Florinaldo April 13, 2018 Share April 13, 2018 (edited) 12 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: 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... " On these shows, plaintiffs so frequently ask to be reimbursed 2 or 3 times what they actually spent that I wonder if perhaps that may have been suggested by members of the show's staff. Litigants must have "minders" who look after them, for travel and accomodations logistics certainly but also for explaining to them how a court works and what they need to bring (not that many of them seem to actually listen to that advice) or for putting their filings into shape and onto the show's standard application form so that they read minimally coherently: I think that a good part of this process must be done through interviewing litigants and then editing their words so that they form a detailed and readable narrative and then having litigants sign them (often without reading them apparently). For many of the people who appear on the show, it is doubtful that they coud write even a single paragraph on their own, so they do need the help. In the course of which the staff can prod them by asking "anything else you had to spend?", which would lead to piling up demands and ultimately asking for a free ride; the staff might even describe examples of previous cases, which could explain how so many of them come up with similar ridiculous "pain and suffering" claims. Edited April 13, 2018 by Florinaldo 1 Link to comment
califred April 13, 2018 Share April 13, 2018 I forgot about the fence a chain link fence on one side does not cost $2000. My wood fence didn’t cost that much on one side. 2 Link to comment
AngelaHunter April 13, 2018 Share April 13, 2018 3 hours ago, Florinaldo said: For many of the people who appear on the show, it is doubtful that they coud write even a single paragraph on their own, so they do need the help. I'm positive most of them do not write their own complaints. Many times when we've seen the complaints in JJ's hand, the horrible grammar and spelling has been cleaned up. They just read it over and sign it. 1 Link to comment
SRTouch April 13, 2018 Share April 13, 2018 (edited) horse boarding horror: plaintiff wants 5 grand, which is just a portion of what plaintiff had to pay her vet after her horse was injured at the stable. Oh dear, from preview I know plaintiff brought along props to show how poor horse gets poked in the groin with a pitchfork. Defendant says she's been around and caring for horses for 40 years. Admits horse was hurt while she, the defendant, was cleaning the stall, but hey, accidents happen, oh well. Hope there's more to her defense than that - sure accidents happen, but when you're being paid to care for an animal, and animal gets injured on your watch, seems you would be liable for the vet... oh dear, bad blood between these two... during intro for defendant camera pans over - looks like plaintiff has a bad toothache, not a happy camper! Ok, don't need to get into gory details. Suffice to say horse was hurt while defendant cleaned stall. Don't really need plaintiff to show her props (which are flawed, BTW, would have been more accurate to use a pencil instead on actual handle to poke toy horse.) Horse was hurt while being boarded at defendant's stable, only witness to injury is defendant, who was actually in the stall when horse was hurt - just hand over the vet records and skip horror show... maybe I just have too good an imagination - but I FF through some of this as I don't think details of injury change liability. Geez, yes, terrible injury which could have turned out much worse, but we don't need to hear the what if's or see the visual aids... just show us what vet bills was, not what it could have been - (yes, horse recovered). Ok, time to let defendant tell her story - not sure what she could say that will let her off the hook. Nope, I can see how she says it happened, and, I agree, just an accident with horse just horsing around, but the human in the stall is liable. In fact, her story makes her look worse. I'm no equine expert, but if you have a horse you know likes to go in and out of her stall, but you want the door open while you clean up, why not clip a lead to her halter and secure horse a safe area while you clean the stall. Sorry, not hearing a defense, just how it happened. For some reason, MM spends quite awhile on the part of the case I want to FF through. I guess MM just wants defendant to admit that had she done things differently, the horse would not have been injured. Nope, she's sorry horse was hurt - but not her fault. Ok, I get why plaintiff is mad. Guess when horse was being treated, and plaintiff was faced with potential 10 grand bill and possibility that horse would have to be euthanized, defendant was all, accidents happen, not my fault, etc. Anyway, I end up zipping through as much of the case as I watch. (hit play too soon and caught Harvey ripping off Mr Ed - a horse is a horse, of course, of course....) simple liability case with no defense which should have ended early actually goes a couple minutes long.... plaintiff gets her 5 grand. motor home sale falls through: depending on which one is talking, defendant may or may not have bought plaintiff's old RV. Plaintiff says defendant paid a thousand towards the $29,900 purchase price, then backed out of the deal, made a bogus complaint and got someone to order plaintiff to return the money. Defendant says plaintiff insisted on getting a $1000 deposit before he'd let defendant test drive vehicle, then refused to return the "deposit." Ok, when testimony starts, plaintiff has the signed paper where defendant agreed to make the $1000 deposit, but the paper clearly says deposit is refundable contingent on the test drive. Hmmmm, doesn't that mean buyer can back out of sale after he test drives the thing? And, how does plaintiff expect to recover $2800 because defendant backed out and plaintiff had to return the deposit? Ah, some nonsense about after looking at RV, defendant requested modifications/repairs which cost around $1900. Huh? Dude spent $1900 to potentially make a sale - and defendant hadn't even taken the test drive yet? Not sure where plaintiff is going with the case, but looking like another slam dunk where litigant fails to make a case and other side should win without saying a word... which of course is bad TV - MM will spend 20 minutes on the case where JJ would be yelling "NEXT!!!" Ah, glad I didn't just start to zip through. I wondered who defendant went to to complain and get plaintiff ordered to return the deposit. Seems, plaintiff owns a car dealership, and even though this was a private sale he put on the deposit agreement that he, the indiviual, was doing business as the dealership. Uh oh, he needs a special license to sell RVs at the dealership, which defendant was smart enough to catch, so his complaint was to the agency governing car dealers. Ok, now I get it, plaintiff suing cause he got caught doing something he shouldn't, and now he's got a black mark at the agency which licenses his business. Probably just sour grapes, wants to make defendant jump through some hoops and never expects to see the $2800 he's suing for... still kind of stupid, though, as both his and his business names have been mentioned several times now as a shady dealership on national tv. HOBOY, over to defendant, and in zero time MM is excited and yelling "You're a fool!" Well, yeah, way deposit receipt was written all he needed to do was hop in, drive around the block, come back and ask for his money back. Instead, he doesn't take the test drive, and enters into a phone/text exchanges asking for money back with no test drive. Ok, if plaintiff really made $1900 worth of modifications/repairs depending on the sale, I get him being pissed and wanting to keep some of the deposit (but he's a fool is he really spent that money before the sale - and after he re-lists the thing he should be able to get the rental buyer to pay, anyway.) Ah, but after calling dude a fool, defendant gets a chance to actually go through his evidence. Time and again dude was texting asking when he could come test drive the vehicle and getting no response. Finally, he stops asking for a test drive, and asks for the money back. Actually, he writes plaintiff a letter... well he finally gets a response - plaintiff sends the letter back saying "take me to court." Ah, plaintiff looked silly with the case, now he's looking more like a shady car salesman - oh, wait, he IS a car salesman. Ok, not only shady, but dude is hitting all the marks here. Defendant has the texts asking for a test drive - plaintiff "lost his phone".... defendant complained to State Agency - plaintiff doesn't have any of the correspondence with the agency dealing with the complaint... uh, about only evidence he managed to produce is the receipt for the $1000 - which actually helps defendant since it's refundable contingent on the test drive. Oh yeah, and even with the State trying to mediate and get him to settle, according to what he's testifying, he still refused to return the refundable deposit - why, you ask - because it's the principle of the thing! Of course. Oh well, times about up on this one - more nonsense about why he finally caves and refunds the refundable deposit and why he filed this case. At last - Case tossed! three's company: 'nother nonsense case. Plaintiff moved in with defendant and his gf while in college. Ah, but then gf becomes ex gf, dude moves out 5 months into lease. Another creative damage claim - she says she got stuck with his portion of the rent, so she wants $3528. Uh, how was rent being split? Was it in thirds, or 50/50? Who signed their lease. Either way, if she's now stuck with bigger portion, shouldn't she be suing both people who broke up, not just him? Ok, plaintiff can't mitigate by renting half the ex gf's bedroom, but has gf looked for roomie or tried to find someone to take over her room? Is that the ex-gf who came in as her witness instead of a defendant? Ah well, these are all college people, I'm SURE they'll please our resident grammar monitors ?. Course, defendant's intro him been being booted from apartment. Hey, if they told him to leave he's free and clear, right? Not like he has a legally binding lease with the complex.... ah, the almost married crowd! Ah, well, once testimony starts, MM quickly establishes 1) the $3500 is half the shortfall she ended up covering - maybe ex-gf already paid her half - nope! 2) witness is NOT ex-gf - guess she's just someone along for the ride/lunch. Oh, and plaintiff quickly tanks grammar 101 "me and his ex-gf spoke, like, every daily." Oh, and she's either an old college student (25) or she's bumping into the statue of limitations. Ok, both litigants are helping other side with their testimony. Best version for dude was to claim ex kicked him out and he had no choice but to leave.... but, no, he says he was first to suggest he move out and that gf said, yeah, that'd be best. Best plaintiff comes up with is that they could have made living room into a third bedroom.... hey, three adults should have been able to make it work for 7 months remaining on lease - but these are for-the-moment college kids ... 7 months is to long to think about and apparently way too long to act civil to an ex sharing your quarters. (Apparently the loving couple broke up because dude didn't wish her a happy birthday fast enough.) Ah, then she says gf told her he'd still be paying rent - no he never said that, just the gf. Actually, he does pay the next month, but then stops - so he paid approximately 6 weeks of rent after moving out.. Silly girl even says it was gf's responsibility to offset the rent, but that didn't happen. So, back to earlier question, why isn't missing roommate/ex-gf getting sued? MM asks, several times, did dude ever say the words "I'm going to keep paying the rent?" and silly girl keeps repeating, "well, we talked about it.... he said he'd try to help...." ah, turns out that after completing the original lease - the one she says she and missing roommate couldn't afford - the two of them, plaintiff and ex-gf resigned. Eventually, those two end their friendship, at least in part because they can't afford the place... plaintiff moves out sticking ex-gf with HER share of the rent, and plaintiff is currently in negotiations with landlord as ex-gf is way behind in rent. Uh oh, all that sounds like the ex is the problem, this guy is out of the equation.... especially when the rent situation wasn't bad rough after 5 months of just two people and they resign the lease. She didn't have much of a case before - but the re-signing put an exclamation point on it for me. MM decides plaintiff made no effort to mitigate. But, even if they had tried, it may have taken longer as what they had to rent was a bed in the living room. Still, MM decides they should have found a third roommate, but since it might take longer she makes defendant pay an extra month of rent..... hey, not me - I say rent the couple's room and put her on the couch, I would have dismissed. Edited April 14, 2018 by SRTouch 5 Link to comment
