teebax May 15, 2018 Share May 15, 2018 4 hours ago, meowmommy said: Because if the charges get reversed, then it would be on Home Depot to eat the charges, and it wasn't their fault the idiot gave her card to the defendant. If you give your card to someone, can you really claim the purchases are unauthorized? If you only authorized it for certain things and the person uses it outside of that scope I'd consider it fraudulent. But I get your point too. I still wonder why MM didn't address it. She usually does in cases like that. 2 Link to comment
meowmommy May 15, 2018 Share May 15, 2018 Just now, teebax said: If you only authorized it for certain things and the person uses it outside of that scope I'd consider it fraudulent. But I get your point too. I still wonder why MM didn't address it. She usually does in cases like that. And clearly it was fraudulent use, but the credit card company's response to a dispute is to penalize the merchant for not validating the charges. It was on the merchant to validate that charges were being rung up legitimately, and not so long ago, they would look at your signature on the receipt and on the charge card and sometimes ask for ID, but now with POS terminals, it seems like anyone could use anyone's card. The first time I used a card and didn't have to sign, it was disconcerting. Now it's to the point I was surprised by being asked to sign for a purchase the other day. This plaintiff was just stupid for handing over her credit card to a stranger, and compounded it by not asking for it back immediately. I don't know how she would have won with the CC company as soon as they found out the card wasn't stolen. Really feels like MM's been seriously off her game lately. Too many WTF moments. 6 Link to comment
SRTouch May 15, 2018 Share May 15, 2018 (edited) ALMOST skipped today - running late, sit down, hit play, and first case is designer puppy breeders fighting over puppies. Didn't watch or recap this one - more of a rant and then zip to next case??... And what do I find? A frickin car purchase case! ? Ok, sort of entertaining because of hutzpah shown by P... Last case - landlord sues tenant - just sort of sad ? maltese puppy breeder feud: ??? ah, big time breeder not your normal everyday backyard breeder. The two women are into AKC show dogs and are fussing over a litter of puppies and stud fee - kind of people who "get rid" of their animal because it doesn't match the new decor. Seems P provided the stud, and was supposed to get pick of litter. Well.... D says none of the puppies survived, so - no puppies means no pick of litter. Must have been SOME survivors, as P wins (half of what she was seeking - $2,500.) Geez, not really into watching two old biddies fuss over designer puppies when thousands of great puppies need homes and are never going to find a forever home?. car deal gone wrong: audacity of P fun, but she no case, and ends up owing D in the end ? maybe just me, but after not watching first case and hitting FF, just had to stop to look at these litigants. WTH would you call P's 'do, sort of a high and tight, with hunk of blond combed over in front... not exactly natural on a black woman... Guess that hank of hair must be kind of heavy, as she seems to have a permanent head tilt (actually, think she may have a lazy eye she is trying to hide.) Ok, got a chuckle with P, but D could be a model for a jack-o-lantern - if only he had a couple more toothies. Oh, and later we hear he's not just the manager at the lemon lot, he's also a lawyer. Case is about a car P bought, tried to un-buy, now wants her money back.... no reason to watch for the merits of the case - but it is sort of an unusual case and I got a few laughs. See, P buys the car, but when she goes to register it finds she owes hundreds in back taxes which she'll have to pay before DMV will register her new (1997) car. She goes back to the seller, wants her money back - saying after she pays her back taxes she'll be back to work out a new deal to buy the car. Seller, D in this case, tells her no bring-backs, deal is a deal, take your car and leave. She leaves - but doesn't take the car. Soooo, D has filed a countersuit, saying she owes him thousands in storage. As I said, no great legal case - after only watching intro I predict both cases get tossed... P because she has no case, D because there was no agreement entered where she has to pay storage... ah, but seems she complained to everybody about how he wouldn't undo the legally binding contract and just give her back her money. Case ends up with an Attorney General complaint. Her case is tossed, and she is notified, through the Attorney General's Office, that if she doesn't get her car off the lot they'll start charging her $28 a day - hmmmm, does that a deal make? Sort