The People's Court - General Discussion

[AngelaHunter]

57 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Did anyone else see today's rerun about the parents (I missed the beginning, so there was some kind of guardianship or foster situation) where plaintiffs were suing defendants for letting their 14 year old foster daughter hide in their house, so their 17 year (almost 17) son could have free access?     

I'm surprised this was shown again, considering the nature of this case. Of course, the tragedies of others are just entertainment fodder for Shitbag Levin as he gives his hideous grin while shoving his mic in the faces of his moronic fan club and we get their razor-edged insights and observations like, "They should have told the parents where she was." Duh.

It was a relief to next get the comedic repeat of the short, fugly, rotund, horny little perv in the high-heeled boots wanting back the money he gave on a credit card - hey, he's just kind-hearted -  to the very homely, weepy strip club cocktail waitress, who was here with her mommy, in return for her doing disgusting things with him and his - no doubt - just as fugly and ridiculous wife. JM was not impressed with the tears of the waitress who had no qualms about taking a credit card from the chinless creep. Poor innocent little virgin never dreamed he wanted anything in return. She thought he was like Santa Claus or a doting uncle! Doug in the hall reams out all idiotic parties.😆

[AZChristian]

20 minutes ago, NYGirl said:

OMG I needed to take an hour shower after today's episode.  Not only was the repeat of the girl who ran away in which just as upsetting as the first time there was the guy who gave the young girl his credit card and a $1000 tip.  

How could anyone doubt the sincerity of the defendants?  The male defendant was wearing a cross!!!

/sarcasm

[BigBingerBro]

3 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Did anyone else see today's rerun about the parents (I missed the beginning, so there was some kind of guardianship or foster situation) where plaintiffs were suing defendants for letting their 14 year old foster daughter hide in their house, so their 17 year (almost 17) son could have free access? 

I had it on in the background and this episode has to be the one where MM screams at the litigants 99% of the case.  What a horrible situation.  They should have never agreed to go on TV and air that all publicly, but it did make for an entertaining case.

[AngelaHunter]

Am I the only one who never saw today's cases? It's from Jan and maybe it got butted into by urgent reports about snow or something, but I can't recall.

Plaintiff is a forensic analyst who does work on audio and video for criminal cases. Def is some sort of part-time singer who hired P to analyze an audio recording in which Def claims some rappers stole his song, distorted it and claimed it as their own. Analyst charges 750$ to start examining this audio recording. D says that since the song is only 5 minutes long, it should only take P 5 minutes to analyze it. "That's not how it works," JM tells D. P informs D that the recording has so much distortion, over-dubs and background noise it will be about 4K to complete the work. Def says he didn't know it would cost so much, although P has emails in which D agrees to the price.  When pressed to explain this by JM, D mutters and mumbles about how maybe he wasn't sure and ah... blah blah.) D proclaims in emails that he is a very religious follower of Jesus Christ, then gets very angry and informs P that he wants all his money back and the only contact they will have in future is in person. One year later D, who does construction work says he just happened to be in P's neighbourhood and decided to pay him a little visit at his place of business. He's wearing a hat, sunglasses, gloves and gives a fake name to the people inside, who do not open the door. He waits for P to enter the parking lot, approaches him, sucker punches him and steals P's briefcase containing P's work laptop and some of his tools, while P is calling the police. Not the actions of a man of holy leanings, IMO. P applies for and gets a restraining order against D and is suing for his laptop and emotional distress and anxiety since now he's always nervous, carries pepper spray and is looking over his shoulder. JM awards P only 1K in punitive damages. I thought he deserved more, but then I'm no judge.

Then we had grandiose P suing the D, who is wearing what appear to be overly-bleached, ratty extensions and troweled-on makeup, for cutting into his lane and sideswiping his 1990 Mercedes. Def says he deliberately rammed her as she was making a perfectly legal lane change. She refused to understand that you can't go into another lane when someone is already there and claims that P's car was all beaten up anyway. P wants 5K for repairs on his ancient car which has a book value of 2800$. He says it's an antique and very valuable. It may be, but it was hardly in showroom condition and is just, for legal purposes, a really old car since there is no way of knowing what someone else might pay for it. JM awards him the value of the car. In the hall he waxes very eloquent to Doug, even quoting Cicero, which seems kind of overkill for a fender bender accident of his old relic.

Last case, P is suing the bike shop for not informing him that he needed a new wheel on his bicycle and merely replaced a spoke. He went elsewhere, got the wheel changed and wants his 34.50 back from D. He doesn't get it since bike shop owner did nothing wrong. He's out not only the 34.50 but the 20$ filing fee and who cares?

Edited October 16, 2020 by AngelaHunter

[CrazyInAlabama]

I saw the assault on the sound analyst by the singer before, it was an amazing case.   I hope the police took the full tape as evidence against the defendant.   

I loathed the defendant in the Mercedes bashing case.    She was awful, and her nasty extensions were horrible too.  

[AngelaHunter]

Oh, in the forensic analyst case, I forgot how D tried to claim P was racist because he (D) read something on P's FB page. He misunderstood or read incorrectly once again, and it turns out it was just a quote from a Monty Python sketch - one with which I'm sure most people are familiar  - and although it was embarassing for P to have to explain, D made himself look an even bigger fool. JM let that accusation slide.

[DoctorK]

Yep, as I pointed out first time around, it is a deliberate mis pronunciation of "knight", just like Benny Hill pronouncing " knickers" as "k-nickers". Defendant was a total asshole, and violent to boot. Should have been prosecuted for assault and battery.

 

 

 

[SRTouch]

Not a recap - seems my provider still having trouble syncing with the rest of the country. I just now started what was supposed to be a new episode, and am watching the rerun forensic tape case folks commented last week......... grrrrr get it together folks! They have a rerun scheduled for 4PM, so maybe that will be today's new case......... something else, they never tell give any info about the cases in my program guide. Instead we get a 2-3 word title for the first case: today's new case says "Dog Bite Debacle" and the rerun says "Livid Over a Loan"

OTOH, according to the program guide the new episode I'm not watching is a dog bite case, so chances are I would have skipped it

[CrazyInAlabama]

Because of the football game, I only had this morning's rerun, but it was a distanced one.     This also is cancelling my two hours of Judge Judy, as well as the possibly new People's Court.    Today's is supposed to be a dog bite, so I'm not sorry I missed it.  The brief preview of this episode was heart rending, so I'm glad I missed it.  HOwever, they seem to be rerunning the distanced versions fairly often.   

