The People's Court - General Discussion

[NYGirl]

I was so irritated by the woman in the movers case today who "packed her wallet" (insert eye roll here).  Not only didn't she pay the extra money she didn't even pay the $500 moving fee.  

To boot...she tries to say the mover was trying to get "extra money".  You could tell who the crook was in that relationship just be looking at them.  I hate people like her.

[zillabreeze]

23 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

However, the brides think they are coming to a land of milk and honey and are willing to take a fugly creep like this one. Both are disappointed. Even repulsive Lurch couldn't stand living with her.

Full disclaimer.  I have my Immigration Law Degree from 90 Day Fiance.  So many questions!  The "host" spouse is theoretically responsible for everything thing the immigrant does for many years.  How can Lurch just dump Old Wednesday, unleashed on a condo complex?

All OW could say was that she was lonely and other residents were ignoring her.  Ya' Think?  I'd keep a wide berth, too.  

I wanted a full hour of JM grilling these two!  Question One to Lurch: if you have the financial resources to BUY a human being and stick her in the condo, why can't you afford teef?

My theory- he's one of those creepy bastards that love BSC women and goes to the condo just to bump uglies.

ETA: Perhaps it's time for me to get back to a full time job....my trash TeeVee habit is becoming concerning.

Edited May 3, 2019 by zillabreeze

[zillabreeze]

10 minutes ago, NYGirl said:

I was so irritated by the woman in the movers case today who "packed her wallet" (insert eye roll here).  Not only didn't she pay the extra money she didn't even pay the $500 moving fee.  

To boot...she tries to say the mover was trying to get "extra money".  You could tell who the crook was in that relationship just be looking at them.  I hate people like her.

OMG!  What a bitch!  She clearly found some scratch for those gawdawful microbladed brows!  

Back in my young & dumb days, I got fuqed out of my money for two weeks of hard damn work.  Three decades later, I still have a rabid vitriol for assholes that steal services.  Our court shows prove that jerks that probably don't work much have ZERO respect for people that do.

[AngelaHunter]

22 minutes ago, NYGirl said:

I was so irritated by the woman in the movers case today who "packed her wallet" (insert eye roll here).

Hated that slimy, vile heffalump. I guess she figured she'd blow off the old man and that he'd get tired of chasing her for what she owed. Doug in the Hall - we love you. "The judge called you a liar and cheat." When she started rattling on again with her stupid lies I'm sure he felt like saying, "Yeah, yeah. Now just waddle on out." The plaintiff appeared (and I know appearances can be deceiving) to be about 80 and I felt sorry for him if he really has to move furniture for a living. I really hope he takes JM's advice and considers the use of contracts to avoid this trouble with cheats and deadbeats in the future.

Plaintiff suing his auntie's ex-baby daddy or whatever: Watch how a disagreement over repair costs for a 16-year old beater car ends up with knives and guns drawn and where stabbing and shooting ensue. JFC. Unreal. Toofless def kept repeating, with some pride it seemed, that "You don't bring a knife to a gunfight." I guess he watched "The Untouchables" too many times and thinks he's Sean Connery. He also seemed proud of his missing teeth as continued to display this with a never-ending, huge shit-eating grin, as though something about this sordid mess was funny. I couldn't understand most of what either of them said, except that plaintiff stabbed def. a few times (with which def. didn't seem overly perturbed) but couldn't appear in court because he was "away" = arrested for beating up his woman/female/baby momma or whatever. The gun, the knife, the arrests, the violence - all seems perfectly normal to them.  I'm glad I don't live in a place where people like this are allowed to walk around with guns in their pockets. Wow.

I didn't really understand too much about the house sale case and wasn't paying close attention. It seems plaintiff was very eager to sell his house and decided to forgo using lawyers and brokers and took a chance on the def. Bad decision there and he's out of luck.

[AngelaHunter]

39 minutes ago, zillabreeze said:

My theory- he's one of those creepy bastards that love BSC women and goes to the condo just to bump uglies.

I watched a documentary on North American men who want Russian brides. It was fascinating in a bizarre way, but depressing for all parties involved. 

Edited May 3, 2019 by AngelaHunter

[zillabreeze]

26 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

Watch how a disagreement over repair costs for a 16-year old beater car ends up with knives and guns drawn and where stabbing and shooting ensue

Dude says "he was making great money" K.  You have a 2002 beater and you lose your damn mind at $800? 

I have a meticulously maintained 2008 Toyota.  Every couple of years, shit has to be done.  If my (honest to a fault) mechanic calls with an estimate under $1k, I do a happy dance!

Where are these idiots getting the idea that a hoopty runs forever???  If such a make & model exists, I wish I could buy one.

Well, upon reflection, I realize that my vee-hickle has the wheels and sound that it came with...all bets are off when you HAVE to have rims & woofers equal to a few mortgage payments.  Nothing screams "I make great money" like a junker with $2000. rims & tires.

[AngelaHunter]

49 minutes ago, zillabreeze said:

I have a meticulously maintained 2008 Toyota.  Every couple of years, shit has to be done.  If my (honest to a fault) mechanic calls with an estimate under $1k, I do a happy dance!

I bought a 2014 Toyota new. Last year it needed new brakes. I guess I should have packed my gun and/or knife to assist in the negotiations. How dare they say my car needed brakes! Of course, I don't go to alley mechanics - or to jail -  so maybe the gun wouldn't help.

49 minutes ago, zillabreeze said:

Nothing screams "I make great money" like a junker with $2000. rims & tires.

Maybe he was making all this great money before he beat up a woman and had to "go away."  Or maybe he just has better things on which to spend his munificent salary. I continue to be amazed at how so many litigants talk about going to prison like it's no big deal. 

[zillabreeze]

4 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

bought a 2014 Toyota new. Last year it needed new brakes. I guess I should have packed my gun and/or knife to assist in the negotiations. How dare they say my car needed brakes! Of course, I don't go to alley mechanics - or to jail -  so maybe the gun wouldn't help.