of - MM orders she go haul her van off D's lot, but only orders her to to pay a thousand in storage instead of almost 3 grand (not sure of amount, but it was over a couple grand.) Well, no real, blow by blow recap, but MM is entertaining ? as she rants a bit at these two about this ancient (think it's a '97) minivan, P fun only because of her hutzpah, Tried not to watch Scaggletooth D... landlord vs tenant: ? another tired same old case. Landlord ended up evicting tenant, still out over $800 after keeping deposit. Greasy long hair tenant says damage caused by someone(s) he let come over, not his fault, he owes nothing. Landlord rented his property through organization which offers homeless people a chance to get off the street. What he found out is some homeless folks are homeless for a reason. Says once tenant moved in he had frequent unsavory type guests. Smallish complex, think 5-6 apartments - other tenants complain of the unsavory traffic. D lasts 6 months of the 12 month lease before getting booted. D doesn't argue that point, his defense is that he let other homeless guys from the nearby shelter come over, once one of them went nuts, even pulled a knife, big fight, lots of damage, cops called (semi regular occurance), yada yada. Ok, tenant from hell, but can landlord show damages and collect money on top of the deposit. Yes, yes he can. Another one I didn't make it through to the end before hitting the zip button. Landlord keeps the deposit and a bit more - but not full amount he asked for. Edited May 15, 2018 by SRTouch 8 Link to comment
Florinaldo May 15, 2018 Share May 15, 2018 On 13/05/2018 at 10:01 AM, AngelaHunter said: I just got a new keyboard but I guess had I ruined it I could sue you: 49$ for the keyboard and 2,000$ for my emotional distress. No problem; I would contersue for deeffaaammashun and shlander. You janky suit would never hold anyway. On 14/05/2018 at 3:23 PM, SRTouch said: friendly suit over rent: Those litigants were in a close competition for who was the most ill-prepared and came across as the most clueless. I would not be surprised if they concocted this whole suit just to make some easy money. On 14/05/2018 at 3:23 PM, SRTouch said: Aborted car purchase: Special snowflake of a plaintiff was really lucky that the car seller kept no records, otherwise his goose would have been cooked as in all other "as is" car sales for buyers who do not have the car checked or investigate the interest charges before forking over their money. Who does business the way the seller does and stays in business anyway? MM should have reprimanded plaintiff more sternly for being insufferably loud and angry over such a small case. 3 Link to comment
AngelaHunter May 15, 2018 Share May 15, 2018 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: maltese puppy breeder feud: I skipped this. No desire to listen to those hags squabbling over the price of dogs. I don't know if one of them has actually shown dogs or if the def has a show champion. If not, there is no reason for breeding. "AKC" is just about meaningless, signifying only that both parent dogs are purebred and of the same breed. Period. There is nothing about health testing or showing to a championship. Because yeah - millions of beautiful dogs die every year while morons are rushing out to buy BYB or puppymill/designer dogs. Again - I have no idea if that was the case here and didn't want to find out. I"m speaking in general. 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: car deal gone wrong: Truly unbelievable. Anus buys a 21-year old car (I was shocked that a car dealer would even have such an ancient beater on the lot) - but she owes back taxes. She didn't know about that! The car lot people should just be understanding and considerate about her personal financial problems and give her the money back she paid for that bucket of bolts. The "Snowflake Entitlement" syndrome has gone into the realm of insanity. Plaintiff was so indignant! She instructed them to deliver the car to her house, but they didn't! How dare they expect her to get off her butt - oh, I mean, leave early from one of her three jobs. She has three jobs but can only buy a car that has reached the age of majority? - and actually GO to the lot and get her car. I've "boughten" several brand-new cars and yet I just went and picked them up at the dealer. Imagine. Why didn't I think of imperiously demanding they deliver it to me? A fool am I. Anyway, the overly-entitled Anus not only lost her case but had to pay def. 1000$. Must have been a shock to her to lose. Who would have guessed? Teebax: Skip this one. Def. is a lawyer. Okay, then. If I were thinking to hire a lawyer, I might take a look at his jacked-up mouth full of rotten teeth and think, "Maybe he's not too successful. Maybe his skills suck and I should keep looking." WTF? Although he seemed kind of clueless - a lawyer with zero evidence - he was so nicely dressed and seemed to have a pretty good toupee, but the grill? Holy shit. It nearly put me off my dinner and made me look away several times. How the hell can a lawyer go around with that mouthful? How?? 