AZChristian February 4, 2021 Share February 4, 2021 11 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: I didn't see that part. Maybe she should get cheaper choppers and some of that money should be allocated for therapy for her kids she dragged into the home of this POS, to suffer abuse at his hands just because she wanted a roof over her head, or a ring on her finger, or whatever. It's not all about YOU when you have helpless kids you're supposed to protect. She'll probably just buy them a new XBox. Link to comment
SRTouch February 4, 2021 Share February 4, 2021 (edited) Supposed to be a 3 case day, but all three are lame and I fast forward through 2 out of three (and didn't pay much attention to the other) I skipped first case about lowlife who shot out a cat's eye with a pellet gun - I caught the end of the case where MM was berating the cat shooter (and the DA who refused to file charges even though ass admits to shooting a pet) - P filed for vet bills and cat's pain and suffering, but of course the law doesn't allow for an animal's pain and suffering - ah, but MM is REALLY pissed at shooter, she strikes the pain and suffering and amends the P filing by doubling asked for grand and calling it punitive damages - $2000 to P.......... CL used car disaster: P buys 22 year old convertible Benz after seller assures her everything works great, and it was a BENZ CONVERTIBLE and oh so pretty, her dream car...... ah, but on day three the freeking windows quit working and top no longer goes up and down, so foolish woman starts covering the thing with a plastic shower curtain to keep the rain out when she parks it and says it'should undriverable......... oh, but wait, seller actually pointed out that a cylinder that raised/lowered roof leaked and that he had just been adding fluid every so often, so, she takes his word, and doesn't bother getting the leak checked before buying the car - later, when she actually takes it for an estimate, repairs cost WAY more than she can afford........ wasn't paying a lot of attention, but I think I heard she paid $3500, or maybe the dealer estimate to fix problem was $3500, she wants 5 grand......... like so many court tv used car buyers, she agrees with MM that this was a used car without a warranty, but argues that this is a special case and she should be treated special just because and that seller is a "despicable little man"......... college buddy sues over bet made in 2013: this case was just silly, neither litigants nor MM can keep from laughing - I fast forwarded through to decision time, thinking I'd go back and watch if it sounded like something interesting happened......... nope, though I do learn that the bet was over a pro ball player and whether or not he might one day be voted into the Hall of Fame - not even sure what sport much less player's name, but gather he's still active Edited February 4, 2021 by SRTouch 6 Link to comment
DoctorK February 4, 2021 Share February 4, 2021 2 hours ago, SRTouch said: argues that this is a special case and she should be treated special just because Mostly boring case, and the plaintiff was a classic dumb bunny who got just what she deserved - nothing. However, of all of the god-awful eyelashes we have seen, this one was new to me Did she really have rhinestones glued to her eyelashes? 4 Link to comment
Florinaldo February 4, 2021 Share February 4, 2021 3 hours ago, SRTouch said: CL used car disaster: Plaintiff was suing for "emotional distress" (don't they all?). The only people who would deserve such compensation are the viewers who were subjected to the hideous sight of her glitter-sprayed eyelids. 5 Link to comment
AngelaHunter February 4, 2021 Share February 4, 2021 (edited) Although "as is" cases are usually just boring, I thought I might enjoy this one based on SRTouch's description, just for the sheer idiocy of it. I did enjoy it! Plaintiff starts by informing JM that she just left an abusive relationship ( a little sympathy ploy) and her way of celebrating her freedom and treating herself, as we all might, is searching CL and buying a Mercedes that is rapidly nearing a quarter of a century of faithful service. I always wanted a Mercedes too, but if the only one I could afford was 23 years old, I might settle for something a little less prestigious. Seller tells her what he knows is faulty on the car, which she decides is "nothing at all". Of course, seller was very nice and told her he had a daughter and would never cheat P, which I don't believe he did. P was a little long in the tooth to think D would see her as a daughter. JM does wonder why P didn't bother getting this geriatric veehickle checked out before purchase? Well, P is kind of indignant at that question and informs JM that would cost a whole 115$! Much better to save that money and then be told it needs 3500$ of work afterwards. Pennywise and pound foolish is the P, just like so many before her. I must say the pics of the car draped in a shower curtain and with a bunch of cardboard stuck in the windows (is cardboard really effective to waterproof anything? I dunno) were quite amusing. When P sees the direction this is going, namely that "as is" means just that, she starts flinging herself back against her chair and grump-facing to express her disbelief and displeasure at the fact that her old beater is not special, nor is she exempt from the laws everyone else has to follow. The pretty, elderly Mercedes is all hers. 2 hours ago, DoctorK said: However, of all of the god-awful eyelashes we have seen, this one was new to me Did she really have rhinestones glued to her eyelashes? I don't know what that was. I thought she just had something stuck on one of them - like those little styrofoam balls from Amazon packages that fly all over and stick to everything - then I saw whatever it was on the other one too. Are there "Fake eyelash embassadors", like the Hair Embassadors we recently heard about? I was really annoyed at Doug in the Hall telling P he felt sorry for her. Why? She's a fully-mature adult who decided to buy an ancient car and choose not to have it check out first. "You pays your money, you takes your chances". Tough for her. 4 hours ago, SRTouch said: college buddy sues over bet made in 2013: this case was just silly Yeah. I watched about 2 minutes of this. College student P says "Me and Thatcher(is that some vogue millennial name?)were..." and hit the stop button. I always expect so much more of college students and couldn't deal with the rest of this nonsense. Learn how to speak basic English, college boy! Edited February 4, 2021 by AngelaHunter 4 Link to comment
TresGatos February 4, 2021 Share February 4, 2021 (edited) I record the People's Court while I am at work and watch an episode with breakfast so I am a little behind but I wanted to comment on the case of the business owner who does shipping, renting mailboxes, selling boxes, all kind of stuff for 30 years. He was suing someone who was shipping kiddie pools at no charge. Convoluted explanation about how he makes money but Judge M's eyes just lit up and you could tell she was salivating over all the ways she could make Lincoln scream and squeeze every last penny of profit if she was in charge of it. Then, after the verdict, Judge John commented that the owner "would rather make a friend than a profit," but twice he leaned forward and grabbed Judge M's knee and I kind of expected Douglas to step in. Still loving the interaction between the two judges and still advocate they be given their own talk show. I've been seeing ads for the cat shooting case so I am prepared to fast forward through it but I'm glad to read how it turned out. Quote Me and Thatcher(is that some vogue millennial name?) I wonder if Thatcher has a sibling named Reagan? Edited February 4, 2021 by TresGatos Extra Thoughts 5 Link to comment
AngelaHunter February 4, 2021 Share February 4, 2021 2 minutes ago, TresGatos said: but twice he leaned forward and grabbed Judge M's knee and I kind of expected Douglas to step in. Still loving the interaction between the two judges and still advocate they be given their own talk show. Yeah, I noticed the knee squeezing. Judge John is totally blooming and waxing eloquent here, since he seems to have realized he's in a place where he can get a word in edgewise, which I doubt he can do at home. 😄 8 1 Link to comment
Florinaldo February 5, 2021 Share February 5, 2021 6 hours ago, SRTouch said: college buddy sues over bet made in 2013: The show must be desperate for content if they let through such boring cases that come across as futile and totally made up just to get on TV (and get a share of the award kitty). 6 hours ago, SRTouch said: lowlife who shot out a cat's eye with a pellet gun - I am far from a pet lover, but the "I wanted to kill it, not to hurt it" defense was profoundly despicable even for me. 3 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama February 5, 2021 Share February 5, 2021 (edited) I turned on TPC too early, and caught about a minute of the cat case, and then grabbed the remote and watched something else. What rotten defense is "I didn't want to wound him, I wanted to kill the cat"? And why wouldn't the local D.A. charge this jerk? Actually, I bet the D.A. didn't charge the man because he's either a long term resident (I've seen people who are considered local, favored over others), or is related to someone. Edited February 5, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama Link to comment
Maverick February 5, 2021 Share February 5, 2021 The douchy man children with their stupid 7 year old bet were completely punchable. You could just tell these ivory tower asswipes were so pleased with themselves with how clever they were being able to continue their meaningless frat boy rivalry for a national audience. At one point Judge MM had this look on her face that screamed "I'm SO glad I don't have boys". I was shocked she found these twits and their wasting of her time evenly mildly amusing. How did this "case" even make it to air? Was Harvey enamored with them for some reason? I didn't think doughy rich boys who spent the time they were supposed to be getting an education drinking, watching sports and talking about sports incessantly yet never having the skill or ability to play any sport themselves was his type. I took him for the jacked up himbo type. 5 Link to comment
AngelaHunter February 5, 2021 Share February 5, 2021 9 hours ago, Maverick said: The douchy man children with their stupid 7 year old bet were completely punchable. You could just tell these ivory tower asswipes were so pleased with themselves with how clever they were being able to continue their meaningless frat boy rivalry for a national audience. At one point Judge MM had this look on her face that screamed "I'm SO glad I don't have boys". I was shocked she found these twits and their wasting of her time evenly mildly amusing. How did this "case" even make it to air? Was Harvey enamored with them for some reason? I didn't think doughy rich boys who spent the time they were supposed to be getting an education drinking, watching sports and talking about sports incessantly yet never having the skill or ability to play any sport themselves was his type. I took him for the jacked up himbo type. "Ivory tower asswipes". Stellar. I just might save this for posterity. 😆 Douchy, silly, man children seem to be a rising majority now, if you judge only by watching court shows. Also judging by Levin's posse of little twits on his execrable "TMZ" he does seem to be fond of that type, although his boyfriend is a 56-year-old ex-chiropractor who looks normal. What he sees in Levin I have zero idea. 2 Link to comment