Well yes.  You are a complete & total dumbass.  You tots jacked up the whole hoopty system.  You didn't get your vee-hickle repaired without gunplay or  someones incarceration.  Therefore, AH ,you are banished from all court TV forums.  Shame. Shame

[SRTouch]

Nope, I haven't fallen off the edge of the earth (yet). Last week I lost a couple days due to finding a stray dog, and now having some medical issues. Nothing to be concerned about (at least that's what my doctor says). What it is, is results of my normal semi annual doctor visit and labwork last week showed decreased kidney function. This resulted in a referral to a specialist - which means more lab work, ultrasound, etc etc before seeing the special kidney doc. In addition to my own medical appointments, I'll be serving as a friend's chauffeur for a couple of HIS doctor visits, driving 90 miles up the road in Oklahoma City.. ... anyway, lots on my mind,  and not really into any verbose recapping

1. custom dress/contract case: P here wants money she paid for custom dress back, but from intro sounds more like buyer's remorse than a legitimate beef - if I heard right she tried to back out of the deal because seamstress took too long to finish dress - she was told dress was ready on December 31st, but decided there wouldn't be time for final fitting so canceled and demanded refund - suing for $500, which represents the fabric, a deposit, the ticket to the event because she didn't go because dress wasn't ready far enough in advance, and the horrible pain and suffering she went through not being able to attend.... defendant: says this was last minute commission - says P didn't bring her the fabric until 22nd and wanted dress completed by the 28th - told her that was really pushing it, and probably not enough time, but she'd try, but would have it done before the party.... filed countersuit for missed work.... 
   Spoiler

   Zipped through after intro - from hallterview I know P won, but only gets $228 - D admits she dropped ball - offered a partial refund and future discount and then didn't answer texts when P said no to future discount, she wants the money back

2. unmarried couple breakup and fussing over who paid for what: P says she bought a bunch of stuff planning on marrying loser BF, but he decided to go back to his previous gf - says loser bf and his old/new/current gf now have new furniture she bought expecting to be using after the aborted marriage - wants almost 5 grand.... defendant: his intro doesn't mention old/current gf -  according to him the breakup with P came about because their are incompatible - says he still loves her - claims he helped pay towards her CC and doesn't owe any more - says she lived rent free when they were together with him covering all the bills...... again, didn't watch much before zipping ahead 
   Spoiler

   MM orders furniture belongs to P, so arrangements are to be made for her to pick it up - D does have to pay utility bill he admits he owes, so P gets $209 .... when Doug asks D if he really has a gf on the side, dude laughs and says he isn't talking - P says she's happy to get furniture, but that she'll have to get it fumigated and will need new mattress since she isn'the sleeping on one where ex and current did the nasty

3. car deal gone south: P says she sold deceased hubby's pride and joy, a '69 Chevy Camaro and dirty dog defendant still owes her money - asking for $430 (sale took place over 4 years ago)..... defendant: says he bought it as a project car since he likes to tinker with rust buckets - couple defenses - first, says he paid in full when he picked old clunker up - 2) claims she gave him wrong title - countersuing for what he says he paid - wants MM to put kibosh on the deal..... may be best case of the day, just doesn't grab my attention - zippidy zip zip 
   Spoiler

   Sounds like best case of day, but didn't watch this one either - we're left hanging - sounds like D DOES owe money, but also  correct about no clean title - can't undo deal because car has been resold(?) - MM gives D 30 days to prove what he spent to get the clean title, and that amount to be deducted from what he owes.... Harvey tells us they managed to get clean title, but we don't know at what cost or how much D ends up paying

[AngelaHunter]

SRTouch - I feel your pain. Our maintenance increases as time goes on. You are having a rough time of it.:( Take care!

Lots of fuckwittage today. Well, the first case was just a humdrum, boring dressmaker saga in which plaintiff is looking for a lottery, including emotional distress/pain and suffering for not going to her very important party because - no dress. The only point of interest was trying to figure out how defendant can ever make a dress. Her wig was completely covering her eyes and her massive fake lashes - really, I'm talking crow's wing HUGE - prevented her from even opening her eyes all the way. Of course maybe when she's sewing, she whips off both wig and lashes. It's the only solution I can see. 

3 hours ago, SRTouch said:

unmarried couple breakup and fussing over who paid for what:

OMG. Freaky. Plaintiff, who lives with her mommy and daddy and is way too old to do so, appeared to be either mentally way off kilter, or high on drugs. It's love at first sight when she sees the rotund little def, Harley Davidson. Swept off her feet, she agrees, after one month, to move away from Mommy and in with Harley, who sojourned all the way from Georgia to be with his new paramour. He has no money, so plaintiff furnishes their new love nest, to the tune of 5K on credit cards, including of course a fake fireplace which is a necessity for people with no money. All this Romeo and Juliet crap ends in about 6 months when Harley finds scuzzy texts on her phone from some guy (imagine!) so they break up. He moves to FL and takes all the crap with him. Plaintiff never retrieved her furniture because she had no place to put it and had room only for her "plethora amounts of clothes". I guess the parental units didn't want it in their place.

There is no mention of her working to help pay the rent in their place. That was no problem, because Harley's credo is, "If you have a vagina, you shouldn't pay rent." Ah, these gallant Southern gentlemen - be still my heart. 🤣 JM loved that one, as did we all. I wish I had known about this rule when I was renting. Anyway, Harley says he has a text proving plaintiff told him to keep the junk, but he doesn't have it because, well, he has no self-control and in a wee hissy bitch-fit, threw the phone and broke it. He grins sheepishly, hoping JM will take pity on him. She does not.

Plaintiff wants money and not the furniture back. She's worried it might be covered with disgusting bodily excretions from Harley and his new squeeze. EWWWWWWWWWWW. "Tough luck for you, princess," JM informs her and she better find a way to get her junk back from Casanova. I doubt that will happen. It's a long trip and I don't think plaintiff can manage to be away from Momma that long. 

3 hours ago, SRTouch said:

car deal gone south:

This was kind of awesome, but I understand it. See, I was selling my car for 15,000$. Some guy wanted it, but when we went to the DMV he said he couldn't afford it and offered to pay only 500$. I agreed because it was hot that day. On hot days I don't mind losing 14,500$. That humidity is a killer! Def. is a total  small-time crook and liar. Not sure what use plaintiff's big, husky, manly looking witness (her daughter?) was because she said nothing, just stood there like a bodyguard.

[SRTouch]