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: landlord vs tenant: God. Ryan was such a mess - physically and mentally - it was hard to look at him or listen to him. I had to wonder if he was high here, or just seriously ill. It's one or the other and I don't think his medication is working. It's too bad, but the landlord is not his father and doesn't have to put up with the collateral damage of Ryan's rental term, nor do the other tenants have to live with this chaos and having their place of residence turned into a flophouse. Hardly surprising that Ryan invited all the dregs of society to just come on in and make themselves at home in property he doesn't own. He's a good guy, as long as someone else pays for the damage done by his invited guests, who carry knives, break windows, get into fights, etc. I'm fairly sure there were drugs and lots of booze being consumed as well. I felt sorry for his poor dad, who will probably end up supporting him forever, since the charitable organization has washed their hands of him. Sad it was. I can just picture Levin looking at this depressing case and rubbing his little hands together. "OOh, looks like prime TMZ material," because the tragedies of others are just entertainment to that little slug. 1 hour ago, Florinaldo said: You janky suit would never hold anyway. It might! I'm pretty sure I can squeeze out a few crocodile tears to bolster my case of emotional distress. 4 Link to comment
Brattinella May 15, 2018 Share May 15, 2018 15 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said: Anus buys a 21-year old car I am SO GLAD I hadn't just had a big gulp of coffee when I read this! LOLOL!! 3 Link to comment
babs j. May 15, 2018 Share May 15, 2018 You Janky Suit - great name for a rock band. 2 Link to comment
meowmommy May 15, 2018 Share May 15, 2018 1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said: No desire to listen to those hags squabbling over the price of dogs. I don't know if one of them has actually shown dogs or if the def has a show champion. If not, there is no reason for breeding. " I listened, and I didn't hear an ounce of actual interest in the dogs. They were just things. The bitches plunked down $3000, and I don't mean dogs, so I don't know what the other $2K was...oh, bitch plaintiff sells a puppy she doesn't own. Hey, TPCers, I'm going to get a million dollars, honest. Can I sell you a share? My cats were $25 apiece at the county animal shelter, including fixing and vaccinating. Fuck breeders. 1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said: but she owes back taxes. She didn't know about that! This case was in Connecticut, where I used to live, and I started getting dunning letters from a collector in Connecticut--seven years after I moved to Arizona--demanding I pay taxes on the car I bought in Connecticut and took to Arizona three months later, for three years' worth of taxes, plus hundreds of dollars in late charges and collection fees slapped on for seven years. The towns do not send out tax bills--you have to know you owe money, and then go find out how much it is and go pay it. When I demanded a bill, they refused to supply it, and just told me I had to pay. I sent them a copy of my registration in AZ showing I first registered the car a month after I arrived, and that wasn't good enough. I guesstimated what three months of taxes should be and sent them that, marked the check Paid in Full, and told them to go away. They backed off for a couple of years, and then the letters started up again after I moved to Georgia. By then I told them to fuck off because in the absence of a bill, I had paid them what I thought was fair, and they could go pound sand. I haven't heard from them in a couple of years but now that I've moved again, anything is possible. So yes, she might not know she owed taxes! Now, the rest of the case, all on her. Why did she think the recorded phone call would help her case? 1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said: I can just picture Levin looking at this depressing case and rubbing his little hands together. That's kind of a given, isn't it? If it's sleazy and or/pitiful, it's a prime case. Not going to comment on the particulars of this third case as you'd have to listen to another personal story of mine. I have some modicum of compassion for y'all. 4 Link to comment
