow, removed two sections and one fence post... and that's going to cost how much to replace? Almost $2800!! Ah, but MM sees enough to decide that section of fence did belong to Sam, so he'll get something... I'don't say a couple hundred not couple thousand. Ah, time for decision. Whoa, fencing contractors bank money where these folks live. Defendants say they got an estimate between $1500 and 2 grand. MM goes with the higher, and orders defendant to pay 2 grand towards the fence - but they only have to pay if/when the fence actually gets built. car crash: both sides accuse the other of causing the crash which resulted in damages to both car. Insurance companies (yes, some folks actually pay for insurance) apparently already decided not enough evidence to blame either driver, 50/50 split of liability, so not sure what plaintiff has that she thinks will prove her case. Ah, white board out - we get to see toys placed on the board... which seldom proves a thing to me. The best that can be said is that sometimes pictures of damage show it couldn't happen the way a litigant says - so who needs the board? Oh, better for tv. Here plaintiff claims both cars were merging into the same lane - plaintiff coming from right into middle lane and defendant coming from left, also into middle lane. Course plaintiff says she had completed her merge and was already in the middle lane when defendant started to merge. Defendant comes up - says no, she was already in middle lane. Says collision occurred when plaintiff merged and tried to force her way into lane. Hmmm not seeing proof plaintiff claims to have to support her story - in fact her case certainly isn't helped when she admits she doesn't really know where defendant was before collision - defendant nowhere in sight, then, wham, they collide. In fact, MM shows how she thinks collision happened which would match defendant's version. Yep, I believe plaintiff didn't see defendant - because she just didn't check her blind spots... mini rant - I have had my crossover Hyundai Tucson for a year now... great little car - but blind spots EVERYWHERE! Ok, no proof - no case. When MM gives plaintiff a chance to explain what proof she has, she ends up poking fun at lack of physics understanding. I wouldn't have given either side anything. But MM sees enough in the pictures of damage to decide accident was plaintiff's fault - so plaintiff gets nothing and defendant wins her countersuit. And we hear those sage words of wisdom in the hallterview, "It is what it us..." even have Doug repeating the phrase - so you folks playing the drinking game, double up. tenant suing for security: simple intro make it sounds simple - plaintiff says it was an illegal room, so lease invalid and he should get his deposit back. Landlady/defendant says he caused a mess and damage, so security wenumber to clean up his mess.... oh, and disgusting/gross warning - her intro sounds he really left a mess, as in feces, behind... no pictures please! Ok, if he really caused a mess/property damage, depending on the damage, I might give her sonething. But, if he can show place was illegal, she can forget her countersuit for additional rent. Ok, dude getting off on the wrong foot with me right off the bat when he opens with he's a very and moved in to get out of a veteran shelter. Yes, there are far too many homeless veterans, just like there are too many single mothers, but that has nothing to do with the case about an alleged illegal rental security deposit. Actually, this time is turns out it is sort of relevant - in that the veteran shelter had a program to help get vets into a place by giving vets 3 months rent plus a deposit. Dude took the money, and used it to move into a basement studio apartment in landlady's house (which, BTW, is coded as a single family dwelling). Whoop whoop whoop, all kinds of goings sound wrong with this scenario. First, I question whether he should get the security or should it go back to the vet organization. Then, sure sounds like a basement studio would be illegal in a single family dwelling.... but he never even got the studio - instead he ended up in a room she converted from an office. In fact, the first month the vet's organization didn't pay his rent - the month's rent she is suing for, the housing authority issued an order that he had to be out by the 8th. Oh dear, once landlady starts I'm thinking there should be some punitive damages or something. At least she's not trying to lie about it, but good grief, she knew it was illegal to rent to him, a previous tenant had already complained to the housing people, yet she still had her name on a list at the vet homeless shelter advertising an apartment. She took three months rent and the deposit - paid in advance (?) - for a studio, but instead provided a 9x11 converted office. (oops, later on I hear it was 4 months rent and no security - not going back to change everything, since dollar amount the same.) And she wants to argue here saying how happy dude was to get out of the shelter and into her