1. 'nother nasty breakup: not sure from intro just what P is suing over - says she dated defendant (lived with him 3 years and he later admits he had side gf for 1 year of that time) they had nasty breakup - she hired a lawyer to get a restraining order - somewhere in the mess she figures defendant owes her 5 grand.....  defendant: claims P is a woman scorned using legal system to get back at him cuz he dumped her (says this is 3rd case she's filed).... uh, yeppers, he dumped her - guess it's time to dump your long time gf when she learns about your other long time gf) about all I take away from this is the end of intro where they print that D is accused of not paying legal fees - so, she sued him three times and she wants him to pay her legal fees - maybe, if there was a judgement against him where he was ordered to pay her lawyer, otherwise, nope, not happening - waiting to see if this belongs on Jerry or Dr Phil - intro doesn't make it sound like court case - court tv case, sure.... testimony: oh dear, starts out as I feared with MM asking for history of the breakup - noooo! Not interested! Luckily P doesn't really what to talk about it either - makes sense as she has other pending cases against D - Just tell us about these "legal fees" she thinks he should pay - oh, and she also wants lost wages for all the work she missed taking him to court? - anyway, since MM pried it out of P, we learn D cheated on her.... yawn - where's the remote..... after commercial I stop the FF to see MM has P's lawyer bills.... didn't actually do the math, but so far I'm hearing about $600 in lawyer fees - are there more coming? Quite a gap between what I just heard and a 5 grand lawsuit - oh, and D corrects the intro - says this is 4th time she's sued him - plus the restraining order - sure makes his claim that this is a 'woman scorned' revenge defense sound plausible..... oh my, and he passes up a copy of a FB screenshot where he says P posted that the lawsuit is revenge motivated - P defense for the post isn't "I never made that post" - nope, she wants to know where he got the copy 'cuz she unfriended him - when MM asks her if she made the post she doesn't deny it, just says filing all these cases has stressed her so much she doesn't remember making it..... uh, yeah, sure - NEXT!!! ..... more nonsense about the restraining order - BTW, no permanent order was granted, but both these dingbats apparently hired lawyers - ok, going to stop recapping and just watch how deep a hole this dizzy blond can dig as she knocks the Latina 'other woman' in her text/fb post in front of the Latina judge..... rough justice time - no legal fees because she still has other ongoing cases (including restraining order request) so that part isn't ripe - oh, and P is a teacher, and when asked to prove she was missed 2 grand worth of work she passes up proof of days she missed - where she told the administration she was sick..... yep, teacher lied and expects judge to order D to pay for missed those 'sick' days - wonder if school administration could sue HER for the substitute teacher's wages - and what's this? P suing for lost wages even though she was still paid for those days she claimed she was too sick to work.... somewhere along line when I was zipping through D withdrew money from account he shouldn't have, so P is getting something,  but nowhere near 5 grand - also MM mentions  'cat (?) case' in ruling & I totally missed any mention of a cat.... too bad MM can't penalize teacher for frivolous lawsuit.... time wasted while MM counsels the high school teacher about the lesson/example she's  giving her students - P gets $645 and making weird faces as MM announces her ruling..... 
2. what! 'Nother gf suing bf: this time gf says she ran bf's vape store while he was off in rehab - when she demanded payment for her hard work he called cops - she made such a scene the cops slapped the cuffs on her and dragged her out of store - another gf wanting 5 grand from her ex.... WTH is with her hair? It would drive me nuts to have hair hanging down in front of one eye all the time - not sure is she needs those glasses or if she wears them as goggles to keep the dreads from hitting her eyeball....   defendant: doesn't deny not paying his ex for running the business, but says she offered to "help" when he went away to acohol rehab and that she actually ran his business into the ground - says she was selling her own merchandise and pocketing the money, failed to pay the rent, leaving him 3 grand behind with his landlord etc etc.... ok, was she already an employee or did they have some wages/work agreement - you know, where they agreed upon her getting paid and listed her responsibilities (like paying the rent) - or maybe there are texts where he agreed to pay for her help - at least one offers some hope of being an actual lawsuit, even though I'm sure MM is going to dig into the relationship more than I want..... testimony: yeah, more relationship than I care about, but wonder if maybe his business wasn't already in trouble because of his alcohol use - and maybe gf just continued his policies while he was gone, and they didn't look so smart once he came back sober - according to her she knew to pay the bills and did so, even says she had receipts - her problem was D had her escorted out of store so she can't prove anything - also she can't produce evidence she had on her phone because - you guessed it - she doesn't have that phone anymore.... ok, losing interest fast, sounds like she can't produce any evidence showing how well she ran store, but everybody agrees she was there working, so was she a helpful volunteer or an employee who should be paid even though she did a lousy job?.... anyway, when MM asks for proof she paid the rent and P replies, no her phone broke I pick up remote and start pushing the button..... ah ha, when I slow down and start watching again MM is asking where the money P collected from merchandise sales disappeared to - P claims it all went to pay bills, but D says creditors didn't get paid, and P needs to prove she didn't pocket the money if she's going to get paid for running the store - uh oh, and now P steps in it when she tells us she wanted to take "her stuff" (merchandise she says she purchased to sell out of D store without permission or giving him a cut, but I guess she has been denying - yeah, more stuff I zipped past and not interested enough to rewind and watch - case big disappointment and is dismissed
3. tenant suing landlord over deposit deductions: yep, tired old story, tenants claim landlord charging for normal wear and tear (wonder how long til we hear landlord is a slumlord) suing for double the security - $2100 - not amount withheld.... defendant: says since P opened the door by suing him, so he's tacking on additional charges for repairs - countersuing for additional $874 above what was withheld..... ok, pretty much forget the double damage - that's for the real slumlords and/or dummies who don't know enough to be a landlord and follow the law, not for when there's a questional deduction from the deposit - if landlord came with any evidence I expect MM to toss some things as overcharged - probably a wash, but, again depending on his evidence, landlord may actually get additional money - probably not, his countersuit probably nickel and diming 'cuz he was sued....   testimony: ok, nobody has before pictures, but these folks moved in back in '15 and lived there 3 years - P says they got along great while living there, but things went downhill when it came time to leave - ok, rent was $1050, landlord sent refund check for something like $750 (which they didn't cash), so even if MM decides landlord was totally wrong and maliciously kept part of deposit, P should only be able to double the amount landlord wrongfully tried to withhold, not through whole thing - ok, and P admits to some damage, 'nother nail in the "no double security" claim..... time for MM to go through and look at the itemized list for the disputed items - boring! Zipping through the $30 broken bathroom tile type stuff - ok, yeah, looks like maybe more than normal wear and tear, but really, things I heard not out of line after 3 years of tenancy and MM doesn't sound happy with these deductions (yep, as expected)... when I hear landlord deducted for screws in the fan, a broken mirror he knew about and didn't fix while tenants were still there, etc, I hit the button.... ends up MM tosses most of the deductions, determining landlord should have only kept little under a hundred bucks instead of $250, and of course no double damages...... tenants come off looking pretty good - especially as we learn in hallterview they moved out after becoming home owners - landlord not looking too good - actually reminded me of a couple of my worst landlords from my renter days - get along great while you're a paying tenant then try to stick you with nonsense when it's time to leave. I never took a landlord to court, but I did threaten to make complaints to Post Housing - not a good thing for landlords with apartments to rent where big portion of potential renters are military referred by Post Housing. When I was active it only took three complaints for a property to be pulled from the recommended list - even before the complaints were no substantiated - and it was a very bad if the complaints turned out to be valid as you might find Post has placed you Off Limits  

Edited May 7, 2019 by SRTouch

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

'nother nasty breakup: 

That was fun. The Aussie "gringa" is either young and very hard-rode, or she's a cougar obsessed with her toyboy. Bunny boiler for sure, she admits she's a nutcase, losing her mind and suing the toyboy monthly - that lawyer must love her -  and posting dumb stupidities and threats on FB like some foolish fifteen-year-old. The problem is she's a teacher(!!) and I fear if those in charge of this school watch this and see her nutty expressions and listen to her ridiculous admissions and insane ravings, she will no longer be teaching. I wouldn't want her influencing my teenaged girl because, well - she's nuts. 