There's another new one on Thursday with a dog theme.  

Edited October 19, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[Florinaldo]

In the dog bite case things went back and forth confusingly; were they arguing that the plaintiff was not following social distancing rules, or that his dog did not do so? JM seemed to buy the first option, even though the defendant did not seem entirely credible to me. Had she decided according to the second argument, it would have been laughable because such rules apply to humans, not to animals.

Edited October 19, 2020 by Florinaldo

[AngelaHunter]

Skipped dog case. The other two were new. "It's the case of 'Shiver me Timbers'". As we used to say in my youth - "Go take a long walk off a short pier". I mean you, Levin, you shameless little sleaze. Karma, where are you when we need you?

Anyway, Mr. Fix is a grinning little dweeb but I understand perfectly. He lives in Florida and he's had pools for 20 years which makes him an expert on the subject. Yes, well, I've been driving cars for 30 years so that means I'm an expert in mechanics, right? I get it. Mr. Fix is suing the pool company because the heater they used in the 80K pool they installed in 2017 was defective. Parts of the pool turned green because of copper something or other. Pool def says it's because Mr. Fix, the pool expert,  didn't maintain the pool properly and it became very acidic. Oh, but wait - Mr. Fix has all kinds of evidence that it's all the fault of the pool company's bad installation. Sadly, he doesn't have any of that evidence TODAY, except for his telling JM that "Someone told me a few years ago it was wrong." He seems like a reasonably intelligent person. Did he really think that "Some guy told me once" was going to be accepted as evidence? Also, the pool company scratched a panel or two on his fence and he wants 850$ to fix it, which is the amount the HOA is charging him. Evidence of any kind? A letter or a bill from the HOA? Well, no. He can't show that to JM right now.  Just take his word for it.  He gets 250$ for the fence and zero for the pool.

Then we had a woman suing mechanic for expenses incurred when they put a faulty transmission in her car. It took them 10 days to put in the first transmission. When it was discovered by plaintiff to be a piece of junk, she took it back to def's shop and they kept it for six weeks, during which time P's husband died and she had to rent a car at 30$/day to get around. JM doesn't understand why it took only 10 days to change the tranny the first time and 6 weeks the second time. I think the answer is pretty obvious. The first time the garage got 3500$ from P, but the second time would get nothing, which makes this car Job 25 or maybe even Job 50. Def admits up front he knows absolutely nothing about this case. He's just here representing the garage and the people who worked on the car and dealt with P didn't feel like showing up. He also knew nothing about a Ms. Caldwell, who worked there, emailing P and promising to pay for the rental. He offers rank hearsay to weasel his way out of this mess. Plaintiff gets the money back it cost for the rental car. Def gets a spanking, which would have been worse had D not been so clueless.

 

[SRTouch]

Still out of sync, and worse yet they started this morning with a rerun of yesterday's rerun. Just to tick me off a little more, the DVR remembers having already recorded these recent reruns, so I have to manually tell it to record each episode as it skips those it remembers recording.

[CrazyInAlabama]

My rerun was the zoom version, where the woman put down a deposit on a rental house, backed out right before moving in, and the landlady was so generous she actually returned $500 (I think that was the amount), to the plaintiff.   Plaintiff was suing for the other $200 or $300, and lost. 

Then there was the hysterically funny case where the woman bought a used VW Jetta from a man, never test drove it, and wanted a total refund.   Part of the defendant's case was that one transmission issue was deemed by his mechanic to be bad gas (either water in the tank, crud in the tank, or in a local case here, a certain big box store gas station put diesel in the regular gas tank, and had to pay the towing and repair costs for hundreds of cars).      The woman lost, and she certainly was ticked about it.    

The new one concerns California fence law.   A hideously old section of joint fence was falling over.   So for the past three years the litigants have been working on replacing the fence.    The defendants wanted high quality (that means thicker I think) redwood, instead of the usual grade redwood.    So the plaintiff (he's an attorney), has been trying to get the half of the money out of the defendants.   The fence the defendants wanted would cost $3800 and it's not that long.  

 Plaintiff had them do half facing his yard, and the last half facing the defendant's yard.    The defendant's wife is a PITA.   (Board on board is one vertical plank facing one yard, the next vertical plank faces the other yard).    I wonder if the plaintiff could have put it inside his side of the property line, and just skipped the defendants.     The original contractors quit after endless questions about everything (including the number of nails they would use, and price per pound for the nails) to do with the fence.   

In the hall-terview defendant husband says another part of the fence is failing, so they'll all be back in court for five more years.   I'm guessing we know who the jerks are in this case. 

$1050 for the plaintiff for 1/3 of the fence (not sure why not half).  

(One of the nicest things about living in Alabama is that if I say no to a joint fence, the owner has to put it slightly on their side, and pay for all of it.  If my neighbor demanded I have a joint fence, they are out of luck, because that's trespassing, and I could force them to tear it down, and move it only on their property, and repair the lawn damage.  Also, because of the ground moisture, the preferred cement method is pour the premixed Sack-crete in the fence post hole, and it gets super hard from pulling water in from the surrounding soil, and gets super hard.    Also, as long as I put a fence on my side of the property line, the neighbors can't bother it, and if it conforms to local rules, I can put any type of fence I want to.  Also, if I don't want a fence, the neighbor has to put one on their side, on their dime.  )

Edited October 21, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

3 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

The defendant's wife is a PITA. 

Everything about her was so annoying. She's an expert on everything from grades of wood (she just knew by looking at it that the redwood was not up her particular lofty standards) to cement to the price of nails. Yes, she and her nodding puppet hubby wanted to know the exact costs of the nails for the fence. Even Judge John mocked that.  But strangely, although the contractor could not make her happy, some unlicensed handyman friend of hers could. Maybe some profit-sharing in the works? No wonder the contractor said, "Screw this!" Who needs this kind of aggravation?

The plaintiff is a lawyer who was not a moron the way lawyer litigants usually are and who is possessed of endless patience. However, although he did it to make the defs happy, that gap in the fence was all wrong. So  plaintiffs have not paid even a dime for their new fence. They think it's worthless, I guess. How much are those nails, anyway? Doug in the hall rags on them.