room... yeah, lady, he said he had been in the shelter for some year - he was probably thrilled at first, then he looked around and realized you were ripping him and the vet center off. IIRC, the deposit was $1250 - so, assuming rent was the same, that was a lot of money for a 9x11 room - and I'm pretty sure she was paid in advance, but not going back to check. Oh, yeah, she took the lump sum and promised to use it to make the basement legal, but that never happened. Instead, he says he moved into the basement, the veteran center coordinator paid her, then after the coordinator leaves she hits him with, hey, this is illegal, live upstairs temporarily and once it's all straightened out you can move back down here. So, first two months he's upstairs in the room, he moves down to the studio for the third month, and is given the vacate order 8 days into the first month that isn't prepaid - oh, and she keeps the deposit and countersues for another month of rent. Uh, not no, but hell no! Oh, yeah, in case I need another reason not to like landlady, she's here being sued and countersuing about a lease - which she has, but didn't bring to court... oh, and she says housing didn't cite her for any violations - no they just gave her a long list of things she had to correct and told her tenant he had to leave. Thing is, once MM does the math and finds dude lived there 4 months, and vet organization paid rent for 4 months - well heck, there was no deposit, just an agreement that the organization would pay if he trashed the place or failed to pay rent..... oh dear, convoluted case. So, dude can't get back a deposit that was never paid. And even if shady slum lord landlady was entitled to a month's rent for the week dude stayed in illegal apartment before being ordered out, sounds like her recourse might be suing the shelter and not the tenant. I'm giving up on this mess... to make sense I'd have to go make and make a flight chart, and still couldn't make sense of it without actually reading the lease and paperwork from the veterans' group. Ok, now dude wants back money he paid (no, dude, you paid nothing - the veteran organization paid) because you lived in the illegal apartment for a month. Uh, no, not how he works, dude. Once you pay the rent, that money is gone - even if place is illegal. Still 10 minutes left... what could possibly drag this non-case out to fill the time. Ah ha, as we go to commercial I hear landlady/slum lord/scammer tell us real reason dude is upset is he wanted to hook up with her and she said NO! (not enough tats or jail time, bonus points for a year of living in a shelter just didn't tip the balance in his favor). Almost skipped the rest, but glad I watched after commercial. MM goes back to dude renting a studio for a couple months and actually living in the 9x11 room. Glad she figured a way to take some (any) money from defendant, even if it is only $400. Oh, and during the ruling she says something else that made me think, something about having collecting rent from two illegal spaces... hmmmm, what are chances she found a new tenant for the 9x11 room AND the illegal studio in the basement? Doug asks in the hallterview, course she says no, no, not renting to anyone rise. Yeahhhh, hope housing checks and all the shelter's in the area take note and do a better job screening the "apartment available" listings. Edited April 11, 2018 by SRTouch 7 Link to comment
AngelaHunter April 11, 2018 Share April 11, 2018 27 minutes ago, SRTouch said: neighbor fence feud: I was so enraptured listening to defendant's daughter with her perfect English and articulate speech I nearly missed what the case was about. But I totally believe plaintiff is a dirty old man - gee, when I was young and spent the night with a boyfriend, not one neighbour called me to ask why I didn't come home - and he says about the love note "I didn't write that." Yeah, sure. We know he's a dirty old man but it's amazing that he might feel even in his wildest fantasies that this bright and pretty young woman would want him for anything. Like, in what world is he living that he thinks she'll jump his old brittle bones for 100$? Other than that what was most interesting is that the little piece of chain link is 2K to repair/install? Wow. I got 15,000sq of property fenced for 3200$ 32 minutes ago, SRTouch said: car crash: Yeah - "It is what is is" with the usual translation = "I tried to get a boe-nanza but the judge saw through my dumb lies." Better luck next time. 33 minutes ago, SRTouch said: tenant suing for security: He's a vetrin who was a cash recipitant who was stashed in a closet. Or something like that. Def was so damned shameless. Talk about bait and switch (or switch and bait if you're Shafonta) when she knew damned well her dump was illegal. The only thing she said I believed is that plaintiff was hitting on her. Everything else was BS, as she said she had no violations. Duh. JM has those violations - seven of them - right in front of her. Really, I would think the "Vetrin's Affairs" might do a wee check on places for which they are paying, to find out if they're legal, at the very least. Def has the old "I don't have the lease with me right now. I know I'm being sued for this and I'll be sure to have it with me next time." 4 Link to comment