AngelaHunter April 13, 2018 Share April 13, 2018 36 minutes ago, SRTouch said: horse boarding horror: I did not look at those pictures. But, hey - the horse wanted to come in! Gotta let an animal do whatever it likes and if horrific injuries result, it's obviously the horse's fault. Yeah, my dogs all really wanted to roam the neighbourhood, chase cats and dig into peoples' garbage so of course I let them. They wanted to do it! Oh, wait - no, I didn't let them because I'm the human and know what's best for them. Def. couldn't tie up the horse or lock it out for 10 minutes while she's wielding a pitchfork, because the horse wouldn't like it. Not her fault. Except it is. I'm just sorry plaintiff couldn't have collected the entire vet bill. But, yeah, the toy horse show and tell was completely unnecessary. 41 minutes ago, SRTouch said: motor home sale falls through: Both litigants were incredibly annoying. It's the old, unprovable, "I hurt my back" defense and this case was boring. I think def. just decided he couldn't handle or afford the new, giant toy after all. 42 minutes ago, SRTouch said: Plaintiff moved in with defendant and his gf while in college. Sigh. Another 25-year old "Basically, like, me and her were" college student. I guess colleges feel they shouldn't have to teach rules of grammar that were taught in 3rd grade. Granted, plaintiff didn't seem like the brightest bulb in the pack, but still is basic, grade-school English too hard for her to master? 3 Link to comment
Florinaldo April 13, 2018 Share April 13, 2018 56 minutes ago, SRTouch said: I say rent the couple's room and put her on the couch, I would have dismissed. I had a similar reaction. The guy was nice enough to pay them a month's rent even though he was gone. And why should they assume that he was to take the couch: just because he is male and therefore does not need privacy? Had he agreed, he would have been entitled to a reduction in rent since the sharing conditions changed. Just as a new roommate who agreed to the couch would have been allowed a lower rate, but the plaintiff appeared too dim to even consider that notion and her duty to mitigate, never mind the possibility of her (horrors!) taking the couch. 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: horse boarding horror: The negligence was so obvious, it could have been disposed of in half the time. I guess the other two cases were not substantial enough to help fill up the hour, even with a little padding. 2 Link to comment
aemom April 13, 2018 Share April 13, 2018 (edited) The car wash case: I didn't mind MM giving her a lump sum for stuff, because I don't keep a lot in my car, but if I start adding everything up, I have umpteen shopping bags that cost a couple of dollars each, a nice snow brush (for all the damn snow we get), a shovel, a blanket, some CDs, a USB cable and a memory key with my music on it, a couple of sports balls, and that's already added up to a couple of hundred dollars. For the dog case, I was intrigued about the blog the plaintiff posted to and the answers that he got -- that turned out to be what won him the case. First time I've seen something like that. Defendant: "I was willing to pay." So why didn't you? Oh, yeah, why pay when you can get TPC to pay it for you - you ass. Newsflash - sometimes cute and fluffy dogs bite too. For the floor, well I think that she tried to pull the plug on him really fast and it was her fault not to get the permission. MM said "you wanted to fire him." "Oh, no, no no." Then 5 minutes later - "he was drinking on the job." DUH! Well, maybe that's why you wanted to fire him? Some people are just dense. It was really hard to tell how much he finished and how much money he was entitled to and I'm thinking that maybe homeowners and contractors should video their work at the end of everyday to have proof of what's been accomplished so far. Edited April 14, 2018 by AEMom Typo 1 Link to comment
Guest April 13, 2018 Share April 13, 2018 1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said: I did not look at those pictures. But, hey - the horse wanted to come in! Gotta let an animal do whatever it likes and if horrific injuries result, it's obviously the horse's fault. Yeah, my dogs all really wanted to roam the neighbourhood, chase cats and dig into peoples' garbage so of course I let them. They wanted to do it! Oh, wait - no, I didn't let them because I'm the human and know what's best for them. Def. couldn't tie up the horse or lock it out for 10 minutes while she's wielding a pitchfork, because the horse wouldn't like it. Not her fault. Except it is. I'm just sorry plaintiff couldn't have collected the entire vet bill. But, yeah, the toy horse show and tell was completely unnecessary. I have been so busy with work (kids sure do need a lot of counseling) that I haven't been able to watch one my court shows in a long time. So today I decide that come hell or high water I was going to eat my lunch (a lobster roll from Legal's) and enjoy TPC. So what do I get when I settle in at the table? A horse with a wood post up its groin. I actually shivered when they were talking about it so I switched channels for a bit - changed back and heard Levin recite the theme song to "Mr. Ed". I was going to change back to General Hospital but I pondered if it was at that moment Angela threw the remote through her tv and would be commenting no more. I hung in there and watched the stupid boring motor home segment. Just incredibly boring. For all my anticipation of my lunch hour, walking several blocks to Legals for a special lunch - then getting stuck with one unwatchable and one dud case- I would have been just as well off bringing a stale peanut butter and jelly sandwich to chow down on during the short time of watching and switching the channel. I'm around kids so much I'm starting to act like them. I wanted a road rage episode. A paternity dispute. I would have even preferred a bridezilla lawsuit complaining about the chicken salad. Anything...but a horse with a post in its groin and a couple of old goats sparring over a motor home. Sheesh. Link to comment
AngelaHunter April 13, 2018 Share April 13, 2018 (edited) 15 minutes ago, PsychoKlown said: (a lobster roll from Legal's) and enjoy TPC. Oh, yum. I was eating filet mignon - a rare treat - and the last thing I needed were graphic pictures of this poor animal, even though the horse was to blame for its injuries. 15 minutes ago, PsychoKlown said: changed back and heard Levin recite the theme song to "Mr. Ed". You're kidding, right? RIGHT?? Please say you are, because my hatred for that vertically challenged dirtbag really cannot rev up any higher. A paternity dispute? No, thanks. I can't listen any more to grown-up people saying that their "talking" resulted in an "ooops" unwanted pregnancy. Road rage? Yep, I'll take that over Santa Claus and the Great Grinnin' Punkin' sparring over some motor home. Edited April 13, 2018 by AngelaHunter Reason? Wine. 5 Link to comment
AZChristian April 14, 2018 Share April 14, 2018 What was really bad about the "horse is a horse, of course, of course" was that Levin was reciting the words to a tourist who was French and had already said that he didn't understand enough English to comment on the show. Sheesh. 9 Link to comment
meowmommy April 14, 2018 Share April 14, 2018 4 hours ago, SRTouch said: well, these are all college people, I'm SURE they'll please our resident grammar monitors ? 3 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: Another 25-year old "Basically, like, me and her were" college student. I guess colleges feel they shouldn't have to teach rules of grammar that were taught in 3rd grade. Heh. 3 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: But, yeah, the toy horse show and tell was completely unnecessary. All to explain to MM what a "groin" is. Such a complex medical term; no one would understand unless you shoved the actual stick up My Little Pony. 2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: A paternity dispute? No, thanks. I can't listen any more to grown-up people saying that their "talking" resulted in an "ooops" unwanted pregnancy. Road rage? Yep, I'll take that over Santa Claus and the Great Grinnin' Punkin' sparring over some motor home. How about instead of interminable weeks of reruns followed by returning to boring cases, they put together a compilation of MM's greatest rants? They could run footage of her screaming at idiots all day, AFAIK, and I'd watch every second. 4 Link to comment
AngelaHunter April 14, 2018 Share April 14, 2018 25 minutes ago, meowmommy said: How about instead of interminable weeks of reruns followed by returning to boring cases, they put together a compilation of MM's greatest rants? They could run footage of her screaming at idiots all day, Oh, hell yeah! Popcorn time. One of her best rants is on YT, where she rips that snotty little ginger pissant a new one. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUkEq0taWg0 5 hours ago, SRTouch said: I'm SURE they'll please our resident grammar monitors You're not making a dig at our resident grammar nazis monitors, are you?:p I mean, like, it's basically unfair to expect college students to be able to construct one proper sentence. At least def. seemed to have figured it out. 2 Link to comment
Silver Raven April 14, 2018 Share April 14, 2018 Levin's biggest sin was when he called the horse litigant "pitchy". 2 Link to comment
meowmommy April 14, 2018 Share April 14, 2018 59 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said: Oh, hell yeah! Popcorn time. One of her best rants is on YT, where she rips that snotty little ginger pissant a new one. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUkEq0taWg0 That clip never gets old. 43 minutes ago, Silver Raven said: Levin's biggest sin was when he called the horse litigant "pitchy". Well, ok. For me, Levin's biggest sin most days is that he gets out of bed and is still breathing. I was gonna make a snark about sneaking into the mob of sycophants with a machete at the ready, but I'll just say his lame-ass puns consistently reflect a complete lack of respect for the audience. Who the hell has ever told him they were a good idea? You've got MM, who, despite being a tee-vee judge, has a legitimate legal background and, I think, takes the cases seriously, and then you have this fucking asshole whose smirks and double-entendres undercut all the gravitas MM tries to bring to the production. 8 Link to comment
AngelaHunter April 14, 2018 Share April 14, 2018 10 hours ago, meowmommy said: Well, ok. For me, Levin's biggest sin most days is that he gets out of bed and is still breathing. An outrage, indeed. 10 hours ago, meowmommy said: I'll just say his lame-ass puns consistently reflect a complete lack of respect for the audience. His lame-ass puns, his sexually insulting cracks about women, his vaudeville-era stupid "jokes", his snickering about animals suffering and/or dying, his lording it over his dull-witted peanut gallery outside and his shoving his increasingly repulsive mug in the camera - I don't what is worse. And yes, his sleazy nonsense drags down the tone of what used to be a pretty prestigious show to just another smarmy reality show. If not for JM, I would never watch this. "“He is a festering boil on the anus of American media.” - Alec Baldwin. 4 Link to comment