AngelaHunter May 15, 2018 Share May 15, 2018 1 hour ago, Brattinella said: I am SO GLAD I hadn't just had a big gulp of coffee when I read this! LOLOL!! Oh, good. So you won't have to sue me, cuz if you ruin your keyboard it must be someone else's fault, right?:p The problem is that I always think of these things, like Florinaldo's NatGeo observations of Scumbags in the Wild, at the most inappropriate times, like when I'm at the produce counter of the grocery store. I have to either nearly choke to death, try and cover my foolish laughter with a cough or be humiliated at convulsing while checking the freshness of the Field Greens. My embarassment is worth something, right? 3 Link to comment
teebax May 16, 2018 Share May 16, 2018 I can't properly quote on mobile, but man I wish I'd read the forum before I hit that second episode. What the actual fuck was going on with his mouth?! I'm totally going to have a nightmare tonight. Gah! 2 Link to comment
Florinaldo May 16, 2018 Share May 16, 2018 5 hours ago, SRTouch said: car deal gone wrong: Another one who thinks the consequences of their mistakes must be visited upon others. Even if she did not know about owing taxes, which @meowmommy tells us is common practice in CT, it was all on her. She is an adult, so she had to deal with the fallout and correct this minor mess she is in without dragging others into it. Funny thing: all the time and energy she spent complaining left, right, up and down to various authorities could have been better spent earning the necessary cash to settle her tax bill. I have a feeling that the car seller has not seen the last of her; she has demonstrated such a vexatious nature, I am sure she will find other ways to make life difficult for them. 5 hours ago, SRTouch said: landlord vs tenant: Pitiful tenant should have rung all sorts of warning bells about the possible troubles he could bring in. I am convinced that the government program he qualified under was set up with the best intentions, but it obviously generated some unintended problems that other people had to endure. 2 Link to comment
AngelaHunter May 16, 2018 Share May 16, 2018 2 hours ago, teebax said: What the actual fuck was going on with his mouth?! I'm totally going to have a nightmare tonight. Gah! Ooops. I did try to warn you, since I'm the same way about dental atrocities. Grossed me out plenty. 1 hour ago, Florinaldo said: all the time and energy she spent complaining left, right, up and down to various authorities could have been better spent earning the necessary cash to settle her tax bill. Odd, isn't it, that she found time - even with working three jobs - to go the AG and every other entity she could conjure up to gripe about her old piece of junk deal going wrong? The only thing she couldn't find even half an hour in many months for was to pick up said old piece of junk. If she works 24/7 how did she have time to file a claim and appear in court? 3 hours ago, meowmommy said: My cats were $25 apiece at the county animal shelter, including fixing and vaccinating. My cats were all free, picked up off streets or caught in traps I set and my dogs were the cost of an adoption fee. Other peoples' trash became my treasures. 3 hours ago, meowmommy said: Fuck breeders. Amen. A pox on them! 2 Link to comment
aemom May 16, 2018 Share May 16, 2018 (edited) The Home Depot card case. From the first minute that he spoke, I knew that he was guilty. So aggressive in his speech and mannerisms and if bad grammar was a drinking game in this case, I would have been in the hospital with alcohol poisoning. And we have seen a lot of crazy getups in the courtroom, but most people at least look clean. This guy's shirt looked filthy. Perhaps that was the look of the fabric, but I also don't understand wearing ripped jeans. And lady, what kind of a wingnut gives some contractor her card? And then doesn't check the statements for months? As for how long you can contest a charge: I called Visa recently to find out about contesting a charge, and the limit is 30 days. I called because I was LIVID about a purchase through a 3rd party on Amazon, but that's a whole other story. The former-friend-roommates were a piece of work. Not paying rent for months and going on a cruise. I hope that the two landlords they stiffed get all their money back and that the next time they try to rent something, the background/credit check sets off all alarms so they don't screw over #3. Disgusting, entitled bitches. I also did not understand how you go from wanting to pay cash for a car and then thinking that 15.5% interest for financing it is a good idea. There is some shady stuff going on there. My last car was financed because it was 1% interest, so no brainer, I'll invest my money and come out ahead. He was very lucky to get his money back. The dog breeders: There didn't seem to