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

'Nother gf suing bf: 

Are most of the women we see here deranged or brain damaged in addition to being desperate? Do they seek out the biggest losers they can find (alcoholics/drug addicts/jailbirds/abusers/deadbeats) and expect a "Happy Ever After" ending? WTF is this crap anyway? Def - I couldn't tell for sure what was on his head but settled on wrap-around, piled-up dreads - won't even admit they were "dating." "We wasn't dating. We was talking," he says, and then I remember that "dealing" and "talking" mean gettin' it on, but not dating for sure! Both parties are utterly ridiculous, and in the hall, crazy plaintiff justifies getting zippo by informing Doug that JM "just couldn't understand" whatever janky-ass documents she handed over.  That's right, dear. Too bad you didn't have the opportunity to educate her on translating "Fucked-up garbage."

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

tenant suing landlord over deposit deductions: 

The landlord, with his "sissy" beard (TM "ByrdIsTheWord"(?)🤣 on JJ forum), douchebag hairdo and penny-pinching for frickin' towel bars and 1$ tiles, got on my last nerve, even though it's true that the carpet was utterly disgusting. Plaintiff claims it was filthy and stunk of dog feces when they moved in, but I guess it didn't bother them then. And how does someone break a wall mirror? Oh, well, who cares? Landlord was such a little pissant I'm just glad he lost his countersuit and had to give back a large portion of the deposit.

[Florinaldo]

4 hours ago, SRTouch said:

'nother nasty breakup:

Another inexplicable instance where JM seems taken in by the plaintiff's shtick as a woman-child who acts all cutesy and does not really understand "how these things work", which is her excuse for trying to get lost wages reimbursement for days she was actually paid for as sick leave.

And JM barely chides her for it! She also entertains claims for legal fees whereas it seems most of them arise from the plaintiff being a vexatious litigant who will sue at the drop of a hat under any flimsy pretext.

Defendant must have been truly desperate to hook up with that specimen since she came across as pathetically obsessive from the get-go. To think she is a teacher who can actually influence the minds of high schoolers.

4 hours ago, SRTouch said:

what! 'Nother gf suing bf:

Who in their right mind would trust kooky plaintiff to run their business in their absence? Apparently, someone going into rehab as was the case with the slightly out-of-here plaintiff. Doug should have given her a kick in the ass as she left in a huff and accused JM of not being able to correctly read the spotty documentation she offered as evidence.

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, Florinaldo said:

And JM barely chides her for it! She also entertains claims for legal fees whereas it seems most of them arise from the plaintiff being a vexatious litigant who will sue at the drop of a hat under any flimsy pretext.

That was odd because usually JM does drip sarcasm and rip into ridiculous, grown women who are all, "Oh, I can't worry my little head about that" Alice in Wonderland stupid. This is a very mature woman, pushing 40 from the looks of her and who is educated,  yet wants to give the "Oh, poor little me! My toyboy was mean to me and cheated on me with his Latino girl! Oh, oh! What could I do? I don't know anything about anything!" Duh, what did you expect, lady, that the boy would stick around forever and watch your wrinkles spread? It was a pathetic display. I'm pretty sure JM wanted to ask the age difference there but didn't because she wasn't sure if plaintiff was actually way older than the boy, or just had chosen to forgo sunscreen and got baked into leather. 

[VartanFan]

The case of the sewer (sew-er, though poop sewer is appropriate) today was a vile piece of work.  Her smirky behavior as if she was SO smart by extorting the defendant, made me want to smack her.  I think the defendant handled her perfectly - - ‘giving you credit you DON’T deserve’.  Indeed.

[AngelaHunter]

2 minutes ago, VartanFan said:

 Her smirky behavior as if she was SO smart by extorting the defendant, made me want to smack her

I only hope that anyone within range of this nasty, underhanded, greedy witch makes sure never to do business with her. If they do, they should know she'll ask for one price until she's got someone by the... throat and then - oops, the price goes up or no product. What's wrong with blackmail, anyway? She's someone who's inner ugliness shone through to the outside. I just couldn't believe JM let the Wicked Witch butt in, interrupt and talk over her. Not sure why she was still smirking and grinning in the hall, after losing and being shown up for the petty, lowdown con artist loser she is. I was glad def. didn't have to pay her one more cent. 

The other smirking idiot, who left the premises she rented for a salon in total disarray and got the boot after stiffing the landlord and not paying rent - is another entitled nitwit. Too bad she doesn't spend as much time on her business practices as she does on her hair and huge fake eyelashes and growing her ass. Well, yes - she left a ton of crap and garbage, including sinks she didn't want and disgusting filth in the ones she did use, and oh, yes - the sign in the window? Her uncle put it up and she didn't know how or couldn't be bothered removing it.  Bone lazy, she is.  Plaintiff gets everything she asked for - 3200$. OH, and def is so stupid that even knowing she's appearing on TPC with a Cuban judge, mentions in her answer how "Latino women can be mouthy." Seriously!  Smart move, you big dumbbitch.

Another hoopty case. Plaintiff, dumb as a stump and way too old to be so stupid, buys a 21-year old Bonneville from the creepy, grinning, hideous Uncle Fester and is shocked - totally! - that the ancient hunk of junk starts spewing brake fluids on the way home. The thing was trying to die. Let it! No, of course, he never bothered getting it checked - why would he do that? - and just handed over the 600$ for the thing, which probably has a million miles on it. Good deal!  I was grossed out by the plaintiff's dental situation until I saw Fester who is even more toothless.  Fester says he'll refund the money, refunds 180 or so dollars and sells the junk heap to another co-worker. I think the place they all work must emit fumes that destroyed all their brain cells and teeth. All of them must be doing well, seeing as how this worthless, broken-down hoopty seems to be an object of desire and keeps getting passed around like it's candy . 

[AngelaHunter]

33 minutes ago, VartanFan said:

‘giving you credit you DON’T deserve’.  Indeed.

Actually, she's like someone who made a bridal gown and then demands 45% of all the money wedding guests may give to the bride and groom. She was detestable. Get stuffed, you hawg.

[DoctorK]

1 hour ago, VartanFan said:

made me want to smack her

I agree with all you said but want to add that she was incapable of putting words together in coherent sentences. Not that she had the horrendous grammar we see so often, it was more like she would start with a word or two, pause, then lose track of what she was trying to say. Completely inarticulate.

[AngelaHunter]

44 minutes ago, DoctorK said:

Not that she had the horrendous grammar we see so often, it was more like she would start with a word or two, pause, then lose track of what she was trying to say. Completely inarticulate.

Maybe that's what happens when trying to explain why you're a scumbag trying to extort someone.

[DoctorK]

New episodes today, brace yourselves. Get your blinders and mute buttons ready. Face up to purple hair, purple lipstick, gigantic unrestrained boobs, missing nipples, bad Mexican boob jobs, and a musical interlude that will send you running to find knitting needles to shove into your eardrums. I think this is going to become one of our Hall of Fame episodes. By the way, the case has something to do with a car and somebody's medications.