babs j. April 14, 2018 Share April 14, 2018 Re the car wash case from a few days ago: The owner has to put in place a YOU MUST HAVE A TICKET THAT MATCHES YOUR CAR'S TICKET TO GET YOUR CAR and ENFORCE it. I wonder if he has lost any business because of the car being stolen. 3 Link to comment
AZChristian April 15, 2018 Share April 15, 2018 20 hours ago, babs j. said: Re the car wash case from a few days ago: The owner has to put in place a YOU MUST HAVE A TICKET THAT MATCHES YOUR CAR'S TICKET TO GET YOUR CAR and ENFORCE it. I wonder if he has lost any business because of the car being stolen. Also . . . am I the only one that removes all valuable items from a car before taking it to the car wash? I even take the loose change (and, of course, my .38) out of the center console. Also any CDs. I would NEVER leave a tablet, valuable sweatshirts, etc., in my car. I suspect the plaintiff didn't have any of that stuff in the car either. She was looking for a BO-NANZA. 3 Link to comment
Florinaldo April 15, 2018 Share April 15, 2018 1 hour ago, AZChristian said: She was looking for a BO-NANZA. She was as full of shit as the defendant was negligent in the handling of that customer's car. Which may be why she did not get reimbursed by her insurance company, assuming her policy covered such thefts. I checked mine and they would be covered; so if I ever find myself in that situation, I will claim that I was storing in my trunk 20 out-of-print Criterion DVDs, 5 high-end carbon steel knives and some audio equipement. As well as a little cash reserve, of course. I am sure they will believe me and reimburse my "losses" without the slightest blink, never asking for any proof. 2 Link to comment
SRTouch April 15, 2018 Share April 15, 2018 36 minutes ago, Florinaldo said: She was as full of shit as the defendant was negligent in the handling of that customer's car. Which may be why she did not get reimbursed by her insurance company, assuming her policy covered such thefts. I checked mine and they would be covered; so if I ever find myself in that situation, I will claim that I was storing in my trunk 20 out-of-print Criterion DVDs, 5 high-end carbon steel knives and some audio equipement. As well as a little cash reserve, of course. I am sure they will believe me and reimburse my "losses" without the slightest blink, never asking for any proof. Reading the comments and thinking of the case from a while back where expensive artwork left in trunk is damaged at the carwash - thinking on JJ 3 Link to comment
meowmommy April 15, 2018 Share April 15, 2018 2 hours ago, Florinaldo said: I will claim that I was storing in my trunk 20 out-of-print Criterion DVDs, 5 high-end carbon steel knives and some audio equipement. As well as a little cash reserve, of course. I am sure they will believe me and reimburse my "losses" without the slightest blink, never asking for any proof. The thing is, you might be able to prove you own, or at least bought, those things, but how on earth do you prove they were in your car? 3 Link to comment
aemom April 15, 2018 Share April 15, 2018 On 4/13/2018 at 9:01 PM, meowmommy said: Heh. All to explain to MM what a "groin" is. Such a complex medical term; no one would understand unless you shoved the actual stick up My Little Pony. How about instead of interminable weeks of reruns followed by returning to boring cases, they put together a compilation of MM's greatest rants? They could run footage of her screaming at idiots all day, AFAIK, and I'd watch every second. I admired the fact that the horse lady was taking no chances. Time and time again we see litigants say a variation of "Oh I have the proof, I just don't have it with me." This woman was GOING TO GET HER MONEY from the negligent horse boarder! She had vet bills, pictures, a replica pitchfork stick, and My Little Pony. She had it all! She was also one of the best-spoken litigants we have seen in a very long time. The poor horse. What a horrible accident. I'm glad she got her max of $5K. Too bad she couldn't collect more. The motor home guy was an ass. The reason that he held on to the money was that he was pissed that he had spent the extra money on stuff that the defendant wanted. But the defendant should have just done the test drive. Somehow I suspect that the plaintiff would have tried to weasel out of returning the deposit even if he had taken the test drive because he was hell bent on selling it and not returning any deposits: "On principle." The roommate fiasco turned out fair I think. What bothered me more than the bad grammar here (and I wear my grammar police badge with pride), was the "huh?" she said to the judge. Saying "Huh?" or "What?" to someone is like a ice pick in my head. The word you want is "Pardon?" My kids occasionally forget and get the look of death and a lecture from me if they slip up. I'm always hoping they never do that at school to a teacher or something. I'm surprised that MM doesn't blast people for that - God knows calling her "Miss" will get you a tongue-lashing you will never forget. 5 Link to comment
Florinaldo April 15, 2018 Share April 15, 2018 (edited) 3 hours ago, meowmommy said: The thing is, you might be able to prove you own, or at least bought, those things, but how on earth do you prove they were in your car? But, but, but... I am TELLING you it was in the car. Isn't my innocent trustworthy face enough?. ;-) As I said in an earlier post on the day that case was broadcast, if you say you were using your car as a mobile closet for all sorts of things, especially not related to automobile maintenance or operation, an insurance company would be fully justified in looking askance at a claim for reimbursement due to theft of said objects. Edited April 15, 2018 by Florinaldo 2 Link to comment
aemom April 15, 2018 Share April 15, 2018 7 minutes ago, Florinaldo said: But, but, but... I am TELLING you it was in the car. Isn't my innocent trustworthy face enough?. ;-) As I said in an earlier post on the day that case was broadcast, if you say you were using your car as a mobile closet for all sorts of things, especially not related to automobile maintenance or operation, an insurance company would be fully justified in looking askance at a claim for reimbursement due to theft of said objects. Truth be told, my mom asked a while back if my husband could help her get something heavy out of her trunk. I asked her why on earth it was in her trunk. I don't remember what it was, just that it didn't make sense to be in her trunk. She told me that's where she keeps certain things because she doesn't have room in her apartment and they provide weight in the trunk for winter. I had a good laugh. Link to comment
SRTouch April 16, 2018 Share April 16, 2018 (edited) ex suing over loan: Her story is that dude wanted a photo booth costing, a grand. His answer is that their deal was he gets her house painted (says she had estimates of around 3 grand) and she would buy the booth... so, barter, no money to be exchanged. Oh, and says he has proof positive showing he owes nothing. Testimony starts with her explaining they met through mutual friends. She was going on vacation, he wanted this booth, she told him she'd front the money if he watched her house while she was gone - but she wanted the money back. She says they did date a few times - over about a month long period. Geez, as she tells her story, all I can think is this is NOT someone I'd loan money to - casual acquaintance, need a photo booth for some "emergency" situation because a friend is going to have surgery or some such nonsense, has to have someone else manage his finances because of tax problems.... oh, and she tells us it was to be a short term loan because she needed the money to pay next month's bills. So many red flags in her story it's hard to accept... and that's before he says anything - doesn't he sound a few bricks short and as he does a little dance back and forth. MM starts to ask, then decides she really doesn't want to pursue this wacky "federal attorney manages my money" story. Hmmmm, maybe back taxes, which is why he barters instead of asking for cash? Anyway, her story makes no sense... time to ask dude. Have to say, dude makes even less sense as he dances around. (Maybe because I went for a coffee refill and wasn't interested enough to rewind and try to decipher his testimony.) If I understand him, he's trying to claim he and a couple buddy's painted her ugly green house. Ah, but when asked, he says the painting took place BEFORE she bought him the booth. Hmmm, says MM, are you saying you decided you don't owe anything because YOU decided the paint job offset the booth, or was there an agreement beforehand? All during this plaintiff is looking like she has no idea where this house painting defense is coming from... what I'm wondering - if he figures his work on the house was worth a grand, doesn't that mean somebody owes each if his pals money as well? Time for more nonsense from plaintiff. Now she's saying he volunteered to paint the house for nothing, even buy the paint. Uh, did I just hear because "he said he loved me"... didn't she start out with how they were just casual friends who dated for a month? Whoa, that little exchange, with both of them trying to talk over each other, makes me doubt her dubious case even more than before. Ok, nuf flapping of gums, MM wants evidence or texts - something which supports what they're claiming. Uh, yeah, plaintiff has text from dude in August where he's saying he can't pay, and his defense is that debt was repaid by painting house in July. Hmmm, pendlelum swinging back to her side - and he knows it, he's getting louder and just told MM to listen - not good, but she let's him slide to see if he's about to insert big foot in mouth. Hmmm, isn't he the one who claimed he had proof - now he's saying he doesn't have any evidence because it was a verbal agreement. His answer to "what about these texts?... you sound like a liar" is "I'm not a liar, I wouldn't lie to you or anyone else." Ah, no classic MM smack down, not even a rant, as she can't help laughning as she tells him he's talking gibberish. Ok.... case is over, right? But... we're only at the 14 minute mark. Is there another switcheroo coming? Nope, no switch, just calling it early - silly woman gets the money. Ah, but don't worry, he tells Doug he's got lots of women. It is what it is! He's no liar, and ain't crooked! neighbors fighting over common roof: these folks, been neighbors over 30 something years, have houses that butt up against each, apparently have a common wall where the roofs meet. When roof started leaking he asked her to go 50/50 on a new roof, she refused, he paid and is looking for her to pay. Her argument is that she didn't have any leaks, didn't need a new roof, and isn't paying because he wanted a new roof. (Ok, wondered during intro how 50% of a new roof only amounted to $2500 - surprising answer - intro got it wrong. Not a new roof, just repair and replacement where two roofs meet in a valley over the common wall.) Ok, dude has pictures of the roof after the repairs. Not exactly the best, as I would have liked to to the underside that he says he cut open to see where the leak was - yeah, he has some, but they don't show anything on my TV. Oh, and little chuckle, as MM is surprised plaintiff is 60yo - apparently she thought he was older - certainly looks older. Ok, sort of see where this will go when MM asks dude several times if he ever talked with defendant about sharing the costs. Well... sort of, but not really, uh... no... He let her know about the problem, and told her he was getting his insurance to send out an adjuster. Adjuster tells him the inside damage was covered, but the old roof was not. He brings out a roofer, gets neighbor's ok to replace the valley, but never got an agreement that neighbor would pay half the bill. So, asks MM, why should defendant pay half the bill? Oh, but dude argues, she had a couple