be a whole lot of love for these dogs. They seemed like business transactions to the women. For those that didn't watch, the convoluted deal included that the plaintiff was supposed to get one of the puppies. However, by about two months after birth, they had all died. Except that MM didn't believe the defendant for various reasons presented with the evidence and the plaintiff wanted $5,000 - which is how much she claimed to have sold the never-received puppy ahead of time. MM didn't really believe her since the date of the sale was after she'd been told the last dog died, so she awarded her half - $2,500. I could never imagine spending that kind of money on any sort of pet. There are so many lovely cats and dogs that you can find at the SPCA or a shelter that probably come with all their shots that need some love. People typically move in my area on July 1 and every year we hear stories of abandoned pets everywhere. So sad - if you get a pet, it's a commitment for the life of the animal. If you're not prepared, don't get one. The woman who refused to pick up her car was beyond delusional. She had no time to pick up her car because she works 3 jobs, but had the time to complain to everybody and their mother about the car dealer. Buyers remorse does not a case make. The defendant got full points for being nicely dressed but then lost them for the teeth. Good God! He's a part-time lawyer. You're not destitute or homeless - spend some money on some teeth man! The defendant renter in the last case seemed to be dealing with a variety of medical issues. I kind of felt sorry for him. At least his dad was with him so you hope that he is getting treatment. He was honest about everything that happened, unlike the litany of defendants who claim "wasn't me." The plaintiff got everything except the cost of the new door lock, because he couldn't prove that the defendant was responsible for that. It all seemed fair. Edited May 16, 2018 by AEMom Typo 3 Link to comment
AngelaHunter May 16, 2018 Share May 16, 2018 1 hour ago, AEMom said: I also did not understand how you go from wanting to pay cash for a car and then thinking that 15.5% interest for financing it is a good idea. That was the second rate he got, IIRC, after he decided that at the age of 50, maybe he should be taking care of his business. I think the first rate from the car dealer's financing company was 24%. 1 hour ago, AEMom said: He's a part-time lawyer. You're not destitute or homeless - spend some money on some teeth man! I still can't get over that. He's not some ragged hillbilly who just crawled out of a meth-making holler. He's a professional who needs to make a good impression on people! 3 Link to comment
Guest May 16, 2018 Share May 16, 2018 14 hours ago, teebax said: I can't properly quote on mobile, but man I wish I'd read the forum before I hit that second episode. What the actual fuck was going on with his mouth?! I'm totally going to have a nightmare tonight. Gah! I was thinking of this group when Dash Riprock started to speak! I was so intrigued I even went closer to the tv to make sure my eyes weren't deceiving me. There were so many teeth missing and the ones that were there were as black as coal. I couldn't figure it out. This guy has a reasonably decent suit, a reasonably decent wig (tee hee), speaks well and yet has a mouth full of rot. You just know his breath smells. Probably uses sen sen (that's what worked for him when he was in jr. high). Link to comment
KittyMom4 May 16, 2018 Share May 16, 2018 19 hours ago, SRTouch said: Ok, got a chuckle with P, but D could be a model for a jack-o-lantern I came here specifically to see who would provide the best description and @SRTouch takes the crown! Every time he opened his mouth I pictured Disney's Aladdin, when he's in the dungeon and Jafar (in disguise) tells him about the treasure..... 3 Link to comment
aemom May 16, 2018 Share May 16, 2018 5 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said: That was the second rate he got, IIRC, after he decided that at the age of 50, maybe he should be taking care of his business. I think the first rate from the car dealer's financing company was 24%. Yeah, the first rate was something like 24%. It's true, you need to have some sort of credit history, or it can be hard in life. My son turned 18 this year, and was offered a Visa card from the bank. He would rather just stick to cash and debit, but I told him to take it and put the odd thing on it like gas and bus passes and then pay it in full every month so that one day if he wants a mortgage or needs to finance a car or something, he won't have a problem trying to prove that he's not a risk because he will have a credit history. 3 Link to comment