meowmommy April 12, 2018 Share April 12, 2018 4 hours ago, SRTouch said: Oh, but it gets worse... on another occasion Sam gave her a love notes with a $100 check - super creepy - says she reported it to police and Sam was told to stop bothering her. Yep, super creepy, and I tend to believe her story. Still, Sam may be creepy and a pervert, but that's not what the case is about. At first I was pissed at MM for making defendant daughter talk about Sam's creepy behavior, as it clearly upset her, until I remembered that MM wouldn't have known about it if the defendants hadn't brought it up in their answer. Gotta love that ol' Sam complained, "This is a conspiracy." Conspiracy among whom to do what? But then, these days, everything you don't like must be the result of a conspiracy. 4 hours ago, SRTouch said: Ah, white board out - we get to see toys placed on the board... which seldom proves a thing to me. The best that can be said is that sometimes pictures of damage show it couldn't happen the way a litigant says - so who needs the board? Oh, better for tv. I've still never understood why--other than Levin is too cheap for a decent production team--they don't blow up a Google map of the area and overlay that on the board. 4 hours ago, SRTouch said: so plaintiff gets nothing and defendant wins her countersuit. And we hear those sage words of wisdom in the hallterview, "It is what it us..." e The phrase I would have come up with is, "Be careful what you wish for." You sue with a shaky case, and end up having to pay, when it would have been better to leave bad enough alone. 4 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: He's a vetrin who was a cash recipitant who was stashed in a closet. AngelaHunter, you're going to think I'm nuts. As I was responding to SRTouch, I skim-read from the bottom of the page and saw this and thought, oh, we have a new poster here who's grammatically challenged. Then I looked at who wrote it. Ha! As if! Why did plaintiff, even if he thought a security deposit had been paid and should be returned, think he should get it, if the VA paid it? 4 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: The only thing she said I believed is that plaintiff was hitting on her. She didn't sound terribly believable, but his reaction wasn't believable, either. He should have been shocked and offended, instead of just screwing up his face and shaking his head. 2 Link to comment
bref April 12, 2018 Share April 12, 2018 4 hours ago, meowmommy said: Why did plaintiff, even if he thought a security deposit had been paid and should be returned, think he should get it, if the VA paid it? Right? Why should he get *any* money back, since it was paid on his behalf to begin with? 3 Link to comment
DoctorK April 12, 2018 Share April 12, 2018 10 hours ago, meowmommy said: Why did plaintiff, even if he thought a security deposit had been paid and should be returned, think he should get it, if the VA paid it? We have seen this in multiple cases where the renter's security deposit was paid by a charity/government funds/ etc. and the renter thinks they should get the security deposit back themsleves. I think that is entitlement thinking. 8 Link to comment
Florinaldo April 12, 2018 Share April 12, 2018 (edited) 18 hours ago, SRTouch said: neighbor fence feud: Ah, fence disputes! I remember my uncle telling us tales about his neighbour who kept nagging him about a fence, arguing it was depriving him of the full enjoyment of his land. Despite the fact that it was built 12 centimeters inside my uncle's property. The defendants reminded me of that neighbour in that they did not seem to understand how property lines work or how to read them. Or more probably they simply did not care. I am doubtful about the daughter's allegations regarding the plaintiff making advances towards her. Either she was outright lying to cast aspersions on his character and divert attention from the facts of the case (and their ignorance of them), or she was desperately trying to exaggerate some of their interactions to portray him as a complete pervert. I tend to gravitate towards the former. 18 hours ago, SRTouch said: car crash: I was bored by that case, the only mildly interesting aspect being how the plaintiff kept inventing new straws to grasp at in order to explain how she was in the right. 18 hours ago, SRTouch said: tenant suing for security: Pouty defendant was unpleasant on sight, but over the course of the case the plaintiff made himself look almost equally bad by asking for much too much and appearing to have been nonchalant as to how the money he receives from the VA is managed or divided. Did anyone else think the has some mental challenge, or is it simply that he talks very deliberately? The defendant looked familiar. Has she appeared in a previous case or is that the standard issue sourpuss expression for shady landladies? Edited April 12, 2018 by Florinaldo Link to comment