satellite dishes that I think caused leaks. Uh, that he THINKS might have caused leaks, but, can he prove they caused leaks. Nope. Ok, I'm thinking a good neighbor would just pay half, but turns out defendant has reasons for refusing. First, she says she didn't even know plaintiff had roofer do anything on her half of the common valley. Second, says he never came to her about splitting the cost, though at one point he talked to one of her sons, and told the adult son that job would cost $2400 and her share would be $1200 (but never actually talked to defendant who owns the property). So, price doubled somewhere between first friendly estimate and the bill from real roofing contractor. Oh, and a biggy - there's a history here. 10 years ago a common retaining wall in the yard was crumbling on her side. She asked him to split the repair bill, and he said, noooo, fine on my side, it's crumbling on your side, so it's your problem. Says she ending up paying that bill, now it's his turn. Course, now that the roles have been reversed he feels different - besides, he says she never asked him for money for the retaining wall. Anyway, neighborly manners aside, guy has nothing showing she damaged the roof or agreed to share the bill..... case dismissed. family loan drama: couple years ago, plaintiff loaned defendant some money. Apparently, defendant is plaintiff's deceased wife's son who he's known for 40 years.... wonder if we'd be in court if wife/mom was alive. Geez, and claim is for $478.47... something tells me the case has nothing to do with any supposed loan. Defendant claims he did some work for plaintiff's sister and there was a dispute over how much materials cost, this is just latest battle in the family feud. Seems defendant is the kid we often see where parent is still taking care of them long after they should have been booted from the nest. Thing is, this kid is 59yo, 3 months behind in rent, no jobs lined up, and parent still supporting him. Yep, mean old stepdad, hears stepson is hurting and to tide defendant over he gets his, the plaintiff's, sister to write stepson a $600 on their joint account as a loan. About half of that loan is repaid - but there was never a payment plan or date of when it was to be paid. Later, a couple other small loans and/or advances made, which have never been repaid. Oh, and to get bum some work, plaintiff arranges for defendant to do a handyman job for plaintiff's sister. Ah, da' bum is something of a freeloader. He's used to sponging of family, and isn't above lieing about the cost of materials. And, oh dear, for those of you who cringe at poor dental hygiene, turn away when defendant talks. Ok, I firmly believe da' bum owes at least what plaintiff is asking for.... problem is, can he legally prove any of these loans/advances. Ah, but when he starts talking sonny (just seems wrong to call 59yo sonny - so I'll just call him da' bum) is making it out that stepdad must have dementia or something. He says they got along great - wouldn't be the first time (today) intro painted the wrong picture. According to da' bum, they were hanging together, going fishing, etc, then out of the blue he's served with papers for this case. Ah, after singing stepdad's praises, telling us how stepdad was helping him out and finding odd jobs for da' bum, defendant tells us stepdad came up with a way to scam stepdad's sister. Pretty much like house painter/dj/tax evaders dude from earlier, MM is letting litigant spin his story and hang himself. Ah, but I'm ready for Douglas to put da' bum in a headlock and take him outside. What pisses me off more than anything is da' bum laughing about the ruling. I mean, if stepdad, by his own testimony, was always trying to help this 59yo snowflake I could see da' bum getting mad, or crying if there's reallydementia involved - but no he's laughing because no money is coming out of his pocket... MM isn't too happy with him, and orders him to pay stepdad what he's asking. Ah, well, it is what it is, he tells Doug, as he laughs on the way around the corner to sign those all important papers. Edited April 17, 2018 by SRTouch 5 Link to comment
AngelaHunter April 16, 2018 Share April 16, 2018 31 minutes ago, SRTouch said: ex suing over loan: It was a BOOF emergency! Actually, just another ho-hum story of a stupid, desperate woman giving money to a loser for the boof emergency, and in this case such a loser that the government had to appoint a lawyer to deal with his finances since handling money is a big mystery to him and he ran into a "little tax problem." Must have been some tax problem! That was the only mildly interesting part but omg - that woman is such a motor-mouth. Oh, and JM reading his "texes" out loud and including his horrible grammar was pretty good. Best part? Def in the hall, informing Doug that he's got "lotsa women." I can totally, like, understand that, you hunk o' burning love, you. Every sexy, intelligent, handsome and successful man has lotsa women, but I guess none of his harem was willing to give him any money. Also, "it is what it is." 34 minutes ago, SRTouch said: ors fighting over common roof: Teebax - not sure if you're around, but you better skip this one. It was a twofer - both litigants appeared to be completely toothless. Like really? If I were toothless I wouldn't want to take out the garbage in case someone on the street spoke to me. These people have no problem appearing on national television this way. When JM asked plaintiff his age, after he said he'd gone on the roof to take pics and he told her he was sixty I could see her do a mental double take, probably thinking, "He's 5 years old than I am and looks 75??" Anyway, this show always makes me jump for joy that my neighbours are barely within shouting distance. 38 minutes ago, SRTouch said: family loan drama: This one? Utterly gross. Giggling, revolting stepson, with a nasty grill and bearing a horrific resemblance to Uncle Fester (if Uncle F. were a smirking creep and a bum and a scam artist) made my skin crawl. The worst part is that he's 59 and still looks at least 70. Good for you, Fester - you beat your former stepdad (who really must be at least 80) out of 400$ because even at your age you can't take care of yourself. Be proud! On 4/15/2018 at 3:35 PM, Florinaldo said: As I said in an earlier post on the day that case was broadcast, if you say you were using your car as a mobile closet for all sorts of things, Only really pricey things, like giant flatscreens, designer clothes and bags and tablets, laptops, etc. I always keep my most valuable items in my car. I can't help picturing all these litigants, sitting around with friends or family, asking them, "What should I claim was in my car?" as they shout suggestions which litigant duly writes down. 4 Link to comment
aemom April 16, 2018 Share April 16, 2018 Well, we had to get a case of dumb-woman-loans-man-money eventually didn't we? He's got "lotsa women." Uh-uh. Sure. They must be lined up around the block for your supreme hotness. *Eyeroll* It was fun to watch him continue to dig his own grave deeper and deeper every time he continued to speak. I wish we knew what neighborhood the shared roof people live in because it's clearly very dangerous to drink the water there -- because all your teeth will fall out if you do. A lot of tit-for-tat going on in that case and it probably ended the way it should have. The stepson really took advantage of his stepdad which was pretty sad. I'm glad that MM made him pay it all back. I wonder if his mom is spinning in her grave over his behavior. 4 Link to comment
meowmommy April 16, 2018 Share April 16, 2018 Since when does MM accept text message printouts, instead of demanding to see the phone, like she always does? 3 hours ago, SRTouch said: (Ok, wondered during intro how 50% of a new roof only amounted to $2500 I had half a roof replaced last summer and it cost me $2800. 2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: When JM asked plaintiff his age, after he said he'd gone on the roof to take pics and he told her he was sixty I could see her do a mental double take, probably thinking, "He's 5 years old than I am and looks 75??" What irritates me no end, given that I am also sixty, is that men invariably think that the girls they lusted after in high school are now far too old for them, when the reality is that most older men don't look half as good as women their own age. Was he contending that he would not have had the roof job done unless he thought the defendant was paying half? 3 hours ago, SRTouch said: She asked him to split the repair bill, and he said, noooo, fine on my side, it's crumbling on your side, so it's your problem. Says she ending up paying that bill, now it's his turn. Course, now that the role us reserved he feels different - anyway, he says she never asked him for money for the retaining wall. Karma, karma, karma. 2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: Giggling, revolting stepson, with a nasty grill and bearing a horrific resemblance to Uncle Fester (if Uncle F. were a smirking creep and a bum and a scam artist) made my skin crawl. He looked like the twin of the case 2 plaintiff, so I repeat what I said above. 3 hours ago, SRTouch said: defendant tells us stepdad came up with a way to scam stepdad's sister. Pretty much like house painter/dj/tax evaders dude from earlier, MM is letting litigant spill his story and hang himself. I try to imagine a world where these litigants come up with these stories, and actually think MM's going to be a big enough fool to buy into them. 3 Link to comment
aemom April 17, 2018 Share April 17, 2018 1 hour ago, meowmommy said: Since when does MM accept text message printouts, instead of demanding to see the phone, like she always does? I've seen from time to time where she only looks at the printouts. I think that she's okay with the printouts when she is sure that someone isn't lying. 2 Link to comment
patty1h April 17, 2018 Share April 17, 2018 (edited) What a dirtbag Romeo was - I wanted to smack him on his bald head. He is fine using his friend/boss's cars like they're his own, getting multiple tickets and not paying them, not returning a laptop, having car accidents, getting arrested for domestic violence, disappearing for days, having the car tracked to a Super 8 motel in CT after dodging his friend for a week, etc., and then wanting $5K from same friend for defamation of character. Sir, you have no character. What you do have is a crystal meth habit that got out of your control. He needs to take several seats, apologize again to his friend and then get into rehab. His boss/friend needs lessons in common sense and stop giving chances to people. They never understand that if he hit someone while driving her car, it's on her. And stop coddling druggies when they whine and cry and say they'll do better - they know every lie in the book and will use them to get over on you. Edited April 17, 2018 by patty1h 4 Link to comment