Then we had a woman of the cloth (whose grammar is not good) suing the garage for not seeing multiple oil leaks on her car (don't know how old it was) when they did their major inspection which consists of hoisting the car, walking around it and doing a visual inspection only . Neither def (one said nothing and just sat there) worked on her car and of course the person who did is not here. The woman who spoke to P is not here either and is not at work this day. P insists her voice "carries" and she was not yelling or abusive to the receptionist. Who knows, since no one who dealt with her is here.

[Florinaldo]

5 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

The new one concerns California fence law. 

JM called defendants "persnickety", which in this case appears to be a synonym for "acting in bad faith".

No wonder the contractor and the plaintiff eventually gave up trying to come to terms with those two insufferable cheapskates.

5 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

$1050 for the plaintiff for 1/3 of the fence (not sure why not half).  

I think that's because of the "gap" issue. Which of course would not exist if defendants had been moderately reasonable people, able to come to an agreement with the plaintiff (or anyone else on this planet).

[VartanFan]

6 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

$1050 for the plaintiff for 1/3 of the fence (not sure why not half).  

F this one. I totally disagreed with her decision.  Yes, the Gap was awful, but they could have avoided that and the “inferior” cement approach if they just freaking agreed to the terms with the nice and patient plaintiff. If they had been reasonable, they would have gotten what they wanted. They’re jerks. 

[DoctorK]

On 10/20/2020 at 6:48 PM, VartanFan said:

the “inferior” cement approach

This is something I have a lot of hands on experience with. I have lived on a barrier island for 30 years and dealt with many hurricanes. I have had to dig up dozens of concrete filled fence posts, and then replaced them, usually but not always doing the concrete the way the plaintiff's contractor did it, which is the normal way it is done by contractors here, and the way I did it most of time. I have had to dig up concrete filled fence posts, but have never had a fence post that failed because the concrete failed. Sorry JM but my extensive experience on the ground tells me that you (and the annoying female defendant) have no real experience on this and are full of (nasty bovine material). Also, JM as a contractor expertise does not know anything about wood grades? For fencing it is not thickness, it is surface finish, things like not having knots and providing a smooth surface for staining. Also, cedar fencing is prettier (and much more expensive) than PT pine, but the defendant's arguments about lifetime is BS, I have had ordinary PT pine fencing that has held up over twenty years if the hurricanes didn't get them. Also, the defendants were bitching about the cost of nails? Everybody who is subject to salt spray learns that the only long term survivable hardware is stainless screws. None of the coated hardware lasts more than a few years, but I have SS screws in the fencing that after 10+ years of salt spray still are shiny when the sun hits them; also if the wood fencing needs to be replaced, about 90% of the SS screws are reusable. I like JM but on this cases she was as uninformed as Judge Judy is when she tries to do accident reconstruction in cases. By the way: Get Off My Lawn!

Edited October 22, 2020 by DoctorK
clarification

[aemom]

On 10/19/2020 at 2:40 PM, Florinaldo said:

In the dog bite case things went back and forth confusingly; were they arguing that the plaintiff was not following social distancing rules, or that his dog did not do so?

The pitbull owner and her friend were standing by a light post and if the dog was at the end of his leash, he would have been at most, six feet away from her.

JM said that if the P was concerned about the pitbull, and the sidewalk was crowded, he should have stopped moving, waited and then moved away from the sidewalk. Instead he kept walking closer to the D.

If the P got close enough to the D's dog for it to bite his dog, then he was too close, for Covid and in general: You can't walk that close to a stationary dog on a leash, get bitten, and then complain about it. That's why he lost.

[AngelaHunter]

3 hours ago, VartanFan said:

 Yes, the Gap was awful, but they could have avoided that and the “inferior” cement approach if they just freaking agreed to the terms with the nice and patient plaintiff. If they had been reasonable, they would have gotten what they wanted. They’re jerks. 

Seems to me they could just buy a matching board and install it in the gap if they have any small dogs who might get out. A child could do it. After all, they paid not a single penny for this nice new fence so shouldn't bitch too much about fixing the gap. I don't think they ever had any intention of paying and deliberately held up, nickel and diming and griping and demanding,  until everyone got fed up and the P just put up the fence himself, which was probably their aim. I suppose they figured they'd worn him down  to a tiny nub and that he'd go away.

[VartanFan]

8 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

. I suppose they figured they'd worn him down  to a tiny nub and that he'd go away.

Agreed - he'd been so nice up to that point.  I also guarantee there was some discussion of 'well, he's a lawyer.  he can afford it'.  People don't realize that the range of what lawyers make is gigantic.  I don't know either way about this guy but I'm glad he's out of there.  

[Percysowner]

13 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

JM called defendants "persnickety", which in this case appears to be a synonym for "acting in bad faith".

No wonder the contractor and the plaintiff eventually gave up trying to come to terms with those two insufferable cheapskates.

I think that's because of the "gap" issue. Which of course would not exist if defendants had been moderately reasonable people, able to come to an agreement with the plaintiff (or anyone else on this planet).

Yeah, my impression was the defendants either didn't care about replacing the fence, or didn't want to pay to replace it. They figured if they dragged it out log enough the plaintiff would either give up, or do what he did, pay for it himself.

I would have made them pay for half even with the gap, because their recalcitrance is what caused all the issues.

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, VartanFan said:

I also guarantee there was some discussion of 'well, he's a lawyer.  he can afford it'.

For sure. Even though these defendants didn't seem to "be on hard times" we see people do that all the time here, stiffing car dealers, landlords, or even their friends who helped them out. "They're rich. He/she drives a Mercedes. They can afford it. They knew my situation."

[AZChristian]

I think I dozed off at some point, so maybe someone here can answer my question.

Let's assume plaintiff had a viable, licensed contractor who gave an estimate of (round numbers) $3,000 to fix the fence using acceptable materials and practices (like with the concrete).

Defendant wanted more expensive materials and a more expensive process for the concrete portion.

Was there any discussion of an agreement to split the $3,000 and kick in $1,500 each, and then defendant could pay 100% of any extra costs that arose because of the defendant's "persnicketyness"?  IMO, both parties were required to share the cost of repairing/replacing the existing fence, but defendant wanted to upgrade.  That portion should have been totally on the defendant.

[CrazyInAlabama]

I wonder if California fence law requires that a joint fence be replaced?   And if one party can put it slightly inside their own property line, and control it?   I realize the person putting the fence up has to pay for it, but at least it would be their fence, and avoid the years of acrimony, and court cases.  