[AngelaHunter]

23 minutes ago, DoctorK said:

Face up to purple hair, purple lipstick, gigantic unrestrained boobs, missing nipples, bad Mexican boob jobs, and a musical interlude

What the...? I'm not sure I can face this.  I'll just be home from the dentist as this airs. Maybe I can ask for some novocaine to be injected directly into my brain.

[SRTouch]

48 minutes ago, DoctorK said:

New episodes today, brace yourselves. Get your blinders and mute buttons ready. Face up to purple hair, purple lipstick, gigantic unrestrained boobs, missing nipples, bad Mexican boob jobs, and a musical interlude that will send you running to find knitting needles to shove into your eardrums. I think this is going to become one of our Hall of Fame episodes. By the way, the case has something to do with a car and somebody's medications.

Sitting around cooling my heels while friend is upstairs for 3 (count'em three) medical appointments today. I've discovered the comfy chairs are in the downstairs lobby - conveniently next to the coffee pot (20 years in Army, I know to scout for comfy chairs and coffee.) Luckily he got all of them scheduled back to back as it's 90 miles each way to get here. There's actually a #4, but it's not until the 22nd.

Anywwy, thanks for heads up, now I have something to look forward to when I get home 😉

[Brattinella]

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

Sitting around cooling my heels while friend is upstairs for 3 (count'em three) medical appointments today. I've discovered the comfy chairs are in the downstairs lobby - conveniently next to the coffee pot (20 years in Army, I know to scout for comfy chairs and coffee.) Luckily he got all of them scheduled back to back as it's 90 miles each way to get here. There's actually a #4, but it's not until the 22nd.

You are a very good friend!

[patty1h]

I cringed so much I pulled something when the folks involved with this case all strolled in.

Micky Story needs a vicious face slapping just for being a person pushing 60, dressing like a Kardashian and being a mess.   She (or he... I lost track) swaggered into the court with wide fake hips, a fake butt, mushy old boobs, big purple wig and lips and ATTITUDE!  She also had either a bottom braces or a grill.  Her chest tattoo says "queen boss bitch".  CLASSY!  She says she has millions of followers on social media.  We are doomed.

Edited May 9, 2019 by patty1h

[Mrs Shibbles]

3 hours ago, DoctorK said:

New episodes today, brace yourselves. Get your blinders and mute buttons ready. Face up to purple hair, purple lipstick, gigantic unrestrained boobs, missing nipples, bad Mexican boob jobs, and a musical interlude that will send you running to find knitting needles to shove into your eardrums. I think this is going to become one of our Hall of Fame episodes. By the way, the case has something to do with a car and somebody's medications.

Not just any Mexican boob job, but a Tijuana boob job.  

[Twiz44]

I can't unsee or unhear this.😳

Edited May 9, 2019 by Twiz44

[zillabreeze]

1 hour ago, patty1h said:

millions of followers on social media. 

She first said she has "sixty hundred thousand" followers🤣.  

Poor thing doesn't realize she's being laughed at...

Somebody please 'splain to me where these people get such CONFIDENCE!!!  I have fought self-esteem issues all these decades.  I would rather die than show up on court TeeVee with video of myself acting an ass.

Just to go to the store, I have to spend a lot of time making sure my fat rolls are all tucked away.  My boobs in the upright and locked position.  My hair is washed and brushed.  My makeup to be of the human style...

These women are convinced they are the hottest thing since lava.  I wish I could be that self assured.

[DoctorK]

1 hour ago, Twiz44 said:

I can't unsee or unhear this.😳

All of you were warned LOL.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

First thought, because I turned the TV on before I read the posts here: "Why the hell is RuPaul's Drag Show on and not The People's Court?

[Florinaldo]

2 hours ago, zillabreeze said:

Poor thing doesn't realize she's being laughed at...

She said her followers are there for her beauty and amazing body. I think the common fascination of humans for the grotesque is a more plausible explanation.

We really had a festival of bad or ugly wigs in that case. Although the loan-sharking gal in the next case gave them great competition; I could not decide if that was an even uglier wig or a truly cheap dye job. Although it was quite in keeping with her general hard-ridden looks.

It's too bad that the shifty defendant in the third case could not be slapped with punitive damages for forcing the plaintiff to come to court over such a paltry amount. Also, is it wise to come to an agreement on the spot of an accident, when you do not know if some hidden damages might not ultimately exceed what you think it will cost?

Going back to the first case, these people unfortunately give a bad name to all trans people and make it tempting to drop one letter and just say "LGBQ".

[Real Housewife LI]

Who are the sixty hundred thousand followers watching that giant purple people eater 😳

[Schnickelfritz]

5 hours ago, zillabreeze said:

She first said she has "sixty hundred thousand" followers🤣.  

Poor thing doesn't realize she's being laughed at...

And on today's episode of Rode Hard and Put Away Wet, we have quite the assortment. The Queen Bo$$ Bitch of them all being Mickie Story. Well, Mickie Story has "sixty hundred thousand" 992 followers. And her 2 most viewed videos are in the millions 1300s.

Sadly, that will probably triple after today's case but not for the reasons she thinks.

[KittyMom4]

17 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Then we had some comic relief with the crude, coarse, ridden-into-the-ground biker chick with a mouthful of shark teeth suing Casanova, a fugly little creep who leaves a trail of broken hearts in his wake and who can't speak properly: "I don't want no serious relationships with no one." I get it, you hunk of burning love, you. Why please one when you can please many? Women, wtf? JM informs grotty plaintiff that her deal with that little shit is loan-sharking. "Yeah, I heard you," says biker chick, flipping her grungy extensions around. Kind of funny, I guess, in an eww sort of way. 

The last def, a big, bloated asshole worming his way out of paying the plaintiff a measly 250$ for ramming his car from the back: He was disgusting and not nearly as cute as he thought he was. 

16 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

Although it was quite in keeping with her general hard-ridden looks.

13 hours ago, Schnickelfritz said:

And on today's episode of Rode Hard and Put Away Wet, we have quite the assortment. The Queen Bo$$ Bitch of them all being Mickie Story. Well, Mickie Story has "sixty hundred thousand" 992 followers. And her 2 most viewed videos are in the millions 1300s.

OMG, I have missed you guys!! I moved in early March and haven't had cable service until this week, I will be binge watching some JJ, but I've been able to catch the last few episodes of JM and I am rolling on the floor at your spot on descriptions! I was transfixed at the animations of those two purple haired fools, could barely understand them but it was pure entertainment. Then the rode-hard-biker-chick-and-her-stumpy-dopey-man-toy came on and I almost  peed myself! WTH??? Then she spoke with her 5 pack a day rasp about her $800 and 'leather' jacket and how she was fooled by that little twerp into thinking they were in a relationship until she heard* him on a date with another (idiot) woman. Seriously? Do these people have no sense of shame????