AngelaHunter April 12, 2018 Share April 12, 2018 14 hours ago, meowmommy said: You sue with a shaky case, and end up having to pay, when it would have been better to leave bad enough alone. Not only having to pay, but often being thoroughly humiliated while getting a public reaming from JM. 14 hours ago, meowmommy said: But then, these days, everything you don't like must be the result of a conspiracy. Or "terrist" threats. Link to comment
SRTouch April 12, 2018 Share April 12, 2018 (edited) car stolen from carwash: silly case - and satellite kind of wonky today and episode pixelating and I end up missing stuff. On the face, I'd expect car wash owner to bend over backwards to avoid case being on national tv. But, noooo, he stands there admitting his guys let someone hop in a customer's car and drive off without anything showing it was their car - heck, without even knowing if the person paid for the service. Nah, that doesn't seem to bother him... his defense seems to be that yeah, his guy screwed up, but plaintiff took too long to go out and get her car, giving thief time to drive it away - and now she's inflated her damages. Ok, terrible lackadaisical attitude, but maybe not a bad defense. Says at the time, police report says she told cop nothing of great value was in car. Car was recovered and insurance settled for her hassles and inconvenience. So, why is she now suing for thousands of dollars. If the bit about insurance giving her a settlement is true... well, don't see her having a chance to take a second bite. Ah, don't think I'll like either litigant in this one. Ok, plaintiff says this was a new jeep, and she was a frequent customer at this carwash. Seems like she is ready to really go into to much detail, and MM is in a hurry to cross the aisle. Ok, as expected, not liking carwash dude. I mean, he's even got video of the thief scoping things out before she steals plaintiff's ride. Is he really hinting this was a scam because the thief bypassed the higher end cars to steal the jeep? Or maybe he's saying thief stole the jeep instead of the Mercedes because of the length of time it took plaintiff to make her way outside? Not sure WTH he's saying but he "finds it suspicious." Anyway, back to plaintiff, short joyride and car found three days later. Ok, kind of enjoy the interaction where MM is almost testifying, trying to hurry things along, and plaintiff says, no didn't happen that way, nope not that way either, MM gives up and let's lady tell it. Plaintiff has her own video, but you can't really see anything. MM has to ask, and turns out her video is showing the sunroof had been left open and inside of car found wet, with center console and her belonging full of water and later she says leather seats stained. Quick aside to defendant with MM asking, still think she was in on it? D, I never said that! MM, uh, yeah you kind of did, many times, with "I find it suspicious" and "I think it may have been an inside job." Ok, he may never have come right out and accused her, but he sure hinted. Ah, beginning to look like plaintiff is not after a boNANza, nah, I think she's just highly pissed at carwash dude. She starts listing stuff she's suing over - even the full time of gas. Sure, some of this she'll never get, but some of it sounds kosher. Seems it was her insurance that paid, and everything was not covered - she had to pay for the car rental, her deductible, etc. MM will have to go through the list, but plaintiff deserves to be made whole as fault here is totally on car wash dude (took awhile, but finally realized who dude reminds me of - the dad on old American Chopper reality show). Ah, but what a list she produces - even has jumper cables and ice scrapper on the list. Ah, never helps your case to get too greedy. I get she's mad, but her list makes her out to be over reaching. Sure she has receipts - here they are... uh oh, you mean receipts of the stuff that was taken/lost... no, just have receipts of what I spent on replacement items. Yeah, I believe she had an ice scrapper - but was it a 39cent clearance item or this $10 super deluxe model that heats your coffee while you scrape the windshield (hey, that sounds great, wonder if I can sell that idea to sone inventor). Definitely doesn't help when she starts to get a little huffy, this was MY CAR! I don't know why I should be expected to have receipts for stuff... uh, when you come to court asking for over 3 grand, you need frickin' proof missing items existed. Oh, and 'nother dig at defendant, MM, says "I'm not like defendant, I don't think you're in on it, BUT YOU HAVE TO PROVE STUFF EXISTED when you go before any court asking to be paid for it!" Ok, rough justice time. MM goes down the list, yes on some items, no on others (pretty generous I thought when she gave credit for the gas)... ends up giving her about half of what she wanted. Oh boy, defendant learned nothing here, even argues