aemom May 16, 2018 Share May 16, 2018 16 minutes ago, PsychoKlown said: You just know his breath smells. Probably uses sen sen (that's what worked for him when he was in jr. high). One of the reasons I enjoy this board, is that I learn new things. I had never heard of Sen Sen and a quick Google educated me. :-) 2 Link to comment
AngelaHunter May 16, 2018 Share May 16, 2018 28 minutes ago, GoodieGirl said: Every time he opened his mouth I pictured Disney's Aladdin, when he's in the dungeon and Jafar (in disguise) tells him about the treasure..... I just edited a bit for a more accurate depiction: 4 Link to comment
KittyMom4 May 16, 2018 Share May 16, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, AEMom said: Yeah, the first rate was something like 24%. It's true, you need to have some sort of credit history, or it can be hard in life. My son turned 18 this year, and was offered a Visa card from the bank. He would rather just stick to cash and debit, but I told him to take it and put the odd thing on it like gas and bus passes and then pay it in full every month so that one day if he wants a mortgage or needs to finance a car or something, he won't have a problem trying to prove that he's not a risk because he will have a credit history. I co-signed on a $500 limit credit card for both my daughters when they turned 18, gave them the exact same advice, now at 27 & 23 they both have excellent credit. It's too bad that not many parents teach their children how important credit history is, these days having good credit is as vital as a driver's license. 1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said: I just edited a bit for a more accurate depiction: Much more accurate now!! I am very grossed out by bad teeth, I was gagging while watching him, omg...... I wanted to add that my parents paid for regular dental cleanings and for braces for me and my sister and brother growing up and we were all taught to brush & floss regularly, hygiene practices that my sister and I have continued into our adulthood. My brother is 49 years old with a mouth full of rotting, yellow, foul smelling teeth. He has had steady employment with dental coverage for all of his adulthood. He does not live in poverty, and he has access to a dentist, he just chooses not to. We don't understand it and he refuses to do anything about it. I feel sorry for his coworkers and his girlfriend, I can't be within 5 feet of him because of the stench. Edited May 16, 2018 by GoodieGirl background 3 Link to comment
SRTouch May 16, 2018 Share May 16, 2018 (edited) geez, another day where FF gets a work out. ?? first case is ungrateful Defendants with zero defense - one of those cases where I'm left wondering how some litigant's minds work. ??? ??? skipped next case involving dog killing neighbor's cat. Giving this last case ? for a couple reasons- 1) outrageous $5000 claim for unregistered 21yo junker with 3 grand of tools in it, and 2) gave up trying to follow case - even with CC ex roomy suit: quite the spoiled brats, when these mean girls fight they do nasty stuff - like putting bleach in your shampoo bottle. Litigants and witnesses on both sides of the aisle could do with some fashion tips. Hopefully when P sees herself in those pants she'll join a gym, go on a diet, or just burn those stretchy pants - when you're that bottom heavy you do NOT need skin tight pants. Anyway, P was fussing with defendants, and D's added bleach to her shampoo. Now she's here seeking 2 grand in back rent/utilities. Two defendant's story is that P let them move in because they were on hard times. Claim the deal was they could live rent free and not help with any of the bills. Ah, but once P's cousin moved out and stopped contributing to the bills, meany P wanted them to pay rent and utilities. The nerve! Bleach in her shampoo is the least she deserved. Ok, once testimony begins P agrees original deal was 1 month rent free, letting them get caught up then they were to start contributing. Seems the two D had been booted from their previous apartment and needed a place to build up a nest egg. Uh, and why were they kicked out, asks MM. Well, says P, they weren't paying rent there, either... think I see where this is going - silly P let's the two deadbeats in to "get back on their feet," but doesn't set any type deadline. So, after living the rent free for awhile, P figures it's time to start contributing. Ah, but paying their way is a foreign concept to the two freeloaders, so feuding and fussing begins.... somewhere in there cousin gets out if Dodge, and now P really needs their help - but instead gets bleach in her shampoo... back to testimony, P tells us there actually was a plan - the two unemployed deadbeats had a month to find a job and start kicking in towards bills... ah, a plan, just not much of one - they were to