*This actually happened to me with my ex-boyfriend. I put up with a lot of sh*t from him, this was the nail in the coffin. And he attempted to lie, lie, lie his way out of it but I wasn't listening this time. So when she told her story I actually had a twinge of pity for her, although I will not be going on National TEE VEE to tell the US of A how stupid I was. 

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, GoodieGirl said:

So when she told her story I actually had a twinge of pity for her, although I will not be going on National TEE VEE to tell the US of A how stupid I was. 

Yes, but was your man illiterate, stumpy and dopey and did he look, talk and act like hers? I bet he wasn't and didn't.  When you lose a loser, is it really a loss? The age-old question.

Welcome back!!😀

[AngelaHunter]

18 hours ago, Real Housewife LI said:

giant purple people eater

Oh, shit. 🤣🤣🤣

[KittyMom4]

3 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

Yes, but was your man illiterate, stumpy and dopey and did he look, talk and act like hers? I bet he wasn't and didn't.  When you lose a loser, is it really a loss? The age-old question.

Welcome back!!😀

I don't think I understood the depths of my JJ/JM addiction until I was no longer able to watch, and reading the descriptions on Primetimer is way more fun when you know what/who they're talking about! 

@AngelaHunter, no he was tall and intelligent but a lying cheating jackass nonetheless! And definitely no loss! 

[PrincessPurrsALot]

Litigants,

A reminder, Primetimer follows the GLAAD guidelines when speaking about transgender persons.  To wit, if a person is a trans woman, she is, was and always will be a woman.  If a person is a trans man, he is, was and always will be a man. The occasional slip is okay; intent matters.  No matter how heinous, obnoxious or difficult a person may be, if they are a transgender woman then they are a woman, not a man with female accessories.  Capice?  Don't make us have to review this in a hallterview.  You know who we'll ask to join!

As usual, the people on this show are only themselves, not representatives of a larger group.  After all, would you want to be represented by any of these folks?  According to The People's Court, we would all be missing teeth, struggle with our native language to the point of incomprehension and have enough tats to provide the artwork for a years long comic strip. 

Back to your regularly scheduled snarking.

[zillabreeze]

17 hours ago, GoodieGirl said:

no he was tall and intelligent but a lying cheating jackass nonetheless! And definitely no loss! 

THIS!!!!  I'll admit to being snookered a couple of times in low these many decades!  Not any real fiscal damage... But FFS, they were tall, dark and handsome, with gorgeous smiles,  good jobs, quick witted, and charming with many other outstanding private attributes.  

How do you get jerked around by a sawed off, toothless grifter that has reward points with the state correctional system?  I couldn't even have a conversation with some of these cretins because there's no closed captioning in real life.

[AZChristian]

We have been bingeing "The Office" this past week.  

I figured out where Harvey probably got his "____er?  He hardly knew her!"  It was from Michael Scott . . . the most ridiculous (and inappropriate) boss in the history of American business.

[flyingdi]

9 hours ago, AZChristian said:

We have been bingeing "The Office" this past week.  

I figured out where Harvey probably got his "____er?  He hardly knew her!"  It was from Michael Scott . . . the most ridiculous (and inappropriate) boss in the history of American business.

Harvey might have got it from the show, but that gem has been around a lot longer than The office

[Katy M]

1 hour ago, flyingdi said:

Harvey might have got it from the show, but that gem has been around a lot longer than The office

I also bet Harvey has been saying it longer than The Office has been around.

[DoctorK]

2 hours ago, Katy M said:

I also bet Harvey has been saying it longer than The Office has been around.

I bet he thought it was hilarious when he was in second grade.

[SRTouch]

First 2 case not bad, but nothing special.... third case had extra 5 minutes and was interesting - may go back and watch again because still not sure P's reasoning  (not proofed) 