with Doug when Doug asks why keys are left in cars - oh, she has keyless ignition, so car left running - why not turn off the car - because we don't know if customer has a key -uh, how 'bout asking when customer turns in car, we KNOW thieves won't have a key! Ah, when winning plaintiff comes out she finally gets to say "I went into the establishment with wheels and came out with heels!" Bet she was waiting to use that all through the case. skipped dog case - but nice looking pooch in court... didn't watch, but from little I saw - defendant lost because he was ignoring the lease law flooring contractor case: welll, sort of - really cheap turning expensive. Seems plaintiff hired complex maintenance dude to reno her floors. Says complex fired/suspended dude, he walks off her reno job leaving a mess. She wants almost $4500. Defendant says job not finished because she failed to get permission from the complex to do the job. Says he's owed $823.03 for the work he did.... uhhhhh if he's owed for work, did plaintiff pay him anything? Yes, turns out she paid a grand before he started work. Hmmmm, surprisingly, maintenance guy actually made out a contract and got it signed before the job. Oh, but plaintiff is using the contract to destroy his defence. "Looky here, judge, on page two, where I have the little arrow, it says contractor will get all the permits and permission to do the job, under local law." Make me wonder if dude ever read the contract or just copied it from somewhere. Ah, plaintiff is really nitpicking the contract. First, she says he breached the contract because he didn't start on day specified in contract.... uh, but it's not like he was a no show/no call... he called her, explained his regular job schedule was changed, asked could he start the next day, and lady had no problem with the delay. Oh, and when he showed up to do the work, he came after work and made too much noise and the neighbors complained. Ah, here's the problem... this is a coop, and coop bylaws sat it's her responsibility to get permission to do the reno... that clause she quoted says his responsibility to get go ahead and permits under the law, and coop bylaws are not considered local law and not what the clause is talking 'bout. So, when neighbors complain, dude realizes she doesn't have the go ahead from condo people and he files it for her - she's to busy to do it herself. Soooo, soon as he gets approval ftom condo association, he calls and texts her saying we're good to go... but doesn't receive an answer on the 27th - another delay. Ah, but contract has a completion date, the 28th, but now there yet another delay and job isn't completed by the date on the contract. Contract says work to be done by the 28th, so on the 28th she's texting asking for a refund, claiming he breached the contract. Uh, yeah, maybe so, but part (most) of the delay was caused by her... besides, how many times are construction/renovation jobs not finished on time. Whoa, does she really think all those contractors have to refund the deposits - heck, she not only wants back the deposit, IIRC, she wants him to pay back 4 times the amount. Ok, now time for MM to figure out why lady was so ready to try to back out of the deal. Seems dude's wife is a partner in the sideline flooring business. Somewhere along the way, lady texts the number she has for the flooring contract, and turns out to be wife's number. So, customer is complaining about the delay, and somehow it comes up that dude works at the complex (maybe along line of, hey, you work there, you should have known you needed permission from coop to work at night). Doesn't matter why, but wife texts back, hey, I don't work at the complex. Ok, example of problem with texts... you really don't know who is texting - even when you do, it's easy to get the wrong idea. Anyway, now customer thinks guy was booted from his job... oh, and as he was working, he and his buddy drank some beer and left beer cans in her place.... hmmm, think MM's right, lady no longer wanted him to do the job, and as soon as it wasn't done on time she yelled "breach!" and asked for a refund. Ok, now an explanation of how she came up with $4500 claim. Seems she wants a full refund of everything she paid him, and also wants him to pay the other contractor she hired to complete the job... oh, and horrors of horrors... the delays means she had to live cooped up in a room and sleep in a recliner an extra 4 days while condo reno was being completed . Ah, now we get to laugh about the beer. Ok, first we get a laugh about the brand - uh, Modelo, no I was drinking Guinness - and MM tells him it's not that great an idea to have zero few while working. Ok, frowned on here, but maybe not where this guy comes from - Dude has an accent. Heck, it wasn't THAT long ago that a soldier in uniform could eat lunch at an exchange snack bar and have a beer, then go out and join formation (well, it has been awhile, maybe ending early 80's). Besides, I'm wondering if lady might have staged the bottles - doesn't matter, dude admits to drinking beer and doesn't change the ruling. Ok - ruling everybody leaves with what they came with. Edited April 12, 2018 by SRTouch Okay, seems when I type 'the' I sometimes type 'ghe' which auto correct changes to ghetto 7 Link to comment