help with living expenses - without any dollar amount being specified - but approximately half of the rent/bills. Turns out cousin had moved out already, so, this loosey goosey arrangement was that they were going to split bills - but percentages were beyond these girls. P figured with three people living there, bills should be split in thirds. Deal really unclear, so instead of thirds the defendant's though they were on the hook for half. So, first month was rent/bill free, but supposed to start paying "something" beginning second month. Ah, no money to that second month, third month when rent is due they pay four hundred odd, then nothing next couple months... yep deadbeats still unemployed, and, according to P, she was working two full time jobs - 80 hours a week - to pay everybody's way. soooo, deadbeats had moved in in March (no rent expected or received), paid nothing in April, paid a portion of expected rent in May, nothing again in June.... asked to leave June, but deadbeats like living without paying bills or working those pesky jobs. So, P goes and gets a 3 day notice to pay or move - but deadbeat freeloaders say notice doesn't count since they were not served properly. Ah, but they did leave at the end of June... and after they finally moved out, next time P washes her hair she finds bleach in the shampoo - yes, after dumping it on her head... yep, she has pictures of the damaged hair and red skin from the bleach... Quick look over to D side - they haven't gotten to say anything yet, but smirk on the heavy set D sure provides a hint on who thought up the bleach idea... ok, totally believe the bleach story - and if we need her, P has a witness who was in the apartment and came running when P screamed. Time for Defendants to have a say... hmmm, not sure what they CAN say as P put on a good case. As we go to commercial D seems to be agreeing to what P told us. Problem is the loosey goosey nature of the deal - how much rent/utilities do they owe, and how much is that bleach sabotage going to cost the deadbeats. After commercial - yep, D agrees with pretty much everything - oh, except disagree about previous place giving them boot for not paying rent. Not sure where these girls live, but job market must really suck. When asked, D says they spent those 4 months filling out job applications - well, 1 of them was looking, other has a cast on her foot - guess that kept her out of job market. Oh, the irony, D says when P gave them the boot she had finally found a job (so, of course with her first paycheck, don'cha know she gave P a little something towards the three months rent they owed.... NOT!) Ok, their story is that by June, things has dissolved to the point where P's friends were threatening to beat up mousey D (who acts like she's kind of fragile and about to start crying). Almost had me there (forgot about the bleach for a minute) and was feeling a little sympathy for little Mouse - until MM reminds us that P had opened her house and let these two move in, and Mouse's answer is "we were understanding and grateful" yeah, so understanding that P was working 80 hours weeks paying for Mouse to sit at home with her broken foot elevated, watching the cable she wasn't contributing towards and neither she nor gf paying any of the bills -then they left a going away bleach surprise. Then, to put a cap in it, heaveyset D told a story of how P's evil friend banged on the door and threatened to punch her in the face - and P shows video of the incident, which is really the friend knocking on door to serve the 3 day pay or quit notice and Mousey cussing up a storm and demanding they call her gf. Oh, when MM scoffs about the graditude they showed, they have a new defense.... seems P had another friend or two staying over and sleeping on the couch. Which, as MM points out, has nothing to do with the rent agreement that Mousey confirmed they were to pay (50% in April then each paying a third). Ok, ready for this to end and pre-decision commercials arrive right on time. Defendants have admitted they owe for rent, but there's a question on amount for utilities and cable (P didn't bring the bills for evidence), oh, and whether bleach shampoo tacks anything onto the bill... we can see where this is going when MM gives P time to show utilities/cable instead of just tossing them as unproven (nothing for bleach - guess she wasn't asking for anything for that - silly girl, that was worth thousands in pain and suffering! Besides, with other people in and out, no proof somebody else didn't do it.) Most telling thing is in hallterview where Doug comments on how hard it was for P to get them out, and Mousey is, yeah, they weren't leaving until they were served - oh, wait, our story is it was P made it so uncomfortable we decided to move