[DoctorK]

I wasn't watching too closely today, but I caught the last part of the used car case with the plaintiff being a lawyer. She didn't seem as much of an idiot as most of the lawyers we have seen on the show, but how could she argue that, without any guarantee or warranty included in the sales documents, it was not an "as-is" sale? Maybe she practices criminal law, not contract, but she clearly has not watched any of the court shows in preparation for appearing.

Edited October 21, 2020 by DoctorK

[CrazyInAlabama]

I'm seeing the ridiculous pool liner above ground pool case.   When you go for the much cheaper installer, you get a much cheaper installation.   Too bad the plaintiff had to learn it the hard way. 

Then in the Judge Marilyn, and Judge John segment I saw the dog.    That was funny where Judge Marilyn was trying to keep the dog happy, and still pay attention to their discussion.    Poor puppy just wants it's part of the living room that's now the after the case discussion area.   

[zillabreeze]

On 10/15/2020 at 3:31 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

It's an ID channel documentary waiting to happen. 

Just catching up - I was doing a "note to self" Coming Soon on ID Channel ...  Baby Boy & his Love after Lockup caliber GF, decide to rampage...

Both defs affects were off the chain.   Obtuse, sociopathic and epically stupid.

IMHO, there were a shit-ton of laws broken.  From pedo sex to kidnapping, child endangerment, providing false info to LE, plus the costs and risks to everyone within 500 yards of a SWAT raid. 

The P parents were put through unimaginable hell, but still kept plugging along trying to do everything right.  Dealing with the Insane Defs and their blatant lies, LE seeming so impotent....it must have been as exhausting and surreal as living a David Lynch film.

On 10/15/2020 at 3:31 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

My guess is the father knew all along, but the fool finally figured out he could lose his job if he was involved. 

No guess in my book.  The wife is as bizarre as they come and too mentally incompetent to find the working end of a salt shaker.  Methinks that Dr. WTF is a know it all creep with a Messiah Complex.  HE was the ring leader and concocted the "we were shielding her from abuse".    HE is so enamored with hisself that I don't doubt for a second that he still feels justified in taking someone else's kid.  Have any of our sleuths checked to see if Psycho Shrink still holds a license?

ID Channel will have a lot of prologue time to fill on the Ramage epi.  No red herrings or disbelieving acquaintances; Dr Creepy & Catatonic Wife put their crazy right out on TeeVee.

The really massive crime is what poor Ps have probably been forced to spend with lawyers just because some smug asshole decided he's a better parent and just commandeered their child.   Who even does that??? Much less a mental health "professional"!!!

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, DoctorK said:

I wasn't watching too closely today, but I caught the last part of the used car case with the plaintiff being a lawyer.

I was thinking, "We're back to dumbass, incompetant lawyers again." She's so successful in her career she haggles over buying a 23-year-old Mercedes from a neighbour, and truly thinks she can convince a judge that the defendant sold it to her at a 700$ discount and then promised her he would pay for whatever repairs it needed, whenever it needed them. She is a lawyer of some years and experience who seems not seem to know that the sale of a (very) old car is "as is." You don't need to be Perry Mason to know that. But yes. Why sure! If it needs a new engine next year, I guess he'll pay for that too. JM wants to know why a mature, supposedly intelligent lawyer couldn't do some research of her own when she tries to blame Def again for sending her pictures of the wrong parts. Oh, poor little her! It's all the fault of this big, bad man duping her! He needed to tell her to go pound sand and look up parts herself.

As part of her case, she tells JM that the mechanic she chose stated that he knows nothing about German cars. That was fine with her, making her even more of a dumbass. Her foolish giggling at her own stupidity and ignorance was kind of awesome, for a lawyer. The car is nearly a quarter of a century old yet she expects perfection. I just wish the D could have been awarded something for putting up with this irritating character and her harassment of him.

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

I'm seeing the ridiculous pool liner above ground pool case. 

The usual price to put in a new liner is around 1200+dollars, so "we was" P figures he's getting a great deal by hiring a home remodeler to do it on the weekend, for 300 (or 400?) dollars. I know nothing about putting in liners, but it was very clear to anyone (even me) from the pics and vids that the seam goes up on the pool wall, and not around the bottom, the way clueless D thought it did, which made him think it was the wrong size. It's always so funny to hear "I did it as a favour to the P. He had his grandchildren there to use the pool, and..." I'm sure his charitable act had nothing to do with pocketing an easy (so he thought) 400$ under the table. So, as usually happens in these cases, P had to hire a real pool person to do the job. Plaintiff actually admits he's a greedy pig, trying to get the whole thing done for nothing because this yokel's terrible distress entitles him to that. He gets back the 1600$ he had to pay the legit pool guy, which kind of didn't seem fair to me. I mean, he was always going to have to pay the 1600$ if he wanted it done right. Shouldn't he just have gotten back the money he paid the Def? Guess not.

In the case of "I'm a petty crook" we get P suing Mr. Gregory for her security deposit back. He argues the 700$ was his "broker's fee." He was once a real estate broker, so he says, but when JM asks to see his license, well, he doesn't have that. She asks to see the lease which mentions this fee. Um, he doesn't have that either. How about receipts that mention the fee? Nope. He must have thrown them away. JM gives the P back her 700$ and because she was so pissed off at D, awards her an extra 300$. Did Mr. Gregory think he might seduce JM by contstantly flipping his tongue out and around? Ew. I hate that so much! So rather than give back the 700$ he stole from P, he'd rather have  himself exposed here for what he is - a lying, scamming, and not very bright crook.

Edited October 21, 2020 by AngelaHunter
Because bad day and too much wine, okay??!

[Florinaldo]

6 hours ago, DoctorK said:

She didn't seem as much of an idiot as most of the lawyers we have seen on the show, but how could she argue that, without any guarantee or warranty included in the sales documents, it was not an "as-is" sale? Maybe she practices criminal law, not contract, but she clearly has not watched any of the court shows in preparation for appearing.

For all of her apparent respectable and prim appearance, I think she probably is one of those greedy shysters who always ask for ten times what the claim is really worth, just on the off-chance the judge will fall for it.

 

5 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

When you go for the much cheaper installer, you get a much cheaper installation.   Too bad the plaintiff had to learn it the hard way. 

Not that hard of a way since JM was overly generous in her award.

 

23 hours ago, aemom said:

The pitbull owner and her friend were standing by a light post and if the dog was at the end of his leash, he would have been at most, six feet away from her.