AngelaHunter April 12, 2018 Share April 12, 2018 2 hours ago, SRTouch said: But, noooo, he stands there admitting his guys let someone hop in a customer's car and drive off without anything showing it was their car - heck, without even knowing if the person paid for the service. I found this interesting. At first I thought of plaintiff, oh here's another one trying to blame a carwash because the hubcap fell off her 16 year old beater, but no - the plot thickens. Her new car was stolen. Plot thickens further as def tries to say plaintiff was in on the theft (why, I can't imagine). He argues that the thief would have taken the Mercedes or the BMW. Maybe not. She's probably smarter than you are and maybe figured the theft of a mid-priced car might be less noticeable than trying to grab a Mercedes. She was right. Even if plaintiff had been in on it, how does that excuse the car wash employees from letting some random person with no service ticket just get in someone's car and drive away? He sounded utterly ridiculous. Plaintiff was totally in the right. If only she hadn't done the usual - get really greedy and say she had a couple thousand dollars of stuff in her car? How many of you people have that much merchandise in your cars? Personally, if someone stole my car all they'd get is a USB drive and my 30$ cargo basket thingy. No expensive clothes, 47"{ TVs, tablets, North Face jackets or anything along those lines and just saying you had them is not enough. Car wash guy is a total dick anyway, even if he did "discipline" the employee by saying, "Don't do that". Probably his son. 2 hours ago, SRTouch said: skipped dog case - but nice looking pooch in court. I watched it. Def was a seriously arrogant asshole who informs JM that a picture of the dog park makes it "obvious" what happened in this case. No it doesn't, and he needs to keep his designer mutt on a leash. He was really intolerable. His witness to the rescue! He explains the layout of the dog park to JM. Did he see the incident? Well, no... sit down, you clown. JM thought the def's dog was really cute, but I bet with exactly the same set of circumstances had the dog been the dreaded "PIT BULL" she would not have thought it cute at all. Fluffy dogs are exempt from her hatred, no matter what they do. Anyway, dogs get into fights. Always have, always will. Never in my life until recently have I heard of people calling the POLICE over a dogfight. Wow. What are the cops going to do? Arrest the owner? Arrest the dog? Anyway, my 0.02 cents: Unless you're handicapped, don't get a dog if you're too lazy to walk it. Dumping a bunch of dogs in a park in a situation of high excitement, and then standing there yakking with the other owners is asking for trouble. I'm with JM - I never dreamed of taking any of my dogs to to that kind of circus. I actually got out and walked them all at least two times a day. Walking won't you harm you, litigants! 2 hours ago, SRTouch said: flooring contractor case: I was so on def's side until he nonchalantly admitted that yeah, sure, he likes to drink when he's a doing a reno job for a client. He just couldn't wait until he was done for the day. Gotta have those beers. I've had quite a few contractors working here in the last 14 months and strangely enough, not one of them brought a 6-pack with him. I'm all for drinking, but would have been mightily displeased if someone working on my home, using power tools, laying tile etc. were drinking, even if it were only "2 or 3(!) beers!" Naturally plaintiff wants all her money back from def plus the money it cost to hire someone else. I agree! Why shouldn't she get totally free renos? Oh, wait - no she shouldn't. None of mine were ever free. 7 Link to comment
Florinaldo April 12, 2018 Share April 12, 2018 2 hours ago, SRTouch said: car stolen from carwash: I could not figure out on what legal grounds MM decided to award the insufferable plaintiff money except for her deductible, since she did not produce any proof that she actually had all of that stuff in her car. Her reasoning that "everybody has a phone charger in their car today" seemed tenuous at best (I do not have one) and she then apparently extended it to the rest of her claim. I eventually concluded that she did that as a form of punitive damages against the defendant who seemed rather nonchalant about their negligence. Although I did not share her problem with a verbal reprimand, since that it the whole basis of progressive discipline in HR procedures: first a verbal warning, than a written one and eventually suspension or firing, sometimes skipping some steps depending on the gravity of the fault. 2 hours ago, SRTouch said: skipped dog case - but nice looking pooch in court. As soon as I saw the cute fuzzy dog I thought this was a Hail Mary pass on the part of the defendant. And it rightfully failed him. 2 hours ago, SRTouch said: flooring contractor case: The customer was a victim of her own negligence in not carrying out her duty to get permission from the board and then outrageously trying to shift the burden to the defendant, while having the gall to make a truly outrageous monetary claim, as is so often the case. Too bad he did not have further evidence of the work he did because he could justifiably have been awarded all of his counterclaim. 5 Link to comment