SRTouch February 5, 2021 Share February 5, 2021 (edited) Today's cases are staples of court tv - litigants fighting over money/stuff once relationships go wrong........ much better than abuse cases and type of case where MM gets to pander to those who enjoy Springer-esk type fights as MM digs for all the juicy/nasty details (whether they matter to case or not)....... sometimes I enjoy these in a train-wreck sort of way - especially when MM acts like she finds a litigant's actions funny, only it turns out she was going along to keep them talking before lowering the boom after getting to talk too much, but then sometimes she actually lets litigants off because they're young/old/whatever and I just say ewww and hit fast forward fighting over money after breakup: P claims ex-gf, D, raided P's account and stole money - she wants 5grand, but not sure how much is missing money versus pain and despair over breakup........ D intro doesn't seem to address missing money from daughter's account, instead it's the "she showered me with gifts and is just bitter that we broke up" defense........ short time relationship - after connecting on FB they went from messaging to RL affair, though P makes a point of telling us this wasn't a dating site and she is married.......... I guess if you're a scammer looking to target someone you choose someone who is married and might not come after any stolen money - just saying, as haven't heard from D yet, she might be totally innocent in this but not impressed by her intro........ ok, this sounds like it stayed an online affair with daily messaging back and forth but only 1 RL meeting........ so how the heck did D get access to daughter's account info?........... ok, so this is turning into one of those cases where MM is way more interested in juicy details than I am - seems P was in process of divorcing hubby and they were moving on to seeing other people, but hubby flips when he learns P might actually be moving on and texts P that he's leaving for Florida and taking their 1yo daughter......... this is where I say "ewwww" and start zipping ahead to learn about supposed stolen money......... well, this is sort of interesting - P lives in North Carolina and when daddy split he drive daughter 10 hours to get to northern Florida - then when P decides to file this case she ended up traveling from NC to Boston, which is where D lives, and part of 5 grand us to pay for her travel from NC to Boston (later learn D ghosted her when they were supposed to meet) -- still haven't heard how D got info to steal any money from daughter's account, of why a 1yo has an account that some stranger can access across state lines......... ok, sort of hard to follow with all the "like" & "basically" etc from P, but daughter has medical issues (Downs syndrome) and receives assistance which P had going into an account separate from the joint family account - P immediately contacts her new Internet bestie, talks things over, and decides to transfer money from daughter's account to keep it from hubby - so of course why not send it to some stranger she only knows through FB.......... MM is sort of incredulous, but P seems to act as though this was a perfectly reasonable course of action, but then admits it was foolish and she did it without thinking as she was an emotional wreck....... ok, so now I have most of my questions answered - still don't know amount, and not sure why P said she didn't want to pursue case criminally - would this be something the FBI might investigate since it was an interstate wire transfer, I'm betting D would have been a lot quicker to return the money when told this was a federal case......... well, we're going to commercial, but preview clip has MM quoting texts/messages to D and really ripping into D while D does the indignant eye roll and faces.......... ok, amount is $1900, so next question will be how P blows into to a $5000 case.......... WTH is D going on about? MM clearly asks about this $1900 and D is going on about how P sends her money for her nails and whatnot - do nails really cost $1900?......... ok, but this is where MM reads back the texts where D explains how P can send her money through zell(?) To D's sister (another total stranger to P)......... D has that face I now associate with total scammers - she's thinking she was so smart muddying the water, P never sent HER the money, but sent it to someone else and without these texts she might have been right....... ok, now D does some dancing around, but case over, D provided the account info for this mystery sister's account and texted P that once she had somewhere to keep money safe from despicable daddy she'd return the money - sort of blows up her defense, doesn't it?.......... I ready for an explanation of how $1900 became 5 grand and MM's decision.......... MM pissed and getting more so as D dodges and tries to come up with any sort of defense - which is pretty had to do when MM keeps reading back texts which contradict everything going D claims......... this is one of those cases where it's really too bad loser doesn't actually come out of pocket to pay decision - by time MM announces decision she is throughly PISSED at what D has been saying - P doesn't get her 5 grand, but does get an extra grand on told of the $1900 D refused to return - $2900 to plaintiff missing gaming screen: confusing love triangle case, which I left running while I wrnt to fix lunch - P ordered a $750 dollar gaming screen, and 'thinks' D has it - I say think she has screen because P is suing based on her theory of what happened without any sort of actual evidence........ I missed pretty much all the testimony and didn't think it worth rewatching........ from what I see when I come back to room, not only does P not have evidence, D DOES HAVE evidrnce which seems to prove item P claims D has was never actually shipped, and Walmart refunded the payment, apparently that concept is to complicated for P to comprehend and she might have provided the wrong receipt and/or tracking information....... anyway, seems both P's mommy and her hubby contacted D about P and D's bf hooking up, and that erstwhile bf has since moved on and found a new gf........... case dismissed Edited February 6, 2021 by SRTouch 5 Link to comment
AngelaHunter February 5, 2021 Share February 5, 2021 2 hours ago, SRTouch said: fighting over money after breakup: While P announcing, "I'm stupid" might be totally accurate it in no way explains the utter "WTF-ery" and insanity of this whole thing. I had to mute all the "I was devastated, devastated" stuff, so maybe there was something I wasn't picking up. I've been chatting with someone in Australia for years. A while ago I was feeling "vulnerable" so I thought the best idea was to transfer all the money in my savings account to her, on the condition she Western Union it right back to me. Yes, I have a little baby who is going to have lots of expenses in the coming years and that money was for her, but well - I thought sending it to someone I barely know would accomplish... what, exactly? Does anyone have an answer? Anyone? JM didn't delve deeply enough into that or demand an answer (other than "I'm stupid") as to WHY P would send money to Def and to no one else or go to the bank and take the money herself. What is going on here? I was annoyed at JM giving P punitive damages. IMO, she deserved no rewards for doing something so incomprehensible and idiotic. Words to live by, courtesy of the Def: "I'm not going to let nobody burn no baby." Commendable. It was also amusing listening to JM reading this just as it was written. 2 hours ago, SRTouch said: missing gaming screen: Honestly, these people! Their lives are in melt-down and some gaming station is a topmost priority. P had some weird, flat affect going on, and her proof is that her Sir Galahad (who is Def's ex-boyfriend) told her so. For sure his word is his bond and why not? He's got all these women who want to be with him. Oh, and def? Living with someone for 14 years and having two children with him makes it sound so silly when he's called your "boyfriend". Even just half-listening to all this dumb BS had me expecting to hear Oprah bellowing in the background, "IT's DR. PHIL DAAAAAY!!" 4 Link to comment
Pepper the Cat February 6, 2021 Share February 6, 2021 So I got 20 mins of the first case. Commercial break then got the end of an old case of a sister suing her brother for a broken iPhone and then into to the woman suing over cast iron pots. Commercial break and then got the rest of the second case. very confusing! 2 Link to comment
AngelaHunter February 6, 2021 Share February 6, 2021 11 minutes ago, Pepper the Cat said: So I got 20 mins of the first case. Commercial break then got the end of an old case of a sister suing her brother for a broken iPhone and then into to the woman suing over cast iron pots. Commercial break and then got the rest of the second case. very confusing! At least you didn't get the fast one pulled on me a while ago, where I was presented with infomercials or Ellen when expecting TPC. I wish these people would get their act together. 3 Link to comment
Pepper the Cat February 6, 2021 Share February 6, 2021 2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: At least you didn't get the fast one pulled on me a while ago, where I was presented with infomercials or Ellen when expecting TPC. I wish these people would get their act together. Is that a TPC thing or a channel thing?? Link to comment
AngelaHunter February 6, 2021 Share February 6, 2021 2 hours ago, Pepper the Cat said: Is that a TPC thing or a channel thing?? I think it must be a channel thing, but I'm not sure. I think it happened maybe three times. Boy, was I steamed.😡 Link to comment
Maverick February 6, 2021 Share February 6, 2021 I saw the pots thing and I was another pone I couldn't believe they stretched into a 1/2 hour case. I actually got called away and didn't see the thrilling conclusion. It might have been somewhat amusing as a 20 minute case (I actually liked it better than the woman with the "designer luggage" her preacher stole from her). So this woman thought it wasn't her cast iron because there was no magic marker on it? I the rust had been sandblasted off? M'kay. And about that rust: the P was so distraught because a valued family heirloom had been stolen and how could he and how distressing to her and....why was it left in the basement to rust for 50 years if it was so important? 3 Link to comment
AngelaHunter February 6, 2021 Share February 6, 2021 14 hours ago, Maverick said: And about that rust: the P was so distraught because a valued family heirloom had been stolen and how could he and how distressing to her and....why was it left in the basement to rust for 50 years if it was so important? I saw this all the time when I used to watch "Hoarders". They drag out some object from the bottom of an ancient pile of junk in attic or garage. The item is covered with spider webs, dust, the debris and dirt of the ages and they say they can't get rid of it because it has such great sentimental value. Yeah, it looks that way. In the cast iron case, I think P just saw how good the items looked when she saw them on FB after D finished working on them, checked out eBay and CL and decided they were family heirlooms with irreplaceable memories of her Grandma, but she'll trade those wonderful memories for cash - 3K to be specific. 5 Link to comment