SRTouch April 17, 2018 Share April 17, 2018 (edited) not riveting cases - first case so-so head shaker - how could she be so gullible, and who believes Romeo is now clean and sober.... followed by two tired same-old-stories-different people cases I might as well have skipped Careless intern: plaintiff says defendant seemed to be working out well as an intern, but just as she was about to actually put him on the payroll she found out he was racking up parking tickets on the company car - not even on the job, but at his house. When she confronted him, he promised to pay... but hasn't and those late fees keep mounting up. She wants $2553.50 in fines and late fees, toll fees, and a missing/non-returned laptop . Romeo, the defendant, says that he got those tickets working from home. Says when they talked, she told him she was going to pay the tickets... says she's only suing because he turned down her job offer. Hoboy, Romeo doesn't like getting sued and not getting a glowing recommendation from his time as an intern, so he's countersuing for 5 grand for defamation. Should be an easy-peasey case - if dude was working from home there will be lots of texts. Plaintiff is a realtor, who, as a sideline, helps single mothers find housing without charging a broker's fee. Says Romeo was learning the ropes as an intern, never a paid employee. His duties were to include running errands and checking out possible housing. Situation arose where his mother took away his car, so kind hearted (read-stoopid) plaintiff let him use her car..... and I'm wondering if she bothered to consult the mother about WHY mom revoked his driving privileges - did mommy get fed up with him getting tickets on her car, his dui's or disappearing for days on his meth binges. Anyway, she says he was only to use the car during work hours and on the job - not for personal use. Sooooo, charming Romeo gets arrested (for domestic violence) and doesn't have his ID on him, so plaintiff goes to get it from her car which is parked at his place. Oh, while looking for the ID she finds tickets galore with her plate numbers (apparently he had use of three of her cars - and had tickets on all three). So, she says she collected the tickets, and she has them with her in court. While she's getting them together, MM turns to Romeo. Uh oh, she throws him for a loop when she doesn't want to hear what he wants to say, rats - she wants an explanation for the tickets. Ok, he says he told boss lady about the tickets when they were received - and he has the printed emails right here to show. Hmmm, sure nuf, he produces an email discussing tickets a month before he gets arrested. Huh, the email has to do with an accident while he was driving HER car under the influence.... and a month later she's still letting him take her vehicle home over night!?! Ah, but plaintiff wasn't worried, he promised to go to counseling so she let him continue driving her cars.... sometimes don'cha just want to slap some of these litigants with a stupid penalty. Oh, and this email is about the DUI/accident, not all the parking tickets she allegedly found in July. Anyway, after finding all the tickets - and getting him out of the hoosegow - she yanks his driving privileges, but he's still working for her. Which means he drove her cars a month after the DUI. MM takes the time to point out how stupid THAT is, then goes back to again ask Romeo what his defense is for the parking tickets. Oh, but your honor, when working at her office I had to park in a 2 hour metered space, and sometimes I couldn't get away to drop another quarter... uh, but most if these tickets were for illegal parking at YOUR HOUSE, not the office, says plaintiff. Yep, says MM, what's your excuse now, Romeo? Dude is not getting out of paying his own tickets - even though he thinks he apparently thinks that he should get out of the late fees because he "was trying to negotiate" a payment plan... not sure, was he trying to negotiate with the city, or did he want her to pay and he'd pay her back when/if he got a paying job. Ok, tickets on him, but now we hear what really got his driving privileges revoked. Seems he took her car to drive to anegotiate important meeting and was supposed to bring the car back that night and park it at plaintiff's mom's house. Instead he disappears for a long weekend, almost a week... she ends up tracking a phone in the car, and has it towed from some motel (in a different frickin' State, yet) where he left it when he got arrested. (No charge for the tow, she has AAA). Good thing MM isn't letting Romeo talk much, everything he says makes him look worse. Nah, let plaintiff do the talking - she apparently doesn't realize how gullible/stupid she sounds, maybe she'll get it after watching reruns of the show. Ok, I've heard more than enough on the tickets, and imagine the unpaid toll charges are more of the same, but let's hear about the missing laptop. Ah, this is she said/he said... he says he left the laptop at the office, she says, no he took it home and never brought it back... ah, but she says here's a text asking him where it is. Uh, text talks about the car, her phone, but nothing about the laptop. His reply is full of apologies and excuses about how it's crystal method that is controlling his life etc - but he's clean now, your honor, and actually has a paying job. So, MM asks Romeo, when did you stop apologizing and decide to file a $5000 defamation case? But, your honor, whines Romeo, she sent texts and emails about me to all our mutual friends... GOOD! says MM, she warned people about your addiction and that you're untrustworthy - what part of that's a lie? Ok, there goes countersuit... little more about how plaintiff needs to wise up, then MM awards her everything she asked for. phone plan suit: (?dud) same ole/same ole plaintiff adds defendant to her phone plan - defendant pays for a while - they have a falling out - defendant gets her own plan and leaves plaintiff stuck with either paying til the contract runs out or a hefty termination fee. Oh, and of course, defendant got the latest and greatest iPhone, which plaintiff is stuck paying for. Do people even consider what those phone plans can cost when they get the FREE phone for the friend with bad credit - in effect, guarenteeing those others will pay. Ok, rhetorical question - of course not, just like when they sign a lease with someone they barely know. Sooo, 1 of 3 things, or a combination - this was a monster of a phone plan, they let the bill reach the moon before stopping the bleeding, or this plaintiff is looking for a boNANza - as she's suing for almost $1,400. Oh, and of course defense is the tried and true (though seldom successful) "it was a gift!" Oh, and of course, when asked why plaintiff put her "best friend" on plaintiff's plan, plaintiff says defendant had lousy credit... uh, and how do people get bad credit, asks MM. Uh oh, MM blows the "gift" defense out of the water from the get go. Plaintiff says defendant was paying her own way in the beginning (her portion of bill was $100 monthly) - MM turns to defendant, did you pay every month? D, yep, but... MM, and why were you paying $100 a month the for this gift? Ok, bunch of nonsense from defendant to explain away that glitch in her case, but what it comes down to is there was one of those phone promotions where plaintiff was getting a GREAT DEAL and defendant could jump off her mother's plan, go on plaintiff's plan, and get the latest and greatest for next to nothing.... oh, except the fine print saying if you jump ship before contract ends you pay big bucks - like now!. Ok, I'm wondering, did defendant stick her momma with a ginormous bill when she jumped ship to plaintiff's plan. Oh, and not to forget, when defendant is explaining her credit situation and she's talking about not being able to pay for her own phone plan, we hear part of her woes are that she has an ongoing housing court case. Uh huh, it's not like she doesn't know how these things work - she explains that part of why she considers this a gift is that plaintiff knew her situation, they both knew she could get a cheap phone for $30, but hey, why do that with this great promotion going on. Anybody else thinking JJ had it right when she told her staff she was sick of phones cases.... case has been going ten minutes and it's like a script that I've heard a hundred times... time to zip along and hear decision - I'll rewind if there's a surprise. Nope, no surprise - when defendant fails to pay on time, phone company demands full payment on that fancy do-everything phone. Ah, but back to the $1400 claim. What defendant owes is the balance of the phone ($550) plus the missed monthly payment ($100) - half of what plaintiff wants. Ah, her reasoning is that when defendant jumped ship, the whole phone plan was suspended, so plaintiff and her momma (also on plaintiff's plan) couldn't use THEIR phones for three months. Forget that, MM says, that'sort your fault for putting deadbeat bestie on your plan, defendant owes for her portion - which with fees and what not has grown to just over $800. Oh, and some sage advice from da' judge, don't put anyone on you phone plan unless you're willing and able to pay their portion of the bill (hey, that philosophy works for loans to family and friends, too). Wow, what a smart/unique idea! rental security refund: (? dud) plaintiff says evil landlord is just trying to take advantage of little old lady. Could be, it does happen - but just as often it's a tenant from hell who left a place a disaster and still thinks they ought to get the full deposit. Ah, in a unique sort of twist, this little old lady isn't going after the deposit - nooooo, she says evil landlord trying to stick it to her makes this an elder abuse case, so she's after a $5,000 lottery BONANZA. Defendant says she's always been a problem tenant - noisy, pot smoker, frequent cause of other tenants complaints - he's glad she decided to move out - well, actually he wouldn'the renew her lease when it expired (hmmm he's not that much younger than the self described "old lady" suing for elderly abuse.) Ok, nonsensical story from old lady... says she moved into apartment sight unseen. Of course, MM asks why move in without checking it out? Answer - bunch of nonsense. So, her claim is place was a mess when she moves in, greasy kitchen, roaches, needed paint, etc etc. Sorry, granny, that's why you inspect the place BEFORE you move in... and, oh, document the conditions so you can prove you didn't cause the problems. Instead of signing an inspection sheet saying everything is good. Oh, and it wasn't so bad she wanted out of the lease - she stayed for 1 year, the duration of the lease, and now claims the landlord is keeping deposit for preexisting problems. (Ah, granny is section 8 so knows the ropes.) Ok, she's suing the security - but doesn't has the amount right... according to landlord security is $1890, she thinks it was $1850. She's suing for $1850, saying he kept that amount from the deposit. Hold on, says landlord, he actually kept $679. Ok, time for flapping gum story, let's see evidence (pictures of damages would be nice.) Uh, yeah he has pictures. First picture is messed up screens - she says they yelled at her when she asked for them to be repaired, so she did a DYI duct tape repair - he says, nope, no yelling, she never complained. Now she's resulting to name calling, landlord and property manager are nasty, chauvinistic pigs who yelled at her - uh, does she have any evidence or us her whole case flapping gums and a hope that MM will side with the old lady rather than old man. Ah, evidence.... she has letters from other tenants. Wow, lots of yakity yak and we've only seen the first picture. Now we see a series of slides of other things landlord wants money for. And all the while, MM has him explaining what the pictures show plaintiff is running her mouth interrupting. Don't you hate these woe is me victim litigants.... doesn't matter if it's a single mother, veteran, or elder - as soon as someone inserts I'm a poor mistreated this or that, their case takes a major hit in my view. Ok, she has no case for her elder abuse claim, and really very little for the deposit. The best she has is that I'm not sure if landlord presented evidence of the actual amount he withheld - remember she says he kept $1850 while he says less than $700. He's shown me enough to keep $700, but not 2 grand. Ok, maybe I missed that, the ruling is based on his keeping the $1850 and MM deciding he's entitled to keep $600.... not worth watching again to figure out, and he doesn't argue when he's ordered to pay $1200 - so, maybe I heard it wrong.... Edited April 17, 2018 by SRTouch 9 Link to comment