1. car deal gone bad: plaintiff wants deposit put down on hoopty returned when defendant fails to deliver car - wants $625.... defendant: agrees P made deposit, but her story is she waited 3 weeks for P to return and finish paying and take delivery - after the 3 weeks P finally got back in touch, but looking for a refund not delivery of rust bucket.... expect this to be settled by MM looking through texts to see who was dodging who - first thought is D now has both the deposit and the car which doesn't seem fair, but then maybe deposit should be non refundable if D stopped advertising and turned away potential buyers thinking she had it sold - lazy co-defendant dude just keeps trying to have a seat - 1st Douglas rousts him out of his seat to be sworn, than MM tells him to get up cuz he's a named defendant in case..... testimony: ok, P mommy says daughter just got her license and was all excited to be buying her first car - found heap online on 'letgo' - daughter found the car and text exchange ensues - price listed at $1625 - date and time set to meet for P to see the car and, if she likes it, to make deposit for ad to be pulled.... side note: P mommy doing a great job outlining her case - P daughter hasn't said much, but what little she's said sounds reasonable - just hope I'm about to hear about a receipt for the deposit and, oh, maybe that deposit was conditioned on a mechanic checking this cherry $1600 classic that I expect to be as old as our new driver.... uh, first exchange between da'Judge and defendants isn't promising - seems lazy dude who had to twice be told to stand up was the one talking to defendant - he was selling car for his sis - but when asked who is the registered owner defendant sis says it's her baby daddy's, but is her car - uh, no, says the lady in the robe, not your car unless you're the registered owner - then some nonsense about how baby daddy 'was in the process' of signing title over to D, she only had car short time and was getting rid of it cuz she couldn't fit all the baby seats for her 3 kids in car...... ah, MM didn't say it, but that may be a case-ender if D didn't own car or have power of attorney or something, she couldn't sell the car and has no claim on deposit..... hoboy, back to P and P continues to impress, she actually has a contract signed by both sides - and actually remembered to bring it to court... contract wee bit wonky, there was to be the $625 deposit followed by 2 $500 payments with final payment on the "10th" of something but no month listed - doesn't matter now, as everybody agrees final payment was to be made on December 10th..... oooookkkkk, really doesn't matter, cuz when P granny learned granddaughter was getting her first car granny offered to kick in the final thousand bucks so she wouldn't have to wait..... mommy calls D back same day with the joyous news that they have the money and can bring it over and pay off car and take delivery a couple weeks early (D sis says she never agreed to early delivery, but did her mouth piece bro commit to it in the texts?) - two days before the first and now final payment and exchange is to be made P texts D to confirm the deal - no answer from D - two days later another text, hey, we have money, when and where do you want to meet?  - again, no answer until he sends a text promising to call at 7pm - when he finally calls he claims car isn't ready - now repeated texts asking when will it be ready, and D offering repeated excuses about car not being ready..... hmmmmm wonder if holdup was getting baby daddy to sign over title...... now both plaintiff daughter and mommy are calling, leaving messages, and texting, but they ain't getting no satisfaction..... hmmmm sounding bad for defendants, but then I wonder about the timeline - there was a written contract with dates specified for payments, mommy says they verbally changed the schedule and admits they wanted to take delivery of car early, but then she fails to make a scheduled payment because car wasn't ready early - ah, but she was calling and texting sales rep bro when that payment was due and getting the runaround, so who breached contract?.... over to defendant: says she wasn't really dodging the phone calls and messages, no see she has these three kids and is just too busy to handle scheduling the collection of $1000 - oh, and part of the delay in handing over the car was getting some needed maintenance - yep, according to D she told P to come over to her house and deliver the money, and the car would be ready as originally scheduled - now it's D saying she called repeatedly and nobody returned her calls - saying she told P to call her cell, not her landline, and P saying she never gave us her cell number..... dufus lazy bro, he of the many facial contortions during testimony, starts looking for the evidence that P was given the cell number..... ok, time for MM to do her text sleuthing - D says P ghosted on day second payment was to be made, while P says bro, who was acting as the sales rep, was asleep on the job when she tried to arrange making the payment, and claims she has the texts to prove it..... gotta laugh looking at the screen as defendants physically distance themselves with bro leaning away from sister and sister actually moving away from bro - MM reads the texts aloud as P wishes D a Happy Thanksgiving and arranges to pay early pick up the car, D sis saying she never heard about these texts, D bro spouting some nonsense about how in his vast 18 years business experience.... not sure what 'experience' he's citing....  he never had to deal with this type situation..... sorry, sis, but if bro was, as you have testified, acting as your representative and not communicating with you, that's between you and him, not you and P - but then there's too many cooks on both sides with mommy speaking for daughter on one side and bro speaking for sister who was selling baby daddy's car..... oh well, I say either complete the sale as planned or call it a wash, return the deposit, and hope daughter has learned from this fiasco..... ah, new problems - P now mad and doesn'the want anything to do with D, and idiot D  (her own words) let registration lapse when the deal fell through and now has 2 grand worth of tickets on.... ok, Judge, what's cha' gonna do with this cluster?.... ok, hold up, says MM - first off D selling car someone else property so the contract is worthless except to blow your nose with - D getting mouthy and MM tired of her nonsense - MM calls case early (early for TPC, JJ would have fit three cases in this amount of time) and orders deposited refunded - D making faces and P smiling real big..... funny hallterview with D saying reason she refused to return deposit was P threatened her family, then she leaving making faces and saying inaudible nonsense over shoulder to P waiting for her to 'sign some papers around the corner with officer Macintosh' (actually been awhile since we've heard that line) oh, and when P comes out, P mommy says defendants are scammers who still have car listed on 4 different accounts with 4 different prices - hmmmmm, as MM pointed out, not only can't they sell the car while it's in baby daddy's name, but nobody, not even baby daddy, can sell it if it really has 2 grand worth of tickets
2. house painter noshow: p claims defendant was no show after receiving deposit to paint his house - says D claims he spent money on supplies, but never produced receipt or the supplies, so he canned his ass for no showing up to do work - wants $1660.... defendant: says some lowlife stole his truck and all his equipment - says he explained why he didn't show to P, but P fired him instead of giving him time to replace the stolen stuff - says he has the paint and now able to do job if P hadn't fired him.... hmmm, something doesn't make sense and, again, we'll have to wait to see who's flapping their gums and who has evidence - both brought folders, but as noted with recent JJ litigant who brought LOTS of paperwork, volume doesn't mean squat unless it's actual evidence pertaining to case..... testimony: not liking P much - every question asked he looks down and starts digging through his paper - don't know if that's a stall tactic and he is just over prepared and doesn't want to answer with double checking - I mean MM asks how he found defendant to do work and instead of saying "through a mailer ad" he digs until he finds the actual ad.... ok, he hires D, pays the deposit, and gets a start date.... start date comes - no call no sale - waits til next day, waits all day and again no call no show, at end of day he calls D to find out WTH - that's when D tells him about the stolen truck - P rightfully miffed about the no call no show, but D agrees to be there the next day - two more days pass without D showing up or calling - P on a roll now, no longer fumbling with papers and I'm with him - if he's telling it true, a whole week behind schedule and D making no effort to contact the customer, instead waiting for customer to call and ask where are you!?!.... finally, when P tries again to call, he gets no response so send email cancelling the contract - I'm totalling with him so far, only thing would be whether or not D can produce something saying he is out of pocket for supplies he can deliver to P - yeah, according to P, when told D had bought paint he offered to accept the paint and receipt then deduct that amount from deposit - true to form, P says D never produced any paint or receipt.... time to switch to defendant: (another slow starter - where P was a stammered and paper fumbled at first, D now looking down and to right while he stalls, thinking about what he's going to say) right out the gate, MM asks about 2 cans of paint P claims he gave contractor so he could match current color of house and that P is tacking on $100 to deposit for since D didn't return - hmmmm I was thinking maybe he didn't return them because they were on the stolen truck, but no, D says he still has those 2 cans.... hmmmm, not getting D at all, at all (and not because of his accent) - once P stopped his paper fumbling, he made perfect sense to me, so maybe D will turn it around once he gets going..... ok, the tacked on hundred is easy - MM tells D to return them - rest may not be as easy - as we head to commercial break the preview shows MM to do a better job of explaining himself because what he's saying sounds like horse manure - never good when judge says you're talking horse pucky.... ok, when we come back he has a halfway explanation - couldn't call customer because his file with P's contact info was in the stolen truck.... uh, couldn't just go to customer's house sometime during that week and leave a message - and 'sides P called D on day 2 of no show/no calls and no call no shows continued for rest of the work week.... oh, now I understand - D was so worried about his worked who was beat up in the Wendy's parking lot when the truck was stolen our D wasn't thinking straight that week - uh, no, not buying what D is selling, but must be a switcheroo coming or the last case will be a long one....nope, I zipped ahead, no switcheroo, just MM getting fed up with D continually saying he can 'splain that' - P wins and is order to refund full deposit (so couldn't prove he bought the paint) and the two cans of paint P gave him to match the color.... my guess is P won't get back the 2 cans, but he was really reaching when he asked for $100 for 2 old cans of paint.... D still arguing in hallterview that he bought the paint and meany judge wouldn't let him explain - nope, and now that I'm listening for it is hearing Doug tell loser D to go sign a few documents
3. back taxes on house purchase: P claims she bought $400,000 house and ended up getting stuck with defendant's back taxes - ok, must be California case, since she wants 10 grand....   defendant: denies owing back taxes - says instead what P had to pay was building permits/fees for reno and construction P did to property after the purchase..... surely on a purchase this big there should have been realtors and lawyers, so how could a big tax bill not be caught? - and, I realise my home state of California has some what I consider ridiculous laws, but what exactly could P have done that would pop up with an additional 10 grand - maybe the reno brought up some out of date/code violations which couldn't be grandfathered? Well, we have an extra 5 minutes to spend on this one since first case was called early..... testimony: ok, P telling like it is, guess she admits not remembering timeline (this all happened 2 years ago) instead of trying to bluff her way through - hmmmm what she says is that when they went to apply for a permit to build a new garage they were told the previous owner had demo'ed the old carport - seems a tree fell on old carport, so D just had it removed - new codes require a garage, not a carport, so city making them build a new garage as well as paying fee for previous owner not getting permit to pick up debris from destroyed carport.... ok, here's first sticking point - previous owner sounds like a flipper and only had house 2 years before selling it to P - P digging through her papers looking for what she says is proof City ordinance was forcing her to build the new garage, while D is saying city told him there is no such ordinance - uh huh, P comes up with notice from city that D failed to get required permit to remove tree smashed old carport and D admits he found that to be true after the fact.... uh, had to back up to figure this next part out - the permit D failed to pay cost P $1500, their planned reno was expected to cost them $27,500, but since they had title insurance when they bought the place the insurance paid the 27 thousand minus the deductible of $4900 (?) - so, they got their 27 thousand reno for 5 grand - are these people after lotto money, cuz at most I only see D paying $1500.... ah, now we get to the taxes, so maybe there's more coming - P has records showing D owed supplemental taxes from '15 & '16, but wait, math still not adding up because those back taxes less than $700.... hmmm, as MM comments, this case actually interesting with lots of hidden points to where I'm not sure where we're headed where usually we can predict almost as soon as we start.... so, yes, D owed $700 in back taxes - not because he failed to pay taxes at time but because renovations increased value of home when he increased number of bedrooms - but he admits he owed that money and has already paid those taxes - again, County Assessor didn't have it together and D paid what he was told was owed, but later County tacked on a penalty because it was late - D says he talked to County last week and was told he owes more - MM puts the tax issue to side until they can talk to County yahoos since the County letters list different and conflicting amounts being owed.... back to D only owing for the $1500 permit plus maybe a couple hundred for late tax payment.... uh oh, P says their bill from contractor shows they paid the $1500, but MM has the contractor's  bill and isn't seeing what P says it 'obviously' shows.... ok, time for a recess to allow D to talk to County Assessor Office while P checks for proof they paid for D's permit..... ah, before the recess another bit of nonsense - seems P wants D to pay 5 grand for storage fees - huh? Why where does that come from, asks MM? P's crazy logic is that since city code required a garage, they wouldn't have needed to put stuff in storage - uh, yes you would, since you were planning to renovate and convert the garage into a mother in law unit, says MM, so you couldn't have used an existing garage to store stuff anyway.... ok, after recess - D was correct, he paid all the back taxes - P can't prove they paid anything extra for D not pulling a permit before getting rid of tree damaged carport - in fact, P has already come out way ahead of game because the title insurance paid the lion's share of their renovation (I still can't figure out their claim that they were out $11000 even allowing for their ridiculous 5 grand storage dream bill).... ok, now's the time when MM goes down the list of things P want D to pay for - they are not happy (thought old lady was about to have a stroke) listening to MM tells them nope, nope, this is absurd, nope, nope.... yep, D owed, and had already paid $400 in back taxes, and rest of case dismissed