seacliffsal February 8, 2021 Share February 8, 2021 On the case of the plaintiff emptying out a savings account and sending it to the defendant, the plaintiff told a long (boring) story about her husband being mean to her and then taking their daughter to Florida. Hmmm, if she's so concerned about the money for the daughter, why did she take it when the daughter is with the father? Also, just because she said she was the only one contributing to the account. And, JM just accepted her statements as true (JM even made a critical remark about the husband). Later, JM read a text that the plaintiff wrote which stated she had already emptied out the joint account. Why does JM just accept all of this? Yes, the defendant was scamming the plaintiff, but the plaintiff's hands weren't "clean" (IMO) as she was taking all of the joint money which left nothing for her husband who had the daughter. And then the plaintiff was rewarded with an extra $1000 (because JM didn't like that the defendant was taking money from a special needs child which is exactly what the plaintiff had done, as her husband had the daughter with him). 4 Link to comment
SRTouch February 8, 2021 Share February 8, 2021 Oh well, think my provider is off schedule again - tvpassport.com shows a new 3-case day. But, when I tune in I get the rerun of a kid working for a landscaper who won't pay kid for days both agree he worked. Didn't like the crooked landscaper first time, and think my opinion went down after this viewing. Kid worked and got paid cash for 2 weeks, then had kerfuffle with foreman and suddenly landscaper dude refuses to pay for last few days he worked without social security card and picture ID......... didn't watch rest of episode Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama February 8, 2021 Share February 8, 2021 (edited) I'm getting a new episode (I think it's new). Case #1-Plaintiff (with red and blue hair) suing her cousin over cousin failing to get the paperwork and 501 (c)3 charity status for plaintiff's GED and other tutoring service. Defendant / cousin has her own 501 (c) 3, is a paralegal, and was supposed to finish the paperwork, and plaintiff paid defendant to do this, but defendant was doing other things, so defendant didn't finish. Defendant gave some money back to the plaintiff. Defendant has a ton of excuses, is apparently caregiver for a relative, and has medical and other issues herself. Defendant realized she would never meet the deadline, so she refunded $1300 of the $1500 she received from the plaintiff. Plaintiff hired someone else, and paid them $1400. (This case is so boring. My personal guess is they came on the show to publicize their charities, and find donors). The biggest issue is that the refund method the plaintiff chose has a surcharge, and attorney's fees went from $150, to $3,000 (dismissed). Plaintiff wants to be paid for the time delay establishing the charity. $300 to plaintiff (I suspect the two women went to lunch, giggling about the amount of publicity their charities received from the show). Case #2-Plaintiff suing defendant over repairs to her ATV, and defendant installed a battery, that plaintiff claims set the ATV on fire, and burned it up. Defendant says there were many mice nests in the ATV, and the chewing of the wires caused the fire (that happens). Mechanic testifies that when they went to start the ATV, that chewed wires sparked, and they managed to get the ATV outside before it burned the garage, and house down. Mechanic says they have cats in the shop, and they take care of the mice, so damage must have happened at plaintiff's storage place for the ATV. Defendant even sent plaintiff a photo of the mice nests. Then one of the cats drops into the picture at defendant's to show how aggressive they are. Judge Marilyn is blaming the mechanics for the fire. This is a broken down 15 year old ATV, and as usual, plaintiff wants $5,000. (Personally, I wouldn't give either side a penny). Insurance company for defendant rejected the claim, because of the mice nests. Plaintiff has a letter from defendant's insurance company, saying the policy doesn't cover other people's property, just the defendant. Plaintiff claims the $5k claim is based on the value of buying the same model and year, but in good condition. Defendant is claiming for storage on the ATV. Apparently this happened in January/February 2020, so the storage is for a year. Defendant case dismissed, plaintiff gets $1500 for the junky ATV. Case #3-Plaintiff rented house from defendant, who won't return his security deposit $2,000, and evicted him suddenly. Landlord says plaintiff did a lot of damage, and can prove it. Florida landlord law is list every damage, within 30 days of tenant leaving, to keep security deposit. Plaintiff, wife, and four kids lived in the house. There are move in pictures, and move out pictures. The carpet was new on move in. The carpet damage is awful, there are huge amounts of what looks like nail polish, and paint, the carpet will have to be replaced. Plaintiff claims the damage pictures were when he moved in (but the carpet was brand new). Plaintiff case dismissed. Judge John adds a great point, saying the rug looks like a crime scene. (Often with landlords, the property managers do use lighter carpet, and I don't know why. My guess is they just get their usual installer, and tell them to get whatever is the right price, and don't care about colors. I don't think any color could have stood up to the plaintiff and family, dark carpet could have hid a few stains, but not the pink ones, and the big wet puddles that were left to dry up on their own. However, nothing could have stood up to the abuse the plaintiff, his wife, and the four kids put that home through. I don't think laminate would have stood up to what looks like many spills, and no one ever cleaned them up. Carpet would be cheaper to change after each tenant, than laminate. Also, LVP or LVT (luxury vinyl plank or tile) would have been scratched to pieces by this family). Edited February 9, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama 5 Link to comment
AngelaHunter February 8, 2021 Share February 8, 2021 (edited) 42 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said: Case #1-Plaintiff (with red and blue hair) I could overlook the circus-like Bozo hairdo and the grandstanding by these litigants because at least both spoke proper English. I don't know much about such things, but couldn't help thinking while we were hearing about young people "dropping like flies" (killing each other I assume) that trying to do something about that might be more useful than after-the-fact endless grief counselling. Oh, well. 42 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said: Case #2-Plaintiff suing defendant over repairs to her ATV As soon as I saw and heard from both lititgants, especially the enormous-faced def with his indoor beanie and snowsuit, I instantly thought, "This has to be Minnesota." During the hallterview, this was heard to be the case. P wants the price of nice new ATV to replace her 16-year-old, broken-down vehicle jammed with mouse nests. Def saw the mouse nests and even texted it to her, but I guess he never thought that very dry hay/grass in the engine might be flammable. Seems it was. Amusing case. 42 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said: Case #3-Plaintiff rented house from defendant "A carpet is a wearable item", plaintiff says, wanting his 2K deposit back. Does wearable include being able to throw and drop all kinds of stuff all over it - stuff that won't come out? Don't think so, but really - how dumb does a landlord have to be to cover the house in wall-to-wall nearly off-white carpeting when it's obvious a family will be living there? It would pay him to put in laminate floors, although we've seen tenants who have also managed, through sheer termination, to destroy that as well. Still, it's better than carpets. 42 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said: Judge John adds a great point, saying the rug looks like a crime scene. JJ may not have watched the last destroyed carpet case we saw recently, where I said the same thing. 😄 As JM said, P is just lucky D wasn't countersuing for all the other damage and mess P left. Edited February 8, 2021 by AngelaHunter 4 Link to comment
SRTouch February 8, 2021 Share February 8, 2021 (edited) 3 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said: I'm getting a new episode (I think it's new). Well, dang, that means I've missed out on 2 new episodes during the current run of new cases because 0f scheduling foul ups😤😤 Edited February 9, 2021 by SRTouch Link to comment
Florinaldo February 9, 2021 Share February 9, 2021 2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said: (I suspect the two women went to lunch, giggling about the amount of publicity their charities received from the show). Quite probable. 2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said: Plaintiff suing defendant over repairs to her ATV, I think defendant was so matter-of-fact about the mouse nest in the ATV in solidarity to a fellow rodent; his huge cheeks made him look like a giant chipmunk after a full round of collecting food for his winter reserves. 2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said: Landlord says plaintiff did a lot of damage, and can prove it. Trouble is he did not bother to list all of the damages, only the carpet so he can't claim the rest. JM was very nice to give him free legal advice that he should in the future list everything, just in case a judge doe not agree with a claim of single item damage. He may have missed out on further compensation, either out of laziness or being a pushover. 4 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama February 9, 2021 Share February 9, 2021 (edited) I suspect in the rental house case, that the property manager wasn't the one who did the post-Apocalypse walk through with the tenant, or that the tenant didn't just move out, and drop the keys off. I bet whoever did the walk through did the worst damages, but didn't do photos of all of the damage. For other damages, I think they should have photographed them, fixed them, and presented receipts. This morning's rerun is that two sisters with the unwanted time share at Disneyworld. This is at least the third showing, and it's not getting any better than the first time. I still don't understand why so many people buy a time share, when there are many companies that will try to get you out of the deal, and people who can't even donate it, or give it away. The second case is the apartment with the leaking ceiling, original leak was fixed, but the water keeps coming down, and the upstairs tenant takes showers with the curtain outside the tub. I wonder if the upstairs tenant is a relative of the landlord/defendant? Otherwise, I bet the upstairs tenant would be booted, and charged for damages. If the waste pipe is actually old cast iron, I can imagine it all needs to be replaced, but no one is going to do that. Edited February 9, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama 1 Link to comment