AngelaHunter April 17, 2018 Share April 17, 2018 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: Careless intern: plaintiff says defendant seemed to be working out well as an intern Really and truly? Plaintiff is so gullible, so naive and so easily conned I really don't think she should be trusted to do what she does. Oh, wait, no. She has a "big heart" which comes under the "it is what it is" rule, excusing ridiculous behavior. I wonder how many other people - those sainted "single mothers" have scammed her. Romeo is sooo loveable, he's a "people person"! Sadly, Romeo is also a drunk and a drug-addicted sociopathic manipulator who was arrested for domestic violence. I'm sure even a child could have seen through him, but plantiff? Duh. Nope. She felt sorry for him because he had "hard times". His momma 'tooken' his car away! Yes, that's truly tragic - a real hardship. Even his own momma didn't trust him, but plaintiff did. After he got drunk and crashed her car she let him drive it again(!!), cuz he's just so lovable. Plaintiff is just lucky Romeo didn't kill someone while tooling around high. Maybe it's just me but I saw nothing lovable about that repulsive, smarmy little creep, who has "important meetings" in a Super8 motel. I can just imagine those meetings. Bwhahaha! Does this organization work on donations or grants? People are donating money so Romeo can get his freak on in a Super8? They really deserve to know that. JM lambastes both parties, for all the good it will do. You can't fix stupid and you can't fix sociopaths. JM said what I've said for years, that someone who is deprived or on "hard times" is not necessarily deserving. Romeo is a prime example. 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: phone plan suit: (?dud) Boring. Another fool puts her "friend" on a phone plan. Beastly friend never pays her bills but has money for 2" fake talons and whatever that nasty grill was she was sporting and has never gone hungry. She's on social security but really needs an iPhone7. Yeah, I need one too, but since unlike plaintiff I have to pay for it myself, I'll stick with my 129$ LG phone with my 17$/month plan. No boring, cheap phones for her! Only the best, when some fool is paying for it. Funny, none of my friends or family has asked me to put them on my phone plan. If they did I might wonder why then think, "Oh, I guess they stiff everyone to whom they owe money. Maybe I shouldn't do that." JM lectures this plaintiff too. I hope it penetrated her brain. 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: rental security refund: (? dud) That was one feisty, tokin' up old lady. Another one whining that a landlord "wouldn't let her" see the place before renting. She was desperate for a place. I guess those kids and grandkids of hers declined to help her in any way. I never knew that generic yelling automatically constituted "chauvinistic" behavior. As JM said, that's just being rude. Everyone seems to think if they claim they are victims of sexist, ageist, sizeist, racist or whatever remarks they automatically win. Not so. Or plaintiff just doesn't know the definition of "chauvinist." 8 Link to comment
califred April 18, 2018 Share April 18, 2018 I have a big heart as well but unless you are my parent, child or spouse you aren’t driving my car. And even if you are related to me you will pay for your own tickets and quit driving my car 6 Link to comment
SRTouch April 18, 2018 Share April 18, 2018 5 minutes ago, califred said: I have a big heart as well but unless you are my parent, child or spouse you aren’t driving my car. And even if you are related to me you will pay for your own tickets and quit driving my car But... but... you'll put me on your phone plan, won't you? PRETTY PLEASE! 4 Link to comment
AngelaHunter April 18, 2018 Share April 18, 2018 5 minutes ago, califred said: I have a big heart as well but unless you are my parent, child or spouse you aren’t driving my car. Oh, come on! Let me drive your car. I'm on hard times and I have a very important executive meeting in the No-Tell Motel and anyway, I got only one DUI last time and just a few tickets. What's the problem? 4 Link to comment
SRTouch April 18, 2018 Share April 18, 2018 Just now, AngelaHunter said: Oh, come on! Let me drive your car. I'm on hard times and I have a very important executive meeting in the No-Tell Motel and anyway, I got only one DUI last time and just a few tickets. What's the problem? And mommy took away MY CAR 4 Link to comment
meowmommy April 18, 2018 Share April 18, 2018 So where was the evidence of the "elder abuse?" Hard to tell who was older; the plaintiff and the defendant looked to be the same age. And not a single shred of evidence to support any of her claims. As MM said, the dog ate her homework. Her phone got wet, and of course she would never have downloaded and therefore backed up such important pictures to a computer. 6 Link to comment
AngelaHunter April 18, 2018 Share April 18, 2018 1 minute ago, meowmommy said: So where was the evidence of the "elder abuse?" As if little Mr.Magoo was going to abuse that battleaxe. I guess if you're over a certain age and someone gets irate that you're doing drugs on their premises, that makes it "elder abuse." I did like the marijuana decoration that she mumbled and muttered that oh, someone gave her that. Funny I never gave my mother a sign celebrating weed. Never would have thought about it. 9 minutes ago, SRTouch said: And mommy took tooken away MY CAR There. Fixed it. 5 Link to comment
aemom April 18, 2018 Share April 18, 2018 (edited) Crystal meth guy just dug a bigger hole every time he opened his mouth. Plaintiff was a fool. Litigant #2 was a fool as well. I cannot believe how many cases we have seen where idiots put other people on their phones "because they have bad credit." They have bad credit because THEY DON'T PAY THEIR BILLS. What makes you think that they will pay YOUR phone bill? Clearly, the world is just filled with stupid people. Renters - if you're going to argue that the damage was there when you moved in, take a video and a million pictures when you move in and again when you move out. When I had to move my mother-in-law out of her apartment at the senior's residence, I took pictures of each room from every angle to prove how we left the place. There was no issue at all, but I heard MM in my head and told my husband "wait - we must take pictures before we leave." A rather boring episode overall filled with assorted nitwits. 34 minutes ago, meowmommy said: So where was the evidence of the "elder abuse?" That's why I don't listen to the intros anymore. So often, they are just filled with fabrications that have nothing to do with the cases at all. Edited April 18, 2018 by AEMom Typo 5 Link to comment
Silver Raven April 18, 2018 Share April 18, 2018 49 minutes ago, AEMom said: That's why I don't listen to the intros anymore. So often, they are just filled with fabrications that have nothing to do with the cases at all. The plaintiff claimed it herself. 1 Link to comment
meowmommy April 18, 2018 Share April 18, 2018 1 hour ago, AEMom said: When I had to move my mother-in-law out of her apartment at the senior's residence, I took pictures of each room from every angle to prove how we left the place. There was no issue at all, but I heard MM in my head and told my husband "wait - we must take pictures before we leave." I shot a running video of my house in January, after I sold it, right after the movers left. Just in case somewhere down the road, the buyer decides something was wrong and wants to blame me. Yes, learned it here. 5 Link to comment
AngelaHunter April 18, 2018 Share April 18, 2018 10 hours ago, meowmommy said: Yes, learned it here. I learned things here too. Years ago when I sold something on CL (for the first and last time!) I grabbed the nearest crayon and the nearest roll of toilet paper and wrote up a little "as is" disclaimer. 6 Link to comment
patty1h April 18, 2018 Share April 18, 2018 (edited) I loved MM dressing down the defendant with the broken arm in the car deal case - she was full of excuses and no proof. If her stories are true, she has shit luck. She learned this lesson: a fire in your home + breaking your arm + no proof = the judge goes ham on you. I wonder why she felt the need to wrap a big sweater around herself to cover her broken(?) arm. Maybe it's not broken? And I love when Doug Llewellyn gets the liars/scammers and lets them have a blast from his smarm bazooka. He is a master. It's always nice to see Douglas and now we get to see him speaking directly to us, giving the info on how to file a case on TPC. Edited April 18, 2018 by patty1h 5 Link to comment
SRTouch April 18, 2018 Share April 18, 2018 (edited) car deal between friends goes awry: litigants were once friends and coworkers. Plaintiff decides to sell her 2010 car, defendant's son needs a car - hey serendipity. Ah, but it's all in the details... plaintiff is selling car to her good friend on payments - never a good idea unless you're a bank or some sort of financial institition. Plaintiff doesn't want defendant's young son driving the car while it's in plaintiff's name - good idea. So... she signs the title over to her good friend she's known for 2 years - terrible idea! Turns out plaintiff had been trying to upload this car for a couple years, so I'm guessing she jumped right on defendant's offer to buy. Time goes by, and now the friends are in court fighting because plaintiff says she's still owed a grand and defendant claims she paid off the car. Oh, another bad idea - plaintiff is dealing with her friend, but it's the friend's kid who is supposed to pay. Good way to ruin a friendship, kid pays money to his mommy, mommy gives it to her friend. So, when payments are late, plaintiff calls mommy, who makes excuses for sonny boy or ends up making payments herself. Ok, time to ask defendant WTH is going on. Ah, surprise, she says sonny gave her the money, she'd write plaintiff a check - car has been paid in full. Geez, easy enough to prove - surely they have a written agreement, defendant doesn't even need receipts since she says she made the payments by check - she should be able to show exactly how much she paid that was cashed/deposited by plaintiff. Ah, that's not how she wants to make her case. Instead, she hold up the title and says her having the title means she paid off the car in full... she says plaintiff signed over the title so car could be registered out of plaintiff's name, but after the visit to the DMV plaintiff held onto the title. Nope, that dog don't hunt, MM, sitting with her arms crossed, wants her to show she actually paid off the car. Ah, she doesn't have proof - burned up in a house fire ? ?. Whoa, good one! Uh, but didn't she say sonny gave her the cash and she paid plaintiff with a check. I know we don't get back our canceled checks like in the old days, but that doesn't mean you can't get your bank records. Well, that tack doesn't seem to be working - so time to resort to mud slinging... now she says plaintiff and her hubby make it a happen of filing law suits, yep, they're evil vindictive people. Oh, and a sympathy card is played because she broke her arm yesterday, is in a great deal of pain - which is why she brought daughter with her today for emotional support. Geez, now if only she can squeeze out a tear (which, as we all know, doesn't work with DiMango on Hot Bench). Ok, now MM starts reading out text exchanges where plaintiff politely asks, where the hell's my money, and defendant says, in the mail. Oh, dear, remember the mud slinging about her and hubby being all vindictive sue happy evil people... as MM goes through the texts it turns out that in addition to plaintiff selling this car on payments, her hubby loaned her $3000 interest free - ah, such nice people says MM. Ok, just now coming up to 14 minute mark, and I'm not even sure what her defense is. Ok, MM rants a little, and calls it early. Ah, and what does defendant gave to say to Doug, she just wouldn't let me talk.... wah wah.... I got the proof, just can't get to it... woe is me! phone case ?: geez, didn't we just have this case yesterday. Well, different faces, but just about same script - please, don't use the extra 5 minutes beating on this dead horse (yep, extra 5 minutes on this ?. This time, plaintiff puts not only the defendant, but her kids, on his plan. Oh, yeah, friends since 7th grade and dated defendant. Surprise! She stops paying, and of course that kicks in the fine print where cell phone company comes after plaintiff for everything... it's due NOW! Dude can't even return the phones/devices he got for deadbeat, cause she won't return them and has stopped communicating with him. Oh well, as phone cases go, this one is kind of puny... only