AngelaHunter April 12, 2018 Share April 12, 2018 30 minutes ago, Florinaldo said: Her reasoning that "everybody has a phone charger in their car today" seemed tenuous at best (I do not have one) and she then apparently extended it to the rest of her claim. I don't have one either, but maybe other people do. She certainly was entitled to her deductible, her rental car, her full tank of gas and I think even some punitive damages for the inconvenience and trouble she had to endure because def's agents just let someone steal her car, not to mention the accusations of criminal behavior. When I go to a carwash I certainly don't expect to leave minus my car (not even sure how I'd leave since I no longer have a car) but I'm not a judge so what do I know? 35 minutes ago, Florinaldo said: Too bad he did not have further evidence of the work he did because he could justifiably have been awarded all of his counterclaim. Maybe he didn't think about that after all those beers he imbibed on the job. He only drinks Guiness so I guess his drinking could be excused. 2 Link to comment
Florinaldo April 13, 2018 Share April 13, 2018 In the carwash case, did she mention claiming all those alleged losses with her insurance company? Perhaps her coverage is insufficient, in which case it would be her fault, or she feared they would deem it foolish and deny them (perhaps they did, which is why she tried the small claims court route). 9 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said: Maybe he didn't think about that after all those beers he imbibed on the job. He only drinks Guiness so I guess his drinking could be excused. Was there any allegation that his drinking affected the quality of his work? As I heard it, all of the problems (failure to get permission, delays, etc.) we caused by the plaintiff and no one else. 2 Link to comment
AngelaHunter April 13, 2018 Share April 13, 2018 18 minutes ago, Florinaldo said: Was there any allegation that his drinking affected the quality of his work? No, no allegations ( although I believe he had only ripped up flooring and laid down plywood at that point but I could be wrong) but no one should be drinking while doing reno work. It's just incredibly unprofessional, speaks to his work ethic and I would fire anyone who drank while working on my house, no matter what kind of job he had done up until I came home and found empty beer cans lying around my house. 3 Link to comment
meowmommy April 13, 2018 Share April 13, 2018 2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: Def was a seriously arrogant asshole who informs JM that a picture of the dog park makes it "obvious" what happened in this case. No it doesn't, and he needs to keep his designer mutt on a leash. He was really intolerable. Def dog supposedly got bitten in the nuts, which means he wasn't fixed, which means defendant is 1) a breeder, 2) an arrogant asshole who doesn't think controlling the pet population matters, 3) an arrogant asshole who anthropomorphizes the dog's masculinity, or 4) all of the above. 2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: I never dreamed of taking any of my dogs to to that kind of circus. I actually got out and walked them all at least two times a day. I took my cats outside today, because they hang out at the door and look sad, and they were both leashed. Of course they plopped their asses on the ground and demanded I take the harnesses off, but I laughed at them. Better discomfited than squished. 2 hours ago, Florinaldo said: I could not figure out on what legal grounds MM decided to award the insufferable plaintiff money except for her deductible, since she did not produce any proof that she actually had all of that stuff in her car. Her reasoning that "everybody has a phone charger in their car today" seemed tenuous at best (I do not have one) and she then apparently extended it to the rest of her claim. I eventually concluded that she did that as a form of punitive damages against the defendant who seemed rather nonchalant about their negligence. Although I did not share her problem with a verbal reprimand, since that it the whole basis of progressive discipline in HR procedures: first a verbal warning, than a written one and eventually suspension or firing, sometimes skipping some steps depending on the gravity of the fault. I agree. Usually MM demands receipts or she doesn't give them anything. That said, how many of us have saved receipts for every damn thing we own? It's just not realistic. And I don't think it's any of MM's business how the defendant runs his HR process. He could have fired the person or promoted them; not her purview and not necessary to adjudicate the case. 1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said: She certainly was entitled to her deductible, her rental car, her full tank of gas and I think even some punitive damages for the inconvenience and trouble she had to endure because def's agents just let someone steal her car, not to mention the accusations of criminal behavior. I tend not to agree about the punitive damages. Punitive damages should be limited to cases where someone acts willfully and/or maliciously, and this guy was just slack. Of course if it were my car that walked off the lot, I'd want a million in punitive damages. 