SRTouch February 9, 2021 Share February 9, 2021 Looks like my provider is showing cases that match the schedule........ multitasking today - throwing beans in the instant pot, grilling sandwich and warming chili for lunch, eating lunch, following TPC from the kitchen, then writing these recaps....... 3 case day, though you'll miss #1 if you blink your car's burning: P parked his car next to D - later on D's car is burning (apparently cause never determined) around midnight - P manages to jump in passenger side of his car and saves his car from major damage - P here asking for a couple hundred bucks (well around $375) for replacement of sideview mirror - D doesn't think he should have to pay, saying maybe it's a coincidence that P's car suffered fire damage, can't prove 'my' fire caused the damage....... as judges point out, not like P is jacking up price, and only reason P's car didn't suffer major damage was due to his quick action........ D ordered to pay a replacement mirror which P has already replaced who got the money: equally silly case - two long time friends, D needs money and asks P to send it through zell - problem is P (like me) doesn't know squat about zell, so goes to her bank and the bank transfers the money to D's account (both use Bank of America, so bank just transfers money between accounts)........ unlike so many cases, this time D actually repays the loan - or does she? Unlike P, D uses zell all the time, so when she goes to repay the money she just zells it after confirming she has right phone number - but wait, P has never had a zell account, so there is no bank account associated with P's phone number......... lots of back and forth, and it takes awhile for MM to try to figure out where money went - still a mystery, but after a switcheroo from where it looked like D repaid the money MM gives up on tracking it - looks at P's bank records, which never show the money coming in, and says finding the missing money is D's problem because P did nothing wrong - D protests she already tried, called zell and was on hold for 45 minutes, then gave up - really, D loses all credibility - MM believes she 'tried' to zell the money, but no longer believes money was not returned when zell couldn't find an account associated with the phone number......... D ordered to pay the lady the $500, and she IS NOT HAPPY and hangs up on Doug in hallterview bail money not repaid: to round out the silly case day, last case is entitled snowflake who calls up first cousin at 3am begging to be bailed out of jail - neither seems to know why cousin D was arrested but problem stems from an old court ordered judgement (apparently bogus check case) which D never bothered to finish paying - P cousin says arrest was for suspended license, but apparently that charge went away once they took the $600 bail money and applied it to outstanding balance from earlier judgement (I do wonder if maybe other family helped pay off the balance, as it sounds like P gave the $600 to D's mom and at 1 point D owed over 7 grand)...... anyway, had a hard time listening to D - oy, the gramar, and Uber entitled....... after being awakened at 3am, P is there first thing in morning helping get D out of jail - D says a couple times how she was taken aback when P 'immediately' brought up repayment, but turns out 'immediately' was a month later. In fact, D is so insulted at very thought that P wants to be repaid that she filed a 5 grand counterclaim for every favor she ever did for the cousin......... P gets her $600, and litigants laughing it up as they head out for lunch together 3 Link to comment
NYGirl February 9, 2021 Share February 9, 2021 (edited) OMG the second case today about the money transfer gave me a freaking headache. The Plaintiff was so slow and non-understanding about Zelle it was like pulling teeth to get to the bottom of the case. And once again the phone with the texts was gone. I'm 72 and I'm up on all of these new fangled things. Edited February 9, 2021 by NYGirl 6 Link to comment
Pepper the Cat February 9, 2021 Share February 9, 2021 3 hours ago, NYGirl said: OMG the second case today about the money transfer gave me a freaking headache. The Plaintiff was so slow and non-understanding about Zelle it was like pulling teeth to get to the bottom of the case. And once again the phone with the texts was gone. I'm 72 and I'm up on all of these new fangled things. I hope I never hear the term “zell “ again. 3 1 Link to comment
SRTouch February 10, 2021 Share February 10, 2021 (edited) Looks to be a three case day..... according to TPC website schedule we're due new cases through the end of the month. With the current setup, due to the after the verdict chats, cases fly by on the 3 case days. Like yesterday, the first case today is over almost as fast as it begins. That's fine though, often I find the after the verdict better than the testimony. faulty stove: P bought a stove from a used appliance store ($125 plus $25 for delivery) and thing quit working after 2 days (nice that P ready with dates, price, etc - just wish camera wasn't aimed up her nose). Wants $725. Store tried fixing stove multiple times, but couldn't get it working right. Eventually they offered a replacement stove, but by then P had lost confidence in stove and demanded refund........ uh, really, a gas stove that goes boom when it is turned on - geez, that doesn't sound good........ after used store lady trying on multiple occasions to fix stove customer called gas company because she could smell natural gas and they shut off the gas........ guess difference in price versus her damage claim is P gave up on used store after months of having stove not working right and bought a new stove, elsewhere and paid the other place to take away the non-working used stove........ She gets her refund plus the $20 she paid the new stove people to take away the faulty stove - so $170 to P....... during hallterview Doug asks how she survived without a working stove - oh she says, the stove top burners worked for boiling grits and frying stuff, she just couldn't use the oven/broiler........ D objects that P gave away the faulty stove, but MM is not hearing it, says that's what happens when you sell a faulty stove and walk away when customer complains over several months lousy computer repair shop: case about a sloppily run shop where customer takes his laptop and desktop, which contain irreplaceable family photos, only to have shop first lose 'puters and than ghost on customer....... really back up those irreplaceable pix - in today's world you can walk into Staples and buy a flash drive for next to nothing - which reminds me, I need to back up my kitty pix......... really really didn't like attitude of computer repaid dude with sloppy shop where customer's stuff was lost - his story is a troublesome employee, since fired maybe lost or stolen it.......... lots of back and forth about something that could happen to lots of people who keep their life on phone/tablet/laptop without backups......... P even went out and hired a PI to try to retrieve missing 'puter after cops said they couldn't help........ really, 2 things to take away - regular backup with multiple copies of any 'irreplaceable' data/pix; and realize that, in the eyes of the law your irreplacement pix/data may not be valued nearly as high as you believe it should be - here P wants 5 grand.......... as I said, D does NOT impressed - he likes customer's computer, but finds it once the PI begins her investigation - seems PI found the missing computer after tracking down shop owner's elderly parents and the parents started busting their kid's ba!!s - once mommy and daddy got on D's case he produced the computer and 'some' of the data had been recovered........ as usual, P over estimates his damages - thing is D ends up paying the 2 grand for the PI - which is the majority of the money awarded - P awarded $2300 rather than 5 grand........ moral of story - BACKUP!!! flash drives and external hard drives are dirt cheap these days so there's no excuse! hair case - Hate these almost as much as abuse cases - so zipped through most of this ..... P went to D and D accidently dumped bucket of glue on her head....... ok, I shouldn't laugh, but that just strikes me as keystone cop funny........ D denies the bucket, says she just spilled a little bit........ yada yada and gibber jabber - zip zip to end....... mildly interesting decision - MM initially awards the $175, P paid D, but D interrupts and points out that P was given $50 worth of unused hair, so MM revises decision and awards $125......... I may not have enjoyed case, but, as has become thd norm - after the verdict left my smiling - sounds like thid haird do was a first for the stylist, she watched a youtube before trying, and admits she messed up - sounds like she may have tried using nail glue instead of hair clue 😯 Edited February 11, 2021 by SRTouch 3 Link to comment
AngelaHunter February 11, 2021 Share February 11, 2021 4 hours ago, SRTouch said: Looks to be a three case day No court shows for me today.😕 I'll have to try and catch up on YT. Link to comment
SRTouch February 11, 2021 Share February 11, 2021 (edited) 2 cases today, both featuring adults acting like 2-3 year olds with cases that should have been settled by grandma with a switch 1st case is dueling $5,000 cases between what looks like 2 mature special snowflakes after argument over parking turns physical - even before testimony starts the only question is who I'll find more despicable - P is middle aged blond woman who could stand to lose a few pounds - she says she was at the marina with her 5 month old puppy to socialize the pooch and parking was at a premium - apparently she decided to berate D, claiming he was taking up two parking spots, not only was his parked straddling the line, but he was sitting in his car smoking pot - D is middle aged tatted up dude with multiple chins covered in stubble who appeared for court dressed in no sleeve t-shirt to display tats and set off his shiny necklace......... really can't recap these idjits because they're both so fricking unbelievably wrong - P acts like one of those 'karens' that pop up on YouTube & FB, I mean even after all this, she researchs dude and learns of his lengthy criminal records and she's actively harassing him, even texting him so now he had her phone number - heck, she even tracked down D's ex-wife and had her ready to testify even though ex had zero knowledge of incident - MM is trying to warn her she needs to stop, 'karen' agrees, repeatedly saying you're right, but MM doesn't believe for a second she'll actually stop..... D also wrong for many reasons - first, he freely admits he daily parks there to smoke his pot, he always takes up two spots, and, oh yeah, how he couldn' just call real cops when 'parking police Karen' started giving him a hard time cuz he and cops don't mix, & he drives around with no license smoking pot, etc - so, he gets out of his car and slaps Karen across her face, then gets in and drives away with karen chasing car - she ends up with spectacular bruise on thigh and red face........ hard to award either of these two anything - ah, but MM takes a recess and calls a witness who