Edited May 14, 2019 by SRTouch

[Florinaldo]

6 hours ago, SRTouch said:

back taxes on house purchase: 

At first I thought the plaintiffs were victims of their own ignorance, lost in the meanders of buying real estate. But I quickly came to realise that they were just greedy and tried to exploit every apparent hole or crack in relevant laws and regulations to squeeze out every undeserved penny. They even tried to pass a missing garage as a hidden defect! JM quickly set them right by saying that they could plainly see when they bought the house that there was no garage.

And in the hallterview one of them said they had not received any money from the insurance, but corrected herself when Doug challenged that statement, because the money had been applied directly to the purchase price of the house, bringing it down 20 k$ for them; I guess they are so used to feed people lies they just could not help to do it as a matter of course.

I am still chuckling over yesterday's defendant who handed JM his phone and when she started to look at previous messages in the thread he had conveniently called up for her, blurted out "I did not want you to see those!". She was majorly pleased with herself for always insisting on seeing texts on the phone and being able to peruse the whole sequence.

Edited May 15, 2019 by Florinaldo

[sonder]

5/14/19 First case of the car dispute. The woman and male defendant were brother and sister. The brother, Harold Comeua Jr has been a defendant before on the People’s Court. Does anyone remember? I believe the case was: He had crashed into someone’s car in the middle of the night and they believed he was under the influence. He had left the scene I believe and pills were found in his car. He lost that case!

Edited May 15, 2019 by sonder

[DoctorK]

Today's first case - horse purchase and California Lemon Law for horses. I didn't particularly like any of the litigants. However, there were enough blaring discrepancies between plaintiff and defendant stories that I wish JM had addressed the credibility issue. Specifically, the defendants claimed that the plaintiff stayed with them for three days (and presumably two nights) while the plaintiff at first denied staying with them (I may have misheard this) but stated emphatically that she had only stayed over one night with the defendants. I wish JM had asked both sides for some evidence. I think it was very relevant because the plaintiff swore that she only rode the horse briefly while the defendants swore that she rode it extensively during her three-day visit.

I also wish JM had addressed the so called California Lemon Law for horses, especially the part where the plaintiff claimed that it allowed a verbal statement after the sale to override the terms of the written contract. How many judges have we heard explain that a written contr5act cannot be modified by a subsequent verbal agreement?

[Katy M]

2 hours ago, DoctorK said:

How many judges have we heard explain that a written contr5act cannot be modified by a subsequent verbal agreement?

I remember learning in my bus law that anything stated verbally prior or at same time of signing was inadmissible, but verbal changes after the fact may be.

[Broderbits]

2 hours ago, DoctorK said:

How many judges have we heard explain that a written contr5act cannot be modified by a subsequent verbal agreement?

Disclaimer: I have absolutely no legal training.

However, a quick Google search brings up many links to proofs that written contracts can indeed be modified orally in many cases. Since this is small claims court and the parties involved are not expected to have legal expertise, maybe intent or state of mind would be considered by the judge.

[Florinaldo]

A Lemon Law for horses? That strains credibility, even with California's reputation for some inventive consumer protection laws. There is a very good chance she was just making it up.

I think that a verbal modification might be considered valid if both parties testify to their agreement to the same exact new terms. Which never happens in the cases heard in these court shows.

Edited May 17, 2019 by Florinaldo

[Broderbits]

1 hour ago, Florinaldo said:

I think that a verbal modification might be considered valid if both parties testify to their agreement to the same exact new terms. Which never happens in the cases heard in these court shows.

Bingo! Very well stated! If the defendant had agreed she said what plaintiff alleged, there might have been some money returned. But her denial and the "as is" clause sunk plaintiff's case. I'm glad the poor horse wasn't euthanized and can enjoy his remaining days free of plaintiff's company.

Apparently California has a puppy lemon law, but not one for horses.