1 hour ago, Florinaldo said: In the carwash case, did she mention claiming all those alleged losses with her insurance company? I could be completely wrong, but I thought that insurance companies generally won't pay for what was in your car if something happens to it. 4 Link to comment
Florinaldo April 13, 2018 Share April 13, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said: I would fire anyone who drank while working on my house A reasonable motive for firing him if one chooses to do so, but not sufficient for refusing to pay for work done, demanding reimbursement of the deposit, asking him to pay for the work performed by another contractor and blaming him for a bad situation that was caused by her negligence in not asking official permission from the board and not responding to messages. At least one member of her boy posse could not believe her outrageousness and kept smiling half incredulously, half admiringly. 50 minutes ago, meowmommy said: I could be completely wrong, but I thought that insurance companies generally won't pay for what was in your car if something happens to it. The certainly won't pay if you claim you are using your car as a mobile closet for all sorts of things, as she alleged she did. It would also depend on practices in one's jurisdiction. Edited April 13, 2018 by Florinaldo 3 Link to comment
AngelaHunter April 13, 2018 Share April 13, 2018 1 hour ago, meowmommy said: Def dog supposedly got bitten in the nuts, which means he wasn't fixed, which means defendant is 1) a breeder, 2) an arrogant asshole who doesn't think controlling the pet population matters, 3) an arrogant asshole who anthropomorphizes the dog's masculinity, or 4) all of the above. Agree. Taking intact dogs to a dog park? Yeah, really bright. I never got the mind set of, "My dog has a big set of nuts, therefore it means I'm a real man." No, you're not. Real men don't need to bolster their egos through the size of an animal's testicles. Get them some Neuticals (don't even look!) if you're so dead set on a dog have testes. God! Getting my female cats and dogs spayed never made me feel like less of a woman at all! lol 24 minutes ago, Florinaldo said: not sufficient for refusing to pay for work done, demanding reimbursement of the deposit, asking him to pay for the work performed by another contractor and blaming him for a bad situation that was caused by her negligence in not asking official permission from the board and not responding to messages. Of course not. Most litigants seem to feel that work that was botched or not for some reason not done (Her fault in this case) and even if it's not their fault that they should get all their money back, pay nothing for work done AND get the person to pay for the new worker = free job. I've never seen one show the least dawning of comprehension of this logic even after JM explains it in words of one syllable. "You can't get the floor/car/roof done for free!" Litigant: "But I just feel... " As JJ would say, go talk to Dr. Phil about your feelings." 3 Link to comment
califred April 13, 2018 Share April 13, 2018 My renters/homeowners insurance covers stuff in my car. They are sure to tell me that ever time the USMC decides it’s time for us to move. My auto insurance and renters and home owners insurance are all from USAA so they are paying no matter what. 4 Link to comment
aemom April 13, 2018 Share April 13, 2018 The fence case was kind of weird, but I still think that the $2K award was a lot for that piece of fence. I did believe the daughter about the dirty old man bit and the phone calls. The car case was kind of boring. At least it was minor damage and nobody got hurt which is the most important thing. So glad that people can't sue for these kinds of cases where I live. The insurance companies settle everything and that's it. You don't like it, lump it. Get better insurance and watch the road better. For the veteran renting the illegal apartment, I was really surprised that MM only gave him a $200 credit per month. I think that there's a big difference between having my own space, kitchen, and bathroom and having to walk out my bedroom into a common area and share your kitchen and bathroom. I think that's worth much more than $200. 3 Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.