took a couple pix of the incident - when she comes back she reminds us D did get out of car to slap Karen, but karen definitely provoked him in witness' pix........ getting out of car to slap karen costs D $500 (not 5000) and 5 grand counterclaim for damaging car and harrassment is dismissed drunken bbq brawl between friends after political debate: unlike 1st case where both litigants were happy to boast about their deeds, no matter how wrong they were, this time P says physical altercation left him with a broken tooth, doctor visit and broken bike (wants over 6 grand), while D denies things ever became physical........... gotta admit when I heard about a broken bike I wondered if maybe drunk P might not have taken a header on way home after being asked to leave the party - still, D sure does his best at looking like an angry young man as he talks over MM in previews......... I would much rather listen to story of a couple dude's in the Bronx sitting around playing dominoes drinking and getting into a fight over whether Black Lives Matters actually matters (these guys are young blacks from Dominican Republican)........... anyway, whether it was the Corona and/or Hennessy they were drinking or what, we get very different stories of what happened to break up the party and somebody is lieing - not sure how to settle this without a witness or some supporting evidence......... ah, but D's "nothing got out of hand" sort of falls flat when we hear P's story about getting slammed to the sidewalk and a neighbor lady insisting he call an ambulance (has pix) - I'm believing P, but not 100% convinced yet.......... so far at least, that could still be a drunken header off his bike........... ok, after commercial is the part where I thought D came across as an angry young man talking over MM, but hey, that's how some folks are, doesn't really mean he bashed his long time buddy......... ah, yet another case with a surprise witness - this time we actually get to see/hear the testimony and not just MM taking a recession to call witness during commercial.......... ok, this IS the P's witness, but he sure is backing up P's story over D......... witness even more believable because his story differs just a bit from P, so it doesn't come across as something they got together and rehearsed - he actually sort of soft peddles D actions until MM presses him.......... D has pretty much lost all credibility - this was a group of guys who have known each other since junior high and D claims he gamely knows witness......... MM believes P and the witness......... P awarded his dental/medical/ambulance bills ($4966) but not cost to replace bike since he brought no evidence bike was totaled Edited February 12, 2021 by SRTouch 5 Link to comment
SRTouch February 12, 2021 Share February 12, 2021 Looks to be a 3 case day ex's fight over utility bills after separation: couple had been together 15 years and have a couple kids - 4 or 5 years ago they buy a house (in his (P) name) - they divy up the bills responsibilities and one of the bills she was responsible for was the electricity, but he discovers it's past due by a few hundred bucks, so he's here trying to get her to pay past due amount - breakup sounds nasty, house was in his name so when they broke up he had her evicted........ sounds like she should owe for any amount up til she got booted to curb, so MM will need to examine the bills and look for dates - in fact I wonder if D may not be owed child support from the P now........... D excuse for not staying current on her portion of household expenses was that her father had died, then grandma died a few months later........ cue waterworks and MM expression of sympathy........ and, oh yeah, she says P was verbally abusing her........ P counters her abuse charge by saying she's a mean drunk who was arrested after punching him (yet she had custody of the two daughters).......... as usual, it's the kids I feel sorry for - even more so after the parents decided to air their laundry on national tv......... D says when P kicked hef out she least with nothing, but now has 2 jobs and is reestablishing her life - some free legal advice for D, when MM asks if dad is paying child support Mom say no, that she was told that she can't get support because dad has court case asking for custody - MM tells mom to go ahead and file now, so that if dad loses his custody case she'll start receiving child support sooner rather than later...... I really don't care for daddy even if it turns out mommy is a mean drunk, but as so often happens sounds like both are using pawns in their battles.......... well, lots of gibber jabber about stuff which another judge will end up deciding, MM decides to get back to this electric bill that both litigants agree D was responsible for paying........... I guess MM has looked at the bills, and it looks like D didn't pay for last 7 months she lived in house........ now D really beginning to look bad - she claims she was checking into getting money from the church when P decided to go ahead and pay off the bill - ah, except as MM points out, after 7 months the utility company was about to turn off his lights if the bill wasn't made current - surprise, when MM asks if D has any proof she was looking for financial aid D says no........ after all the gibber jabber, the actual case is over as soon as we get back to it - D has no defense for not paying, so is ordered to pay the $750+ - mom really working at playing the victim with more waterworks at the end (watery eyes, but no actual tears)........ after the verdict has judges wondering about dad evicting the mom and 2 kids from the family home - dude filed the eviction papers, but with covid would she actually have been evicted (at least once she voluntarily left to go to a motel, so was she served or leave when she heard it was coming)........ fight over iPhone: P says she bought an iPhone from friend/acquaintance from middle school days, and when she tried to use it the phone comes up stolen - when P complained she's told all sales are final, go pounce sand - wants $825 she paid......... whoa! When we get to D intro we hear D claim that she doesn't know P, never sold any her a phone, it's a case of mistaken identity after someone stole HER purse.......... ok - not exactly friends in RL, but FB friends who attended same school back in the day - so essentially a stranger that P gave $800 without checking out phone first......... D big into denial, never met P, never sold a phone, her purse and phone were stolen - could be, but she's coming across as a scammer......... oh, and no, she has no police report about her stolen purse/phone/credit cards and doesn't answer when MM asks if she can prove she canceled those stolen credit cards......... oops, and MM pulls up an ad from D selling this model iPhone.......... yep scammer - and like so many scammers, not very smart about it....... D has stopped listening and answering MM's questions and is just parroting her rehearsed story.......... oh ho, this time litigant caught by zell - seems P paid for phone using zell and payment went to D's supposedly stolen phone after the theft....... can we check to see when the account associated with that phone number was opened - I doubt the thief would have had P zell it to D's account after delivering the stolen phone.......... oh, and wait, D still has that phone number because it's the one TPC has been using to contact her about her appearance/case.......... soooooo I didn't consider this, but MM believes D probably had the 'stolen' phone insured, so she got the insurance money PLUS the money from the sale....... MM orders return of the money, but I didn't hear anything about P having to return the phone to scammer contractor booted from job: P says he was just about finished with the job when D called cops and bared him from job - says he's owed $1434.81......... D says old guy was hired to install a water heater - yeah, he did work, he installed it 4 times, but never without it leaking, she got fed up and hired someone else to install it properly........ well, sounds like D had reason to fire dude, and reason not to pay labor, but was old guy out of pocket for materials - oh, and old guy says when she chased him off job she came at him with a paint stirring stick (like a nun with a ruler)......... ok, intro referred to P as a contractor, but I get feeling this is an old retired handyman type guy doing things on the side (nothing wrong with that, I've done that a time or two - when I knew WTH I was doing - and of course as long as everything is up to code)......... pretty much right off the bat homeowner's (D) story developed some problems - intro had this about a water heater and D is talking about not just a water heater, but general cleanup as well as new cabinets he brought to site and owner trashed because she changed her mind? If it was P not being able to install the water heater that's one thing, but more I hear more I'm leaning towards P getting paid (amount to be determined)........ not surprising, what homeowner says isn't quite what intro had me thinking - her complaint is not so much about a leak, but fact that it took 7 1/2 and multimultiple trips to the store for parts and it still wasn't completed......... still not sure where the cabinets and garage cleanup factor in........ so, after 7 1/2 hours D kicks him off the job and refuses to pay anything - oh, and not just him, D seems to think fact that P had a helper somehow means he shouldn't be paid because someone else did the work? Her complaint about how long it was taking might mean something, except he was not charging by thd hour, he was being paid by the job - same with complaint about his having a helper - it was going to cost the same if he was the only one there as it would if he brought 3 or 4 guys to help....... MM is getting frustrated with homeowner as woman is just not listening - still not 100% sure where the garage cleanup and cabinets come in, but so far I hear P charging $300 for the install plus $400 for the water heater itself and D deciding to boot him after 7 1/2 hours and pay nothing?............ turns out D kicked P off job after it water heater was installed waiting for final connection, and she paid someone else $200 to make the final connection.......... now MM and D are just repeating same thing over MM, is it fair that P delivered and mounted $400 water heater, except the final connection or you pay nothing - D but he was there 7 1/2 hours and wasn't finished....... MM isn't going to get D to admit she owes a cent, so let's move on to rough justice and be done........ still not sure where the cabinets come in - were they to be installed in D's home, or did P unload then to make room in van to go get water heater....... apparently, P put them in garage, and when D booted him she dragged them (maybe with a neighbor who she went so that she would have backup as a single woman - anyway, P says they damaged the cabinets so that he couldn't return them, but no, he has nothing to prove any damage - likewise, no proof he cleaned garage and hauled a load to the dump...... ok, finally, P says part of job was to install cabinets over the washer/dryer - I believe him but he had no proof - no contract, no emails/texts, nothing.......... P interrupts the ruling to complain that D lives in a gated community and drives a convertible BMW, but really, dude, that has nothing to do with case, makes me wonder if he might be padding his bill with the cleanup and cabinets portion of claim....... ok, rough justice has P getting $837 3 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama February 12, 2021 Share February 12, 2021 (edited) I wonder in the first case if he bypassed housing court, and went for a restraining order, or even applied and received a temporary, and that got her out of the house. Then he didn't have to let her come back? I hate to agree with the boyfriend, but he paid an electric bill that was seven months behind, and he seems to be a lot more stable than the ex-girlfriend. I believe what the boyfriend said about the ex, and hope he gets custody. I'm glad the contractor did get paid for the water heater, and some labor. That plaintiff was horrible. Edited February 12, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama 2 Link to comment