JM said that if the P was concerned about the pitbull, and the sidewalk was crowded, he should have stopped moving, waited and then moved away from the sidewalk. Instead he kept walking closer to the D.

If the P got close enough to the D's dog for it to bite his dog, then he was too close, for Covid and in general: You can't walk that close to a stationary dog on a leash, get bitten, and then complain about it. That's why he lost.

I understood JM's reasoning, but I still do not see the validity of it, despite those clarifications.

Anyway, my question was mostly about the arguments possibly made by defendant that the dog was within the 6 feet sanitary limit, as if animals are subject to it, and the voice-over added to the confusion.

 

Edited October 22, 2020 by Florinaldo

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

Not that hard of a way since JM was overly generous in her award.

I thought so as well. He got the 1600$ professional install for only 400$.  A bo-nanza.

[CrazyInAlabama]

In the case with the 14 year old hidden in the 16 year old's room, the father/defendant was some kind of youth counselor.    My guess is that if he works for a private organization, or a company that contracts with the city or state, nothing will ever be done about him.   

Edited October 23, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[SRTouch]

Think I may be back synced with everyone - at least the 3 word descrption on the program guide matches. 

first up - chihuahua nips P comes off as greedy ambulance chaser dude - typical little yapper, never really trained and owner walking him on a 10 foot retractable leash (as both judges point out, those things do not control a dog) - yapper runs up and nips P - as he backs away yapper nips other ankle - P grabs worthless leash and pulls dog away, which adds scrapes to nip puncture - P claims site swells up, but no pictures of swelling and he went straight to ER - ER and pharmacy costs total over $2700 - but, WTH, he decides to double his claim because of the horrible pain and suffering........ D thinks no biggy, couple small punctures, so he ignores P when he asks for $2700 without providing copies of bills........ very simple case, as bite took place in Florida where there is strictly liability - only way dog owner avoids writing check is if there's proof the 'bitee' was tormenting the dog....... P gets his bills paid, but nothing for pain and suffering...... MM stresses that P is to only keep his deductible and forward rest to his insurance (Doug even mentions it in hallterview) but somehow I bet greedy P pockets the full amount 

after case chat has judge hubby remembering a case he ruled on where some Norwegian was out sailing in the Caribbean and managed to shoot himself in leg with a flare gun - sailor was first taken to some Caribbean nation where doctors wanted to amputate - he managed to get transferred to Miami where trauma surgeon saved his leg....... then Norwegian sues Miami surgeon for malpractice when leg gets infected

next is desperate woman who 'loaned' loser 3 grand: old story that I bailed on early....... P says the two were never in a 'relationship' - yet they were intimate and dude sometimes lives with her and her spawn...... oh, and the whole time she was loaning dude money he was sleeping in her bed she knew he had over women on the side....... MM begins going through the list of things the SSM paid for - I hear about the weed he 'needed' and about tickets so loser could go see his other kids living with 'their' mommies....... that was it for me, lunch was over and I moved back to living room where I had left the remote........ I pick things up in the hallterview where Doug tells us P gets nothing........ then Doug asks if dude comes back tonight for a booty call is SSM going to invite him in - oh, yeah, she says, they're still best friends

Edited October 22, 2020 by SRTouch

[CrazyInAlabama]

I loathed the dog owner.    He doesn't know what could happen for the literal ankle biter hit in the ankles of the plaintiff.   A bite on a tendon could cause horrible problems, or an infection.   However, I don't think the plaintiff deserved double either.   

Love the Norwegian sailor story.    And people wonder why malpractice insurance is so high.  

I am so sick of the desperate people who give some loser money that they should have saved for their children, or other emergencies.   Nothing like giving money to some loser who only wants you for booty calls, and money to spend on his stuff.    Plaintiff was so stupid, that I'm glad Judge Marilyn gave her nothing.    

This morning's memorable remote rerun was the man who had his car hit by the lying jerk snowplow guy.   A lesson for other hit and run drivers, don't hit a mathematician who has witnesses, and used to work in a tire store. 

Edited October 23, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

"What a baby!" indeed. Welcome to the New Age, where a great, big, husky, grown-up male wants to clean up as he's whining about the terrible trauma and anxiety he now suffers due to a Chihuahua bite/scratch. A child would get over it much more easily. The doctor bills, well, okay, but not when you're trying to double dip and profit from your trauma. That little old insurance fraud thing, y'know. That being said, the dog owner is a jerk. I've used 20' retractable leashes but ONLY in empty fields or woods and never on a public street. Those things give you zero control of your dog. Plus, when you've adopted an adult dog, you use extreme caution until you know exactly how your dog will react to all sorts of things. Retractable leashes, dog parks and invisible fences are all works of the Devil, IMO - all created for people who think they want dogs but are too lazy to properly exercise them. I was kind of surprised at JM, who has a dog she keeps isolated from all contact with anyone outside. That should not be necessary if you have a properly socialized dog. All my adopted dogs loved all people but were antagonistic to other dogs. I acted accordingly to keep all safe.

It was kind of amusing when D's witness told JM his name and blank expressions were seen all around.  "I'll just call you "sir"."

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

next is desperate woman who 'loaned' loser 3 grand:

I watched as much of that as I could tolerate and skipped over the middle. P is a SSM and they "was working at an alternative school". I once would have thought, "But not as teachers." Now? I'm not so sure. But really, what could P expect? D is a hunk, such a prime, fertile specimen of manhood he has progeny from North to South with women who couldn't wait to breed with him, and maybe even from East to West. I'm sure he faithfully pays support for his offspring. Someone has to pay for his train tickets, his new coat and his weed ( a legit expense for a SSM) since he (of course) lost his job, and it's not going to be him. These are absolute necessities and P felt the need to take money from her own children to give to him. And really, why he have no condoms left? Silly question. Just look at him! A woman has her needs and if it costs her 3K, I'm sure it was well worth it. I skipped to the end and was gratified to see that finally JM decides that a woman's pathetic ("I'll pay anything!") desperation for a booty call should not be rewarded and gives her nothing. 

[Carolina Girl]

On 10/21/2020 at 9:09 AM, CrazyInAlabama said:

I wonder if California fence law requires that a joint fence be replaced?   

California Civil Code in Section 841 requires that joint owners of a fence on the property line have equal responsibility for maintaining and replacing the fence.  However, this doesn't mean that if the neighbor decides he wants a different fence and there is nothing wrong with the old one, that you are obligated to pay for it.  You are responsible if the fence NEEDS replacing.  