looking for $850. Defendant argues she was making all her payments to plaintiff. She thought everything was fine until service was suspended - doesn't know what he was doing with money she paid him, but provider claimed they weren't being paid. When service was suspended she stopped paying, tried to return the devices and plaintiff refused. Ok, completely different stories... I'm guessing this will be another case settled by texts proving somebody's pants are burning. Well, actually sounds more like miscommunication than outright lies (and of course normal twisted half right statements in the intro.) So, they had been together on phone plans for years - first with T-Mobile and then Verizon. When they started the Verizon plan, monthly bill ran $240, and she was paying 75% since she had 3 of the 4 lines (so $180) 9 months into the 2 year contract, she let's him know she's having trouble coming up with the money. Ok, she wants out, and offers to return the devices. He tells her returning her three phones really won't solve the problem - he's committed til the end of the contract. When defendant starts she tells a different story, more in keeping with her intro. Says she paid him every month, but Verizon would suspend services at the end of every month because he was late paying them. Heck, he doesn't even argue the lines were being suspended - MM turns and asks him if lines were shut off each month, and he answers without thinking, yeah, but only three times.... oops, MM already knew the answer, as she responds to his "only three times" with "no, I've already checked, I know it was more than three times." Hoboy, she holds up a THICK stack of paperwork that he handed in as evidence, and announces there were at least 5 times (out of 9 months) that service was suspended because he failed to pay Verizon. That pretty much ends his case for me. He's already agreed they met each month and she paid him her portion, and now he's admitting he wasn't giving the money to Verizon and she wasn't getting want she paid for. Ok, she has to give back any devices he's being charged for, but any late or early termination fees are on him. In a last gasp effort to squirm out of hole he's just dug, now he says she was always late with her payments.... time for her to produce evidence of making payments. Oops, evidence? What's that... her evidence is awful shaky. She says she no longer has texts because she wiped the phones in preparation to return them to plaintiff - and she has the three phones right here to return. (He doesn't have HIS texts because his phone was smashed and he says Verizon won't give them to him without a subpoena.) Yeah, she has bank records showing withdrawals, but not for the $180 amount. So, says MM, how can she show the money went where she says instead of... or maybe it went for... oh, cocaine. Ah, now he says when he checked with Verizon he was told it wouldn't help to return the phones - after 30 days Verizon didn't want them back. So he suggested she try to sell them to get a little something to go towards the bill... actually makes a bit of sense. Oh, and when asked, she tells us that she and her kids are now on new bf's plan.... come on, woman! Did you learn nothing!? Tell us at least this time you avoided a multi year contract. Pendulum was swinging towards her, but that - and her smirk/laugh - makes me want to give him what he's asking. Ah, but still, I think he contributed mightily to this fiasco - maybe they should split the cost. Ah, defendant dodges around, claiming she has evidence only to not be able to produce WORTHWHILE evidence... she's gaining speed down the slippery slope - oh, and she admits she sometimes was late paying HER share. (Hey, at least she learned something - she now transfers money into new bf's account to instead of withdrawing money at the ATM and paying cash.) Decision time - MM splits the bill. She ends up ordering defendant to pay about half of want he wanted. Ok, guess defendant reset during the walk outside. During case we learned phones WERE NOT cut off every month, and that she was sometimes late making her payments... but now she's telling Doug she made all her payments on time and lines WERE suspended every month. rental deposit debacle: plaintiff says he put down a deposit on an apartment, but was later told place wasn't available - and landlady was keeping the deposit. He wants back his $600. Hold on, says landlady. She says when apartment was ready, he needed more time to get together the rent. Then when rental fell through due to his not coming up with money he's now demanding return of deposit. Nope, no way, she's lost money holding apartment for dude to get his act together - and is countersuing for $350. (Oh, dear, was it just yesterday with the old lady case where we discussed hating the "poor little old me" litigants. As we go to commercial we hear landlady start the single woman routine and MM cuts her off.) After commercial I am not liking plaintiff's long winded story. Not sure how long he would have gone on if MM wasn't hurrying him along. What I gather from his story is that he wanted to make biweekly payments to pay off the deposit, then he'd start in on rent payments. Good grief, if a potential tenant can't make the deposit why would a landlord consider renting to them - especially as we're only talking $600. Whoa, not only that, but bimonthly turns into 2 months - and he still didn't have all the deposit and 1st month rent... if it had been me, I would have been thanking my lucky stars he never moved in - and I sure wouldn't have taken from mid August til November to tell him he couldn't have the apartment. OTOH, sounds like she had some convoluted reason. Dude was supposed to move in October 1st. Then her other tenants, who had been there for years and were scheduled to buy a house and move out, wanted to stay a month longer than planned. She says she contacted plaintiff and asked him if he could wait until Nov, and he said sure. Ok, that makes more sense. So, she had his partial deposit and she was the one who asked that he wait til November to move in.... He made the $600 deposit to hold apartment - but still owes $350 security and 1 month rent due November 1st... sooooo why didn't he move in? Uh, mid oct he promises to finish paying security ($350) and supposed to have rent ($950) on first. He a no show with the $350, and she has several unanswered texts asking what's going on. Finally, 2 days before he's due to move in she's texting saying if he doesn't come up with the money she'll put it back on the market and keep the $600. Finally, after ignoring her for weeks, that gets a response. He gets all upset, what do you mean I won't get a refund of my (partial) deposit. Ok, landlady bent over backwards to help dude, still didn't work out, she not only should keep the $600, but get the rest of the deposit, because that's just the way rental deposits work when the potential renter can't meet their agreement. Yep, but after the ruling he's still saying he doesn't get it - somewhere between lectern and the hallway he figures it out because he tells Doug he just needed someone besides defendant to explain it. Edited April 18, 2018 by SRTouch 1 6 Link to comment
Florinaldo April 18, 2018 Share April 18, 2018 (edited) On 17/04/2018 at 10:07 PM, meowmommy said: So where was the evidence of the "elder abuse?" I am certain that she did not feel she needed any evidence: the sheer undeniability of her word should suffice and as an older person she is automatically allowed to call anyone who dares to contradict her an "abuser". She came across as one of those people who is always right, no matter what the facts are. And the defendant seemed a little disorganised and meek when facing that dragoon. She kept saying he perjured himself; how would she characterise what she was herself doing? Although she probably repeated her story so often in her mind that she has come to believe it. Edited April 19, 2018 by Florinaldo 3 Link to comment
AngelaHunter April 18, 2018 Share April 18, 2018 Wow. The stupid was strong today. I notice JM is becoming more and more hostile towards idiots, losers, fools and scammers lately, with great justification. 29 minutes ago, SRTouch said: car deal between friends goes awry: I wasn't surprised about the basic facts: Plaintiff sells a car to someone she knows, gives over the title before full payment and then is shocked when some deadbeat decides to stop paying. I was only surprised that plaintiff said she'd been trying to sell this car for years!! Not sure why or how that's possible, but anyway it seems plaintiff's husband is just as silly as she is. He loans the rabid hambeast 3K. Plaintiff and hubby better change the way they deal with things or they'll be spending a lot of time in court. Def has every excuse in the book for not paying and for having zero evidence of paying - she's not feeling well, she broke her arm, her house burned down, she's in pain, blah blah, get out the little violin and her son is a deadbeat just like her - well, okay she didn't say that but it's the truth I guess. Plaintiff is just vindictive because she wants her money. JM is revolted and enraged by def and rips her a huge new one before giving plaintiff the judgement. In the hall, said hambeast complains that she could have explained had she been allowed to say more than three words. Really, in that situation I would just slink out of there, permanently mortified, but not Big Bertha. She did nothing wrong! 38 minutes ago, SRTouch said: phone case ?: geez, didn't we just have this case yesterday. It does seem that way. Dweeby little plaintiff who can't pay his bills wants to be Mr. Big Shot and get pricey phones (why do people buy phones from the service provider? If they had the brains to add it up they would say that this way they probably pay double the value of the phone)for his squeeze who looks like she could be first def's sister, and her spawn. Teenaged boys need expensive phones. It's a necessity, I guess. Alas, def is much in demand - she must have some seductive quality I can't see - and found a new lover-boy and leaves Dweeb with the bills. Now she found some other fool to get her yet more phones. I didn't really care who won what. Ridiculous litigants. 45 minutes ago, SRTouch said: rental deposit debacle: More boring, grammatically challenged litigants. JM has no patience for your biographical backstory, people - not that plaintiff is broke nor that def is disabled (which should be a given on this show unless otherwise stated). Get on with it! Def, although in the right, was just as irritating as plaintiff, who came to court just so he could get someone else to tell him he's not entitled to a refund after he broke, for no reason, an agreement to rent the place. He works 80 hrs/week but still can't afford to pay what he agreed to pay. What - is he making 2$/hr? Waste of airtime, and probably of oxygen too. 5 Link to comment
meowmommy April 19, 2018 Share April 19, 2018 2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: I was only surprised that plaintiff said she'd been trying to sell this car for years!! Not sure why or how that's possible, but anyway it seems plaintiff's husband is just as silly as she is. The first thing that popped into my mind is that she overpriced her car. Something I see all the time in used car ads. People forget there's a little thing called Kelley Blue Book that is not just available to dealers any more. And that cars depreciate, not appreciate. 2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: Def has every excuse in the book for not paying and for having zero evidence of paying - she's not feeling well, she broke her arm, her house burned down, she's in pain, blah blah, get out the little violin and her son is a deadbeat just like her It was a new level of the dog ate my homework. She definitely had more excuses than that dog has fleas. 2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: JM is revolted and enraged by def and rips her a huge new one before giving plaintiff the judgement. And this is why I watch MM and not JJ. MM rocks righteous indignation, while JJ just seems pissed that she has to deal with anyone, including the winning litigant. 9 Link to comment