sampatsfan February 12, 2021 Share February 12, 2021 On today's the People's Court a woman named Brianna was a defendant for a case about the sale if a stolen iphone 11. Did anyone else recognize her as a recent Plaintiff? I think that case was about a mis styled wig I think or about eyelashes? Link to comment
AngelaHunter February 12, 2021 Share February 12, 2021 (edited) 2 hours ago, SRTouch said: contractor booted from job: Finally got to see a case this week. That horrendous, Cruella DeVille-type hag was infuriating. Seven and a half HOURS, people! JM: "What was the agreement?" Hag: "It doesn't' take 7 1/2 hrs to install a hot water heater". (based on her vast experience with installing these units) JM: "You paid him nothing? Hag: "It doesn't take 7 1/2 hrs to install a hot water heater." JM: "You expected to get the tank for free?" Hag: "It doesn't take 7 1/2 hrs to install a hot water heater." JM: "Did you ask him for the cabinets?" Hag: "It doesn't take 7 1/2 hrs to install a hot water heater." JM: "What day is it today?" Hag: "It doesn't take 7 1/2 hrs to install a hot water heater." Okay, I made up the last one, but I'm sure that would have been the answer. I have a great handyman, but not once has he ever brought cabinets over for me when I never requested them. I completely believe that vile witch chased the P with a stick. If the old guy brought someone to help him, why is that the hag's business? She wasn't paying more for that. I also believe he cleaned out a bunch of junk for her. And what is it with this "Hot water heater"? You don't need to heat hot water. It's a water heater. It heats cold water, not hot water. Whatever. Judge John had it right. I had a new water heater installed a couple years ago. It's not a quick process. As he said, first the water has to be drained from the old one, pipes cut, old tank removed, etc. But I hired a water heater company to do mine. I thought it was best not to cheap out for this job and I don't even live in a gated community or drive a BMW. This guy had everything he needed and did the job in about (IIRC) 4 hours. I think the whole thing, including the water heater tank, was about 800$ and I had a contract and a guarantee. Unfortunately the P didn't have pics, contract, or any other evidence he needed about what he did so gets 870-odd dollars. Seemed fair. Edited February 12, 2021 by AngelaHunter 5 Link to comment
AZChristian February 13, 2021 Share February 13, 2021 4 hours ago, SRTouch said: now D really beginning to look bad - she claims she was checking into getting money from the church Over the course of my 74 years, I have volunteered at several churches that we attended. It's amazing. It's never a member of the church who comes looking for money to pay bills. It's always someone who walks in off the street with a bill, usually ASKING FOR CASH to pay a bill, get a prescription filled for the kids, whatever. The last church where I volunteered was a large church. But churches have gotten smarter. IF they are able to help at all, they contact the utility company and pay them directly. No money is given directly to those who are "looking for help." One pastor friend got a phone call from a guy (not affiliated with the church) who was in tears explaining that his young son needed medicine and he couldn't afford to fill the prescription. Guy wanted to know if he could come by the church to see if he could get $20 for his son's medicine. Pastor said, "We don't hand out cash here at the church. What pharmacy is filling the prescription?" Guy gave the pastor the name and address of a pharmacy nearby. Pastor told him he'd meet the guy there in about 30 minutes. Pastor went. Guy never showed up. Was probably a different church getting $20 "for his son's medicine." 1 2 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama February 13, 2021 Share February 13, 2021 So the woman who was seven months behind paying the electric bill, wanted everyone else to pay for it? Not happening. I don't know why people seem to think that not paying bills is an option, and that they won't cut off the power, or other utilities. I guess she thought the man would never find out she wasn't paying, and everything would just go unpaid forever, and it would be a secret. I guess the utilities finally figured out the scams where people keep changing the name on a bill so they don't have to pay. I'm glad the man did get the electric bill. I feel sorry for the kids, getting caught in the middle of this. 4 Link to comment
AZChristian February 13, 2021 Share February 13, 2021 4 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said: I don't know why people seem to think that not paying bills is an option, and that they won't cut off the power, or other utilities. I guess the utilities finally figured out the scams where people keep changing the name on a bill so they don't have to pay. I'm glad the man did get the electric bill. I feel sorry for the kids, getting caught in the middle of this. During Covid, our local utility is not doing disconnections, but the bill continues to accumulate. Some of our customers have credit that is so bad (based on their previous long-past-due balances) that they are required to have a "pay-as-you-go" meter installed in their houses. They have to slide a debit or credit card into the meter to pre-pay for an amount of power that they, themselves, require and can pay for up-front. Now that our hot summer months are over, the utility has set in place a policy where - depending on how past-due your account is - they will apply 25% or more of your "slide" to the past-due balance, and the rest is used for your current request. I used to work for this utility company in a department that helped to deal with some of the past-due customers and their attempted scams. The company had several investigators who would try to confirm whether "name changing" was being attempted. Our policy was that if a past-due customer was still living in the house (and enjoying the benefit of having power), no name change could happen until the bill was paid up. Sometimes, the power would be cut because of the past-due amount, and then the customer would usually miraculously find the money to bring the bill up to date. 5 Link to comment
AngelaHunter February 13, 2021 Share February 13, 2021 18 hours ago, SRTouch said: she claims she was checking into getting money from the church Mean drunk, nasty fights/punching, lying, stiffing the utility provider, not supporting kids whose lives are made a misery, etc, yet are pious church-goers? Not surprising. Just disgusting. Do these hypocrites just show up in church so they can wrangle some free money when needed? 32 minutes ago, AZChristian said: a "pay-as-you-go" meter installed in their houses. They have to slide a debit or credit card into the meter to pre-pay for an amount of power that they, themselves, require and can pay for up-front. That's brilliant! 4 Link to comment
AZChristian February 13, 2021 Share February 13, 2021 25 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said: Mean drunk, nasty fights/punching, lying, stiffing the utility provider, not supporting kids whose lives are made a misery, etc, yet are pious church-goers? Not surprising. Just disgusting. Do these hypocrites just show up in church so they can wrangle some free money when needed? Don't forget living together without benefit of wedlock. That's a pretty big "no-no" for most churches. 5 Link to comment
AngelaHunter February 13, 2021 Share February 13, 2021 So - just had to get this new duvet cover as a tribute to our beloved litigants, especially the sad losers. It may not go well with my bedroom "suit" or my day-core and I had to get the store credit card, but it's only 24.99% with a 30$ late fee charge. Fingers crossed I can keep up my payments: 7 Link to comment
SRTouch February 15, 2021 Share February 15, 2021 daycare wants owed tuition: P runs daycare and is suing for $720 she says D refuses to pay for her services......... D says the 'daycare' always a mess, and P often spent her time paying attention to bf instead of watching the kids - says she pulled her 3 kids because she didn't approve of how P was running the daycare.........also, from previews sounds like daycare was unexpectedly closed after a traffic accident required P to take a child to the ER - and MM wants to hear how a child was ejected from car if they were belted in - anyone could be involved in an accident that a parent might have to unexpectedly have to close their daycare business to go to the ER can't blame P for that - but she might owe her clients if they are out of pocket making other arrangements........... waiting to see what the contract says and if this was future services or services already performed - is P licensed and regulated - is with all these unlicensed "daycares" - if they're unlicensed let's just call them "babysitters" ........ ok, once testimony begins we quickly hear about the car crash, P says child was in a raggedy carseat - not happy with her lackadaisical response which seems too much like 'these things happen' and I wonder if that carries over to her clients' children...... still waiting to hear the rates P wad charging - just said she offered to deduct $30 because of the missed day, but was that supposed to compensate D for missing work or having to take/pay for her children to go elsewhere at the last minute (think it would have been 2 kids since 1 had started school).......... P actually hurting her own case as she goes on to tell us of earlier complaints about the care she was providing and it sounds like this car accident /daycare closure just happened to fall on day D normally paid, and D decided to just end the relationship......... without D even saying anything I'd think about pulling my kids - but their might be a contract with a clause about unexpected emergency closures - and still haven't hear the rates and if this was past or future service not performed....... ok, this is a 3 case day, so MM is not taking a lot of time digging into back story and asks for a contract - which P DOES HAVE - and it's the standard, boiler plate 12 month daycare contract which requires a 2 week notice before pulling kids, saying parent has to pay whether kids go to daycare or not - but I wonder if P may not have breached the contract when her homeless cousin, who caused some problems, moved into the home where care was provided......... over to Defendant, and not liking her position that much, either - did she really just try to ding P for not looking professional and wearing a uniform - what is the uniform worn my in-home daycare workers? Or, is she complaining P looked like she was just getting up when she dropped off the kids? and, yeah, she did complain that daycare area was not all neat and tidy, but are we talking dirty dishes from snacks or toys not put away........ well, yeah, P says the car accident and resulting 1 day closure was just the final straw, and she starts listing other problems she had with P - paying attention to the bf instead of kids, underage employees taking care of kids, the time no one was watching and one of D's toddlers fell off the couch, etc....... some of this sounds like D looking for reasons to void contract, but still ya gotta wonder - especially when we get to a pic that was sent to D of her little girl walking around with a screwdriver in her mouth - yeah, kids put anything/everything in their mouth, but still the stuff is adding up........ not at all, AT ALL, impressed with P acting all surprised at the pic and saying this is first time incident was brought to her attention - pretty much fed up with this case, and understand why we see MM asking if daycare still in business - yes, still open....... ready to close this out - like I said, D let a lot of things slide that I find concerning - but then I never had kids so maybe babies falling off couches and/or running g around with a screwdriver are old hat to experienced mommy, D - it wasn't until P closed the daycare for a day that Mommy decided to yank her kids........ new take on screwdriver - seems pic was sent to D by the homeless cousin who P invited to live in home - P mentioned she had problem with this cousin, so could cuz have been trying to cause problems - as MM points out later on, cousin time taking picture when they should have been taking screwdriver away from toddler.......... still not sure if P is running a licensed daycare, but seems MM has texts where she complains she's overwhelmed trying to run the business and taking care of 10 kids, parents, bills, etc......... again, P hurting her case as she explains feeling overwhelmed and adding a new complaint mommy had - her kids being dirty when they were picked up........ again, never had kids, but I wouldn't get upset if kids had cheeto stains on their clothes - P saying she washed their clothes so kids would be clean sort of surprised me, I sort of thought it was normal for kids to look messy 5 minutes after getting cleaned up...... MM soft peddles it, telling P she must be really good with the kids and all, but decides there was enough there for mom to pull kids without facing the 2 week penalty clause........ broken the rental agreement: P says he moved out early because of stinky well water problem which landlord did nothing to correct - says he had reason to break lease so should get back deposit - suing for $1500....... D says he put in new filtering system and water was perfectly safe, says water not enough to get tenant out of 50% of lease - apparently case all about lost rent and no claim for damages......... could go either way, was this a pre-existing condition, so does tenant have tough it out for duration of tenancy, and was he pro used problem would be corrected and it never was........... ok, it was pre-existing, but landlord had water tested several times, including a month before courtdate, and tests show water is safe - so I'm not so sure tenant shouldn't be held to lease (though in his shoes I might be willing to pay to get out of lease if it's really bad)........ tenant introduces a couple pictures which sure look bad, but landlord has reasonable explanations - WTH, did tenant really introduce a gallon of untreated water and claimore this is was what it looked like after treatment........ leaning more towards landlord and idea tenant looking for reason to get out of lease........ what's this - as we go to commercial the preview shows a switcheroo coming...... seems when tenant decided to break the lease, he was smart enough to type up a settlement that landlord signed agreeing to let tenant out of lease - landlord tries to claim what settlement says wasn't exactly what they agreed to, but, really, negotiate away any fuzzy parts before you sign - what was signed was that once tenant paid up rent owed landlord wouldn't come after him for more rent, so he can't later decide to keep deposit for rent after tenant was out...... surprise here is that neither litigant mentioned settlement in their filing papers, and MM, or her staff, just happened to find it as she's going through the water test results - even after MM finds the signed settlement neither side recognizes the significance until she explains it.......... at least landlord accepts the verdict broken window case: P suing daughter's on/off again bf (now hubby) for cost of window ($417) they say he broke in fit of rage, but he denies breaking........ couple things, first is where is daughter? Not only should daughter be here, but sounds like parents aren't even sure if the loving couple is together are not - other thing, P intro mentions police are investigating charges for the broken window incident, so why go forward before the official investigation is finished......... is MM playing couples counselor without half the couple when she asks patent about possible problems between the happy couple - seems daughter and bf frequently fought and split, but now they're married?......... anyway, not sure what was going on, or why bf/hubby got pissed at mommy and daddy, but apparently daughter sent copies of texts where bf made threats about going after the parents and trashing their property.......... sounds iffy to me - if the loving couple were on and off, could daughter have accessed his phone to manufacture evidence to hurt bf during one of their off periods - not really liking hearing about daughter changing the car locks and taking away the car - ok, running out of time here - D pretty much loses case when he says he doesn't remember if he sent the threatening texts, cuz back then he was hitting the bottle pretty hard - dude, if you admit you might have sent the texts, but can't reme,before cuz of your boozing, I gotta think you might have followed through on the threats and now can't remember...... MM asks D if the loving couple are back together and instead of answering he says they're 'working things out'....... yep, mom and dad gets the money 4 Link to comment
AngelaHunter February 15, 2021 Share February 15, 2021 (edited) 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: daycare wants owed tuition: What really bothered me here - aside from these SSMo3 or 5 where one of them thinks she can make a whole bunch of money by taking in another gaggle of other peoples' kids with little to no effort - was the JM was so very kind and sympathetic to the P who had all these babies-for-$$ there as she entertained her boyfriend, had fights with her 18-year-old homeless cousin, was barely able to drag her ass out of bed to take these kids in and declared she was too "overwhelmed" to take proper care of the kids she agreed to watch for money but feels she needn't really take care of them. Oh, they're fine on their own. A baby with a filthy, dangerous screwdriver in her mouth, which the homeless cousin took a pic of instead of taking the screwdriver away? Oh, well. It's probably the kid's fault. I noticed she had time and energy to get that weave, put on whatever it was on her head and trowel on a ton of makeup. Those babies are a real pain, you know! What does anyone expect from her? Hardly surprising when one of her own kids is thrown from her car when she didn't bother getting a decent car seat to replace the "ratty" one. JM never even asked if the P was licensed (as if!). No, just anyone can take in a bunch of kids and no one seems to give a damn about them. I wouldn't let P babysit my dog. The D didn't seem to care about all that, not even that P let her baby roll off a sofa on to the hardwood floor, until the P couldn't watch her kids one day due to this car accident, and then she bitches that P didn't have a uniform on? More and more I think all these single mothers need to get a license before they start breeding. 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: broken the rental agreement: I don't really know what was going on here, but wonder if D landlords would be happy to drink that muddy looking water. Maybe they would and do, but I can't imagine anyone wanting to go to the trouble of moving all their stuff into a place, only to decide to move all over again after 2 months for no reason at all. I guess Defs didn't understand the agreement they signed. 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: broken window case: I felt really sorry for plaintiffs - husband needs to have dialysis - having to deal with the looney, drunken, violent def's retaliation against them - clearly those were his threatening, illiterate texts - because their daughter has the worst taste possible in men and maybe likes this drama. D had a hard time formulating a single thought, but daughter wants to "work it out" with him. Yeah, I'd work it out if MY husband threatened my mother, terrorized her, and vandalized her property. I'm sure they'll live happily ever after in wedded bliss. Poor parents might need to move and leave no forwarding address. Every time D and his loving wife have a blow-up I bet the parents will suffer the consequences. I'm just sorry the parents didn't get some punitive damages, which seem to be warranted in a case like this. Edited February 15, 2021 by AngelaHunter 6 Link to comment