To be honest, I've just paid for it myself rather than deal with my neighbors.  

[zillabreeze]

22 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

In the case with the 14 year old hidden in the 16 year old's room, the father/defendant was some kind of youth counselor.  

Right.  That's what gave me the vapors!  I am really curious as to the status of his license after this blatant disregard for laws.

[zillabreeze]

4 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

I loathed the dog owner.    He doesn't know what could happen for the literal ankle biter hit in the ankles of the plaintiff.   A bite on a tendon could cause horrible problems, or an infection.   However, I don't think the plaintiff deserved double either.   

Love the Norwegian sailor story.    And people wonder why malpractice insurance is so high.  

I am so sick of the desperate people who give some loser money that they should have saved for their children, or other emergencies.   Nothing like giving money to some loser who only wants you for booty calls, and money to spend on his stuff.    Plaintiff was so stupid, that I'm glad Judge Marilyn gave her nothing.    

When I get MY TeeVee Judgeship this is how I'll handle these cases:

- Women with children giving some hard dick money?  She wins, but money goes into iron clad trust for kids until they turn 25.

- No kids, dumb chick wins, but money goes to her local women's shelter.

- Old limp dick geezer that gives young chick money?  He wins, too. Money goes to local charity for victims of child sex abuse.

Thank you.  I'm hoping for a 4pm time slot.😁

[zillabreeze]

1 hour ago, Carolina Girl said:

California Civil Code in Section 841 requires that joint owners of a fence on the property line have equal responsibility for maintaining and replacing the fence.  However, this doesn't mean that if the neighbor decides he wants a different fence and there is nothing wrong with the old one, that you are obligated to pay for it.  You are responsible if the fence NEEDS replacing.  

To be honest, I've just paid for it myself rather than deal with my neighbors.  

These cases make me wanna run and hug all of my neighbors!!! 

I'm on a corner, so only one next door for 15 years.   We're both vintage single broads and we take care of each other!

We have a huge prop line straddling live oak tree... we both direct the tree dude together (much to his dismay, LOL)and split the cost!

We grow peaches and figs on the prop line.  We borrow each others trash cans when we're purging, we share plants, food, dog stuff.   We both are stress related insomniacs, so if we see lights at 3am, we text "You okay? Need to talk?"

We have separate circles of friends, but still tell each other all the time how lucky we are to have each other!  

I watch ID Channel "Fear Thy Neighbor" and just marvel at idiots that will engage and escalate with psychos!  I would just Ah-Move even at a loss.  Life is too short.

[VartanFan]

Man - yappy dogs.  I used to have a ~90 lb German Shepherd (RIP, my sweet Ubu) and we were leaving the vet.  There was a connected grooming place.  The other dog owner was chatting at the door and the Yorkie was on a retractable leash.  The dog ran and launched herself onto my dog’s ass with her teeth.  It was literally hanging off of Ubu’s butt from its mouth.  My dog is just trying to shake the dog off of her.  Thankfully I just watched the injury for infection and all was well.  That dog owner - i hope- learned a lesson and also sent me a gift card to a pet place.  

I also wonder - are there no urgent care centers in FL?  That seemed much more appropriate for the urgent care option (unless you’re going for the hysterics).  

I thought the after the verdict on this case (with the flare/leg) guy was more interesting than either case.  I wish they had told us about the ultimate decision!  At first pass, I’m wholly unsympathetic to the sailor.  

[Katy M]

26 minutes ago, VartanFan said:

I also wonder - are there no urgent care centers in FL?  That seemed much more appropriate for the urgent care option (unless you’re going for the hysterics).  

I don't get what urgent care is.  I've heard the term before and I thought it was just another word for the E/R.  But apparently not?  Is it like an ER that is just not in the hospital?  Does it cost less? Inquiring minds want to know.

[AZChristian]

1 hour ago, Katy M said:

I don't get what urgent care is.  I've heard the term before and I thought it was just another word for the E/R.  But apparently not?  Is it like an ER that is just not in the hospital?  Does it cost less? Inquiring minds want to know.

Urgent Care is a stand-alone medical facility (sometimes in a retail strip mall area) where you go if your injury is minor with little chance of complications.  Hubby sliced off a bit of his thumb about 6 weeks ago with one of those mandoline vegetable slicers.  Was bleeding like crazy, but we did NOT want to go to a full-blown emergency room in the middle of the Covid epidemic.  

The nurse/medical care provider told us that stitches weren't the best option for that type of injury.  She used something that looks like campfire matches with silver nitrate on the tip.  It immediately covered the injured area, and after about 7 of them, the bleeding finally stopped.  (Warning:  it hurt!)  She bandaged him up and sent him home, and it was MUCH less expensive than emergency room visit.  Fortunately, he was current on his tetanus shot so he didn't need one of those.

Plaintiff in the dog bite case could have been treated very successfully at an Urgent Care facility for about 25% (or less) of the ER charge.  He was just looking for a BOnanza.

[AngelaHunter]

18 hours ago, SRTouch said:

P gets his bills paid, but nothing for pain and suffering...... MM stresses that P is to only keep his deductible and forward rest to his insurance (Doug even mentions it in hallterview) but somehow I bet greedy P pockets the full amount 

Won't the show make the check out to the insurance company, but for the deductible? I know I've heard JJ say this many times that's what will be done when someone wants to collect for unpaid utilities, rental cars, rent, etc.

Poor P. He must have led a charmed life so far if he's mentally scarred because a Chihuahua bit his ankle. My friend's Quaker parakeet bit me so hard on my hand blood dripped out. It really hurt, too. Why didn't I sue my friend for 5K and declare anxiety and fear now when I see birds?

1 hour ago, VartanFan said:

The other dog owner was chatting at the door and the Yorkie was on a retractable leash.  The dog ran and launched herself onto my dog’s ass with her teeth.  

Those Yorkies, now. 100lb dogs in 7lb bodies. I was walking my 80lb Shep/collie mix when two Yorkies in adorable Xmas coats came flying across the street, yapping frantically, to attack my dog.  One of them was leaping up to try and bite his face and he just lifted his head out of reach and gave me a "WTF?" look. I just thought how lucky the owners were this was my calm dog, and not one who would have defended himself and maybe killed both of them in two bites.

[Katy M]

1 hour ago, AZChristian said:

Plaintiff in the dog bite case could have been treated very successfully at an Urgent Care facility for about 25% (or less) of the ER charge.  He was just looking for a BOnanza.