SRTouch April 19, 2018 Share April 19, 2018 (edited) assistant wants her money: plaintiff says she was hired to by photographer dude (defendant) to assist on a photo gig. Thing is, she says when they were done he decided she was a lousy assistant - so didn't pay her the $1,100. Defendant photo guy says she was a lousy assistant, messed up on the project, and actually cost him money because of how bad she did - countersuit for $600. When case starts, we learn these two knew each other about a year, and had an on and off relationship/friendship during that time. MM asks plaintiff if there was any romance, P pauses long enough that MM says that should be a simple yes or no - which of course gets a laugh - and finally P says no for her, but maybe defendant had hopes. Ok, maybe so, but despite what she thinks, he may not find her charms irresistible.... or he could have hired her wanting get to show off what a master he is of his art, was mightily disappoint she wasn't impressed, and shorted her pay when she didn't fall at his feet. Confusing case, I ended up erasing my first recap and starting over. What it amounts to, dude sends a text outlining his planned shoot, saying there will be a total of 8 days work for which he'll pay all expenses plus a grand - that's it, no contract. He says she was such a lousy assistant that he ended up hiring replacements. Job is actually traveling to take school photos, and the replacement assistants are students he expected to make money off when he sold their parents pictures. His countersuit is for the money he lost when he didn't charge for those pix in exchange for free student labor. So, when all said and done, she took off her regular job expecting to work as his assistant and get $1,000 plus all expenses paid. She does the trip but had to pay for her own lunch (he expected her to pocket food from the free breakfast buffet for lunches). So, he doesn't pay anything because he says she was worse than useless. Nope, says MM, your remedy would be to fire her and not hire her again, not have her make the trip and not pay - oh, and all meals includes lunch (he argues motel actually gave them permission to take extra for lunch). Ok, rough justice and both sides are inflating their claims. Photo guy wants credit for full retail for the packages he gave away to get kids to help.... nope, ain't happening. Then P wants too much for her lunch - she has no receipts. MM gives her the thousand, plus $40 for lunches - so total of $1,040. hair salon: ok, typical "extension too tight, give me full refund" case. This time, plaintiff getting extensions for first time, not really knowing what to expect. She figures once the extensions are done, she'll save time because she won't waste a lot of time getting ready to go out or to class (yep student). Hairdresser says she's an experienced stylist and her customer got what she paid for, just not what she expected. Nah, says plaintiff, customer, hair was actually pulled so tight that it caused blisters. Sooo, being an old, white, retired Army guy who has always seen a barber regularly these cases make no sense to me. Why does anyone pay megabucks to sit in a chair for 7-8 hours every 3 months to have their hair pulled so tight that fairly common side effects include hair falling out and pain? Nope, I just sit down, zip zip, 5 minutes later I stand up and hand over a small fraction of what this girl paid. If I heard plaintiff right she's a student - surely not a struggling student taking out student loans or getting aid. Anyway, usual story about how plaintiff complains which sitting in chair, stylist says don't worry, you'll get used to it and you can oil your scalp to make it feel better. Ah, but plaintiff doesn't feel any better, and ends up pulling the braids out herself after a couple days and now wants a refund. Ok, I heard enough.... I zip ahead and see plaintiff lose... oh, seems plaintiff might have been allergic to the synthetic hair that was used - so, maybe that compounded being pulled too tight... hmmm, maybe so, but still not stylist's fault and she doesn't get a refund unless defendant did something wrong. dog attack case: plaintiff claims she was in her yard with her dog when her dog was attacked by defendant's dog. Defendant supposedly agreed to pay the vet bill, but balked when bill was over $1379. Ok, halfway through defendant's intro I'm ready to boo/hiss defendant for dodging liability. According to the intro, defendant argues joint liability because plaintiff's dog was off leash - but what we heard thus far indicates plaintiff's dog was on plaintiff's property with plaintiff, when defendant's dog came onto her property to attack. Also, Animal Control apparently blamed her dog as it was seized and euthanized. And, oh dear, apparently the heartache defendant's daughter suffered over the loss of her dog is also plaintiff's fault. Ok, terrible that defendant's dog was put down, especially terrible that little girl witnessed the attack and lost her dog, but how does that change defendant's dog coming into plaintiff's back yard and attacking. As case starts I'm not hearing a defense. Defendant's bf and daughter had a lease, but their dog was running loose, and not just loose, but according to plaintiff actually into the back yard where the attack occurred. Plaintiff says when attacked happened defendant's bf didn't know what to do, so she started hitting get defendant's dog with a broom while little girl is screaming and dude stands doing nothing. She ends up breaking the broom handle beating on the dog and not really accomplishing anything as defendant's pooch continues the attack. Eventually another man stops as he's driving by and between the three adults and little girl they get the lab/pit mix leashed and end the attack. Ok, time for defendant's (now ex) bf to talk. Defendant really can't say much, as she wasn't a witness. Ok, he really doesn't have much that aids in the defense. Says landscapers left the gate open, so he and little girl were out looking for their dog. He moves location of attack, says dogs met on sidewalk not in plaintiff's back yard. That might help the case for shared liability, but then he keeps saying how his dog was the agressor. Oh, and stresses how little girl was screaming and he didn't know what to do.... geez maybe location changed but otherwise plaintiff's story sounds right. Sounds to me like poor defendant's dog was acting to protect little girl and dude who admits he was afraid of his dog... hey, dogs don't understand boundary lines, plaintiff's dog was a new dog in the neighborhood and his Humans were coming down the sidewalk, so defendant's dog did a preemptive strike to protect HIS family.... then again, that makes you wonder why AC put him down - is this one of those zero strike places where animals are put down after a single incident. Ah, back to plaintiff - who now seems to agree her dog MIGHT have been on the grass next to the sidewalk - not in the backyard. That actually has me much more sympathetic to defendant's side. Soooo, now her dog is in her unfenced yard - she's sweeping the sidewalk, not really paying attention to her dog - when she first notices defendant's dog the two dogs were together on her grass, but who's to say her dog didn't leave her yard to go greet the new neighbordog - lady wasn't concerned when she first saw the dogs together as they were acting friendly - then as defendant dude and little girl get closer the friendly dog attacks. Not sure if that's enough to swing the decision since no one saw her dog off her property and all witnesses have defendant's dog as the aggressor. It IS enough for me to think plaintiff shares moral responsibility if not legal liability. Ok, this WAS defendant's dog first strike - one attack and AC determined he was a dangerous animal and suddenly homeowners insurance was prohibitively expensive, so dog put down. Tragic result which both sides could, and should, have prevented with better pet stewardship. But.... legally I have to side with plaintiff. Award goes to plaintiff - really wanted Doug to ask her if she had put up a fence or started leashing her dog, but according to MM in their jurisdiction there is no leash requirement on private property - even unfenced property. Defendant's really not upset with decision - actually like they expected to lose, but felt they owed it to the dog and little girl to tell their side. Nah, dog and little girl didn't need this to drag on - I go with they didn't expect the bill to be as high as it was Edited April 19, 2018 by SRTouch 4 Link to comment
AngelaHunter April 19, 2018 Share April 19, 2018 (edited) 59 minutes ago, SRTouch said: assistant wants her money: I liked this because it was a contract case, although personal issues were included. Def. is a total nebbish, but plaintiff agrees to share a hotel room with him even though she knows he's hot for her form, something I would never get hard up enough for a paycheck to do, plus she said she already had a job. Was 1000$ of such prime importance to her she'd be willing to share a room with the nebbish even after she had some incident with him for which he felt the need to apologize? I guess so. I've stayed in many a hotel that provided breakfast - either continental or full - and never have I loaded my pockets and/or purse with bagels, bacon or scrambled eggs so I wouldn't have to spring for lunch. This hotel serves breakfast sandwiche(what kind would those be?), or so def claims after thinking it over a bit and the staff there told him, sure, just go ahead and take two or three servings, "for later." So tacky and chintzy. JM, who by the way looks very pretty in her black turtleneck, rightfully tells nickle-and-diming, shrill plaintiff that no one can eat four energy bars at one sitting (unless they're weight training, I guess). It seems no one has an ounce of shame these days. Ohh, I had to spend 6 whole dollars at Subway! 59 minutes ago, SRTouch said: hair salon: ok, typical "extension too tight, give me full refund" case. But, it was a new one on me - "protective" weave/extension or whatever. These ensure you won't have to go to the bother and inconvenience of taking care of your own hair! A revelation! Much ado about hair on this show. But JM is right - def did nothing wrong and did what she always does. I remember a co-worker was wearing a perfume I loved. I asked her the name of it and went out and got it. Unhappily, on me the scent changed and made me totally nauseated. I didn't go back to the store and demand a refund. It's not their fault that whatever chemistry I have or the fact that I am someone who is just allergic to perfume and cannot wear it means that someone has to pay me. Every little thing that happens to us is not someone else's responsibility. That's just stupid. 59 minutes ago, SRTouch said: dog attack case: I heard the word 'dog', looked at defendants and thought, "Nope". Pass. On 4/15/2018 at 3:13 PM, AEMom said: What bothered me more than the bad grammar here (and I wear my grammar police badge with pride), was the "huh?" she said to the judge. Saying "Huh?" or "What?" to someone is like a ice pick in my head. Just saw this and yes x 1000. Hearing some mouth-breathing oaf say, "HUH?" to a judge (or anyone) literally makes me cringe. I know the Intro-Hall Clown says it all the time but that doesn't make it okay. Edited April 19, 2018 by AngelaHunter 4 Link to comment
meowmommy April 20, 2018 Share April 20, 2018 Got to the first bloody dog picture and that was, like, ok, I'm done. Was actually surprised SRTouch sat through it. 1 Link to comment
SRTouch April 20, 2018 Share April 20, 2018 7 minutes ago, meowmommy said: Got to the first bloody dog picture and that was, like, ok, I'm done. Was actually surprised SRTouch sat through it. Ah, one of those times I was listening more than watching, so didn't see the pictures... heard enough that I wasn't going to rewind and watch - I was in kitchen getting crock pot honey BBQ chicken ready to cook, and, hey, the trailer smells great! ? 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.