SRTouch February 16, 2021 Share February 16, 2021 borrowed jackets: p says good friend, D, borrowed some jackets, and now won't return them - dude wants a grand......... Another element from D's intro - these two must have been roomies, as D is countersuing for $480 in unpaid rent........ I expect MM to spend more time playing couple's counselor trying to repair the broken friendship than figuring out value of any borrowed clothing and owed rent.......... P says he lived in place with D around 18 months - he was working, but had problems because D was nonstop party - says he worked 12 hour shifts, and would come home and want to sleep but the party that had been going when he left for work 12 hours earlier was still going hard....... ok, sounds like possible an iffy rental arrangement as P says he was "contributing" to household expenses, but not paying set amount towards rent - which makes me wonder about counterclaim for $480 in unpaid rent if P's contribution was paying utility bills and groceries......... P getting excited and starting to yell as he talks about his contributions, and MM wants to hear whether or not he was paying rent - oh, and seems D did most of the cooking - another of P's complaint to is that when he came home sometimes there was no food for him and "his kids" - so were P's kids also living rent free?..... says the utility bill he paid ran $3-400 a month........ ok, forget MM fixing this broken friendship, P seems awfully angry - and not about some borrowed clothing......... apparently, these two had a long going fight about their different live styles, and finally P split without officially telling D he was moving out, but he figures the constant sparring was enough notice......... MM has had enough of P yrlling, telks jim to dial it back, and says she's read the texts and that after a fight P announces he's fed up, and he moves out in the middle night, but left behind a couple jackets - which he's now suing for replacement value......... MM asks why did he leave the jackrts, and we hear lame excuse that he was afraid they might get damaged because all he had to move his stuff was a pickup........ over to defendant: dude admits his friends and family occasionally just wander through and take stuff - which might not belong to D - without asking - says he didn't know anything about these jackets being left behind, so guess his defense is it wasn't him - also, he's saying he didn't know P had moved out until he investigated because the utility bill hadn't been paid and the lights had been cut off......... whoa, either their power company acts fast or, more likely, P had power turned off........... anyway, big kerfuffle when P comes walking up the driveway just as D has learned the power has been cut off, and D tells P he can't go in and get anything he might have left - and we're here fighting over these expensive jackets......... geez, time for MM to get on P for all the faces he's been making throughout the case - but guess they bother me more than her....... so, D admits his friends/family have sticky fingers, admits he refused to let P go back in to collect remainder of his property, but denies knowing these jackets were in the house or knowing where they ended up....... ready for this part to be over, let MM do her rough justice to determine value....... let's talk countersuit and whether or not P lived up to his rental agreement to cover the utilities - does this loosey goosey agreement still require official 30 day notice? And has P paid all he needs to as he left in the middle of the night and cut the power?........ ok, MM finds P's proof of the value of the jackets underwhelming - also, and MM has some fun with this, not only does P want to be paid for the lost jackets, he wants D to pay replacement cost for 2 new jackets - so D would end up paying for 4 jackets - P gets $200 and D gets zip on the countersuit these stones don't work: P not happy when wrong color stones are delivered for his zen garden and suing for $615.56..... D says P picked out the stones and placed the order, all he did was make the deliveryear of 8,000 pounds of stones - he's countersuing for the $250 delivery charge........... before going to break, we see pictures of the pile of new stone next to the existing wall - yeah, the color is off - but easy to have made the mistake without seeing new and old next to each other - no matter who made the mistake, if all D did was deliver them I don't see how he should refund the money and/or eat the delivery charge........ actually, even coming from the same quarry there would be variations in the color of natural stone, and fake/manufactured stone will vary between lots - final judgement of how close the match needs to be rests with customer, and he should have made sure to be present when stones were delivered if color match was vital......... when testimony begins P quickly shows himself to be a very fussy customer who would be a nightmare to work for...... the zen garden was being built in 2 stages, and despite intro, D was more involved than a simple delivery man - he was the one who delivered the materials for the first stage, including stones for the other half of the wall these new stones were to complete - P tells us the reason wall was only half completed was that he ran out of matching stone, so now we know color was VERY important to this guy, which is even more reason he should have been there when this new batch was delivered........ yep, it was P who placed the order - over the phone, sight unseen....... when D arrived at supply yard he saw color was off, and called to tell customer, and P essentially left it up to D to decide if color was a close enough match - WTH, if color was so vital to this guy's meditation garden why not check it himself before paying hundreds for a "close enough" based on someone's opinion........ lots of gibber jabber, and it comes to rough justice......... MM agrees with my opinion that color screw up is on P, but problem is delivery was part of the whole job rather than separate, so how much should D get for his time/effort - P says D shouldn't receive anything, in fact wants hundreds for delivering stones P ordered - ah, but D has included some iffy charges - apparently, some stuff customer paid for ended up at D's place (actually, what D has costs a little more than his countersuit - so countersuit is a wash) - also, seems when P realized color was unacceptable he did nothing to try to return the stone, which is why he was charged - but, like I said, D has half the stuff P paid for - which leaves MM to figure out what is fair - not sure about MM figures, but than I zipped through half the testimony so not going to argue - D gets nothing g additional for his time, but he does have half the materials P is paying for - D ordered to pay a couple hundred......... neither side happy, which probably means it's the right decision. 5 Link to comment
AngelaHunter February 16, 2021 Share February 16, 2021 2 hours ago, SRTouch said: borrowed jackets: Oh, did def. borrow these super-valuable jackets? I missed the beginning of this and when listening to P's max-volume yelling decided not to rewind. I was waiting for JM to tell him to pipe down, which she finally did. I just was wishing she would have also told him to stop the violent head-shaking. P was "building straws" whatever that means, but he's a grown man with 2 kids who thinks it's okay that he pays no rent. He was fine living in this place that sounds like a chaotic free-for-all with parties and all sorts of people coming and going and maybe stealing each other's crap. Oh, but these jackets which he neglected to take with him when he slithered out in the night with no notice - so precious they are. He couldn't take two jackets with him because they naturally would have been ripped and torn up. I wonder how I managed to move house 4 times without all my clothes getting torn up? Anyway, he wants to get paid for 4 jackets when he had 2? I don't know and don't care. "It is what it is!" 3 hours ago, SRTouch said: these stones don't work: Dweeby P, whose taste I question when seeing the walls in his background, calls a stoneyard and orders two pallets of rock sight unseen, being too lazy to actually go there and choose what he wanted. He gets something different and that is somehow def's fault? THEN, instead of sending the stones back - and he had 60 days in which to do so - says, "Oh, well. I didn't think they'd take them back" but never ever even makes a phone call to do this. Or maybe he didn't want to pay for that service. After all, it was up to him to make sure he got what he wanted. Yes, def shouldn't have kept one pallet of the rocks, but since P told him he wasn't paying him at all for transporting the other pallet and accused him of scamming, I get it. P refuses to take any responsibility whatsoever and none of this is his fault. When you order the materials to be used on your project the person installing it doesn't give a shit what it is, since he's not being paid to be a designer, just an installer of whatever the client chooses. For someone craving a "Zen" garden, P is not very Zen himself. Couldn't he have used the wrong stones anyway, and just had one row of the bluestone and one of the gray stone? I think that would look okay. Wouldn't that be the Zen thing to do? I wanted flagstones for some landscaping. I got my butt in my car and went to the stone place to pick what I wanted. It's not really that hard. Def should have been happy with the judgment, since the show will pay the P his 200$ and D gets to keep the pallet of rocks which he can use on another project and for which he can charge his next clients. 4 Link to comment
SRTouch February 16, 2021 Share February 16, 2021 (edited) 1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said: Oh, did def. borrow these super-valuable jackets? I missed the beginning of this and when listening to P's max-volume yelling decided not to rewind. I was waiting for JM to tell him to pipe down, which she finally did. I just was wishing she would have also told him to stop the violent head-shaking. nah, way I recap these is to type my impressions while the case is going on - so unless I go back and change things, especially when I'm talking about the intro which is usually wrong, my recaps often have incorrect 'facts' as the litigants contradict each other (and often themselves)......... and yes I was wishing MM would tell P to stop with the faces/head shaking Edited February 16, 2021 by SRTouch 3 Link to comment
AngelaHunter February 16, 2021 Share February 16, 2021 (edited) 2 hours ago, SRTouch said: and yes I was wishing MM would tell P to stop with the faces/head shaking I know maybe it depends on her mood, but I just wish she'd be a little more consistent. Certain litigants get away with murder, and others get reamed for what seem to be insignificant faux pas. Edited February 17, 2021 by AngelaHunter because my spelling goes out the window after the 2nd glass of wine. 4 Link to comment
VartanFan February 17, 2021 Share February 17, 2021 On 2/10/2021 at 2:22 PM, SRTouch said: hair case - Hate these almost as much as abuse cases - so zipped through most of this ..... P went to D and D accidently dumped bucket of glue on her head....... ok, I shouldn't laugh, but that just strikes me as keystone cop funny........ D denies the bucket, says she just spilled a little bit........ yada yada and gibber jabber - zip zip to end....... mildly interesting decision - MM initially awards the $175, P paid D, but D interrupts and points out that P was given $50 worth of unused hair, so MM revises decision and awards $125......... I may not have enjoyed case, but, as has become thd norm - after the verdict left my smiling - sounds like thid haird do was a first for the stylist, she watched a youtube before trying, and admits she messed up - sounds like she may have tried using nail glue instead of hair clue 😯 Just as Gorilla Glue lady is blowing up. Also, if you told me when TPC came back that I'd enjoy After the Verdict as much as I do not, I wouldn't have believed you. 3 Link to comment
AngelaHunter February 17, 2021 Share February 17, 2021 1 hour ago, VartanFan said: Just as Gorilla Glue lady is blowing up. And it's turned into the Great Gorilla Glue Challange. Just what hospitals need these days - a bunch of single-digit IQ morons gluing stuff on body parts for "likes" on YouTube and then needing to go to an emergency room. I guess it's marginally less unbelievably stupid than the Fire Challenge, but that's not saying much. 1 hour ago, VartanFan said: Also, if you told me when TPC came back that I'd enjoy After the Verdict as much as I do not, I wouldn't have believed you. Me too! I used to mostly skip it early on when Judge John seemed very stiff and uncomfortable, but now that he's loosened up and actually seems to be thriving in his new TeeVee gig, I enjoy the segments very much. 2 Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.