But, are they common?  Or are they just in certain places?  Maybe only big cities have them, probably?

[SRTouch]

6 hours ago, Katy M said:

I don't get what urgent care is.  I've heard the term before and I thought it was just another word for the E/R.  But apparently not?  Is it like an ER that is just not in the hospital?  Does it cost less? Inquiring minds want to know.

Yes, urgeht care clinics cost less. Mainly because of the level of training/staffing requirements. With so many people using ERs for their primary care, the bean counters realised they would save a bunch of money with satellite clinics for non Emergency patients. Emergency medicine is a specialty like other fields, and certified emergency nurses, nurse practicians, PAs, and, of course doctors, earn more than many other fields. 

NOTE: as cost cutting move a lot of military post/base hospitals are being shut down. Instead of 24 hour care on post at a hospital complete with completely staffed ER, there is now an urgent care clinic. Emergencies are sent off post to the county hospital. As a retiree I am no longer be seen by a primary care provider on post, instead I have to go off post. I DO receive medications on post if they are in stock.

Edited October 23, 2020 by SRTouch

[AZChristian]

1 hour ago, Katy M said:

But, are they common?  Or are they just in certain places?  Maybe only big cities have them, probably?

There are LOTS of them in my city - Mesa, AZ.  My husband's home town of North Platte, Nebraska appears to have two for the whole city (population 23,000).  Some of ours are actually associated with hospitals, but are not IN the hospital.  

[VartanFan]

2 hours ago, Katy M said:

But, are they common?  Or are they just in certain places?  Maybe only big cities have them, probably?

Yes!  I live in Western Massachusetts (not a huge population center).  I live in a town of 10,000 and two of the surrounding town/cities have urgent care centers.  Stitches, burns, some breaks, non-life-threatening etc etc.  Not only is it cheaper out of pocket, but my copay is the same as for an office visit (versus a copay in the ER of hundreds).  I know they’re throughout FL also...so this guy could have found one if he found an ER.  

[SRTouch]

apartment fire: plaintiff fell asleep after starting her crockpot - fire/smoke/etc and she ends up going out her 3rd floor window - she lost all kinds of priceless crap and wants 10 grand from the landlord (apparently nary a receipt, so trust her it was worth 10 grand)........ I called this early as MM would have had an easier time pulling P's with a pair of rusty vise grips - and what the heck is the story about her jumping out the window - MM asks if there was a fire escape, and P says no, but turns out there were a slides between floors? Seems to me slides should count as an escape route........ anyway, I zipped ahead and head MM saying the fire department said the source of fire was her crockpot pot - she gets nothing........ from hallterview it seems the fire was confined to her kitchen, and landlord even offered her some money when he was actually a victim of her carelessness or faulty crockpot....... no countersuit, though he had a case......... 

after verdict chat: the chats have definitely turned into a favorite - this time Judge John equates P's case to someone who commits a crime asking for the reward - our 2 judges agree that if the Crockpot was really defective P might have a case against the manufacturer - but say it would be hard to prove and require lots of expert testimony - also, point out that P should have had renters insurance

homeowner wants back deposit to contractor: p says she bought a trailer, but trailer park told her she needed to do some upgrades or be fined - she hired D for the job and gave a deposit, but he dragged his feet starting the job & park wanted it done yesterday so she hired a different contractor - now she wants her $700 back....... D says this was actually hurricaine Irma damage - says he was buried in damage repair jobs and P was #3 on his list of jobs when she pulled plug to go with someone else (turns out she was out of state for 2 months working on son's house) - also, seems deposit was actually $2700 and he returned 2 grand - claims he did enough work that he is entitled to keep the other $700.......... ok, my first thought here was to ask why park was threatening to fine her over taking too long to repair hurricaine damage - MM gets that answer pretty fast - seems she bought the trailer after the hurricaine, and her rental agreement in the park required the repairs - and she let it slide for a year before doing anything........ finally park got fed up, and warned her she would be fined unless she provided proof within 14 days that she had someone coming to do repair, proof being a signed contract and pulled permit with completion date within 60 days - ok, that actually sounds pretty reasonable from management....... ok, P losing it here as she really doesn't seem to know what management wanted done when - she apparently got an extention on the 14 days and completion deadline so she could shop around, and she chose D's company - for someone under the gun to get this thing done she doesn't sound like she was in any hurry - she's talking about calling D's company and being told it would be mid-June before anything could be started (yep, almost half the time wasted) and so goes in and signs the contract and puts down the $2700......... fast forward to June 20th and P calls again wondering when construction will begin and is told earliest job will begin would be mid-July - and no guarantee on that as 2 jobs were in front of hers......... uh, something of a switcheroo starting here when first thing we here from D is that he was out of town/state doing work on son's new house......... uh, so when exactly did P paid him to do the job (and did she have a state/completion date on the contract)........ P obviously knew clock was ticking so at best lousy business practice to take money and leave customer hanging for weeks......... D says he talked to park management and they were fine with his delays and he finally arrived to do work end of July - ah, but did he keep customer informed, because she went out and hired someone else while he was out of town - D trying to sell idea that P jumped gun, but MM knows the timeline and says it was actually 5 weeks after P paid the deposit before she fired him and asked for a refund...... P says she hired someone else who started job early August after yet another extension from the park manager........... D calls in his office manager as a witness - and she doesn't do it for me - basically she admits she knew about the deadline in May - so knew time was of the essence - again, poor communication from both sides - D witness saying P knew from beginning that job wasn't going to begin until mid-July and P shaking her head no...... would have been nice if either had text/emails because this is just she/he/she said with some hearsay testimony thrown in........ it's possible P found a cheaper contractor, but seems to me she should have received the full refund unless D can show he did some work......... hoboy, and now D witness really blowing D case as she says 'a lot of these women (which she changes to customers before MM jumps on her with both feet) wait til the last minute' sounds like her idea of customer service is adversarial, us vs them, instead of trying to provide good service........ ok, company owner fine with putting customer'service jobs on hold for 2 months after collecting thousands of dollars and office manager has a 'us vs them' attitude - basically, nothing D side is saying, if true, explains why P would change horses in the middle if the stream - the only way I see that happening is if P thought the construction was to start a month earlier than D says P was told - again, poor communication and everything in writing from park management saying one thing and both sides claiming management extended these deadlines time after time with nobody having evidence of ANY extensions........ ah, and more lousy business/customer service - see, D refunds the $2000 P paid with her credit card (no doubt knowing she'd win if she fought the charges) and then promises to refund $350 of the $700 she paid with cash - but when she shows up to get the $350 they had changed their minds and inform her they're keeping it......... D switches chairs with witness, and his new tact is to continue the 'us vs them' line even though pretty plain to me MM isn't buying that - and now D getting huffy with da'judge as he sees things not going his way........  at best, there was no meeting of minds, only way I see D keeping a penny is if he has proof of some work........... MM agrees - P gets back the $700

after verdict chat nothing much, just stressing importance of a clear contract with start/end dates - and whether completion time is important 

Edited October 23, 2020 by SRTouch

[zillabreeze]

4 hours ago, Katy M said:

But, are they common?  Or are they just in certain places?  Maybe only big cities have them, probably?

Around the Dallas area and burbs it seems like there's one at every intersection.  We call them "Doc in the Box" 😁

I've used them dozens of times at work.  They're perfect for taking an employee with a minor injury or for a post accident drug test.

I've gone several times for personal stuff and was completely satisfied.  My fav part is online check in, you tell them exactly how many minutes you need to get there, you get a text, then just sail on in without sitting in the waiting room petri dish.

It appears that new doctors get first gigs at the clinics, so I've found them to be pretty engaged and empathetic.

Recent news story heads up - if the facility calls itself an "Emergency Room", it's waaaaay more spendy than an Urgent Care clinic.  Insured or not, if the name includes "Emergency Room" it's gonna cost you the same or more as an emergency room at a hospital.  You don't want to accidentally go to one for a few stitches or ear infection.

[CrazyInAlabama]

The problem with urgent care, a.k.a. Doc in a Box around here their hours, they're open barely more than my doctor's office is available.  

The plaintiff suing over her destruction of her apartment, and items from a malfunctioning crock pot, suing for $10,000.    She was making spaghetti, or reheating, fell asleep, and found the crock pot caused a fire.    The really bizarre part is that she lives on the third floor, and used two slides to get safely to the first floor (where does she live?  In Candyland? or Shutes and Ladders game?).   The plaintiff is suing the landlord / defendant for $10,000 for a stamp collection, and a couple of other things.   Best part is apparently legal tenant on lease was plaintiff's boyfriend.    Landlord/defendant didn't even know she was living there with her child, and the boyfriend.    (This plaintiff reminds me of the recent Jinky Montiel case on Judge Judy).

Fortunately, another tenant (there are two units in the building) heard a loud bang, he went upstairs to investigate, saw the fire, called the fire department, the landlord.  Landlord lost the fire report, blaming the fire on plaintiff's crock pot.      Landlord is out a lot of money, because insurance didn't cover the damage.     As Judge Marilyn says, what cause of action does plaintiff have against landlord/defendant?   It was her crockpot.   

My guess is the crock pot was either on for a whole lot of hours, or was empty, and caught fire because of some negligence by plaintiff. Landlord says only plaintiff's apartment's kitchen was burned. 

Plaintiff loses.         No proof of anything by plaintiff.  

The case about the patio cover is totally confusing.    The defendant's office worker is hysterical, and pegs it with a lot of the plaintiffs on this show, they contract for something, don't want to pay the full price, and then want a refund for having to wait their turn.     Since the plaintiff said in the beginning she didn't want to pay the amount the company wanted, I suspect she was going to demand a refund on a lot of the aluminum patio shelter all along.   I missed the first part, so I don't know if there was anything sensible about the plaintiff's case or not, I just know I like the defendant's office person, and can't stand the plaintiff.    This whole case boils down to Levine's statement "Time is of the essence" in the contract, but as SRTouch said, she had an entire year to do this awning, and didn't worry about the park's demands then.    I wouldn't have given her back the $700.       

 

 

Edited October 25, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

apartment fire: plaintiff fell asleep after starting her crockpot

Dumb and Dumber. Dumdum plaintiff made little sense - are there homes with slides outside windows? I was picturing the kind at amusement parks. Whee! She explained she used these slides to escape the fire after she freaked JM out by telling her she had jumped from a 3rd story window. Whatever. She's not even on the lease and snuck in unannounced, with a kid, to bunk with her boyfriend but wants the landlord to just give her 10K for whatever she had in the apartment. 10K? Really? I guess it just sounded like a nice, solid, round sum.

Then we have landlord who is a gambler of a type we see all the time here, the kind who doesn't believe in homeowner's insurance. He owns this building in which strangers live. Are they drunks? Will they pass out with a cigarette burning, or defective crockpot bubbling, or fall asleep with the bathtub faucet running and cause heavy damage? Landlord gambled that his tenants will not ever do anything careless or negligent or even accidental and decided he doesn't need any stinkin' insurance. He lost the gamble. I get it. I hate my ins. company and hate paying my insurance too, but I was glad I had it this spring when my deck collapsed and took my heat pump with it and I didn't have to cough up all at once the many thousands of dollars it cost to rebuild/replace and I don't even have strangers whose habits are unknown to me living here. This D took a calculated risk and lost. C'est la vie! I bet it's going to cost him a heck of a lot more to renovate the burned up kitchen than it would have cost to have insurance. He had the fire marshal's report but couldn't hold on to this important document without losing it. On top of that, he offers this woman - who of course had no renter's insurance -  to whom he owes nothing and who isn't even his tenant 1500$, against the advice of his lawyer. That's not enough for her. She wants much more even though it was her fault (oh, but someone told her there was faulty wiring) and not his and she has no proof she had anything at all in this apartment for which I'm sure she paid no rent.  Def needs to either smarten up or get out of the landlord racket.

3 hours ago, SRTouch said:

homeowner wants back deposit to contractor:

This was very tedious, until "Luann" made an appearance. Luann? Oh, my! The long, platinum, Mamie Van Doren tresses are doing you no favours. I know you can probably fool a lot of people who only see the back view of you, but trust me on this. When she shoved her face right into the camera I actually recoiled. "These women", she starts off and we know how well that goes over with JM. Luann quickly changed it to "These customers".

Then we got a cute little anecdote from Levin. I muted the sound and just read the captions because his high-pitched, screechy voice causes me anguish. Anyway, a judge somewhere was kind enough to let Levin play judge for a day or whatever. The judge even let the little dirtbag borrow his robes. Well, the judge was taller than Shortass (like, who isn't?) and munchkin Levin tripped over the hem and faceplanted. How I wish we had a video of that.