out.... wasn't that the spin they put on they leaving the previous apartment - they weren't booted out because of not paying rent, they became homeless because they decided to leave last place. skipped - dog killing cat case, I hit the button before plaintiff's intro was over neighbor had dude's ride towed: (oops, we need CC on this one ?) little old dude comes in with fancy white, black collar coat carrying his straw hat and a picture. He claims busy body old bitty next door had his car towed off his property while he was kickin' it in Barbados. Little old lady says she was put on notice to get rid of some old unregistered junkers in her yard. Says when tow company came to haul away her junkers, they took P's unregistered heap along with hers - besides, his car was on HER side of the property line. Ok, problem here will be where his car was parked - he says behind his building, she argues behind hers.... oh, other thing - his junker is old, unregistered '97 heap of a Ford Explorer which tow company hauled to scrap yard, and dude is seeking 5 grand... ah, only fraction of the 5 grand is for the car - ya'see he stored thousands of dollars worth of valuable tools in the heap. Hey, dude has some accent, but I'm totally lost when D starts. I give up and zip ahead, but MM must have had trouble understanding, too, as she brought up one of the witnesses to tell D's side. Ok, even with not understanding anything D said, I don't see much of a case for P. First we have at 2 people testifying car was behind old lady's building. Second, gotta question dude's claim heap was worth any more than salvage. Third, can he prove the value of the tools he claims he lost. Ok, D's witness is her property manager. What she says is that lady was changing insurance, and was given 30 days to get rid of 3 junkers behind her building - 2 of them belonging to D's nephew, third belonging to P. They go online and hire some tow/salvage company off google, and they come and haul the heaps away. Well, maybe dude's picture will help him... I mean, it could show his heap behind HIS building like he claims (not sure how that would help in his lost tool claim). Ok, turns out this was an alley, but picture really isn't much help. D says "most" P's car was on her side - course P disagrees. Turns out, sounds like she maybe knew this was his car, and maybe she gave him 5 days notice to move it or lose it - not sure just what she was saying. She was there when tow company came, and she told them to haul it. Uh oh, 10 more minutes and even with CC I can't follow this lady. Decide to give up and do some zipping..... yep, as expected since the intro, decision for Defense. Edited May 16, 2018 by SRTouch 6 Link to comment
AngelaHunter May 16, 2018 Share May 16, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, SRTouch said: ex roomy suit: quite the spoiled brats, when these mean girls fight they do nasty stuff This goes beyond "mean girls." Yikes. I can just picture the scene with all them piled into that crib and the subsequent "screaming and yelling". I wouldn't let the defs camp in my backyard, never mind let them live in my house, for FREE. The really big one, who yells "Fuck you all!!" to someone who let her squat her enormous ass for free for months was particularly scary. Her little squeeze - who took the time to heavily make up her eyes yet has a pretty nasty grill - says to JM when asked what they did all day: "Well, we sat there... trying to fill out applications." Yes that will bring in an income. And their way to thank their hostess is to put bleach in her shampoo bottle. Oh yes, they did. Nasty, vile parasitic creatures. 2 hours ago, SRTouch said: skipped - dog killing cat case, Ditto. 2 hours ago, SRTouch said: neighbor had dude's ride towed: (oops, we need CC on this one I didn't think the CC could handle this. Luckily the def's property manager was understandable. What a coincidence that the plaintiff's ancient beater and all the tools he left in it were worth exactly 5,000$. I liked the way he informed JM that she just wasn't getting it, and told Doug in the hall that she's on drugs. At least I think that's what he said. He's right. She should just take his word for it about all those tools. On another note: The conditions in that alley were disgusting. Everyone just throws their garbage and junk out there and leaves it? I couldn't believe either that an insurance company wouldn't take issue with those deplorable conditions. The way some people choose to live... whoa. Edited May 16, 2018 by AngelaHunter 3 Link to comment
meowmommy May 16, 2018 Share May 16, 2018 Bleach is a nasty, nasty product, for all it does a good job with cleaning. I got bleach on my leg last December, and it burned me to the point where my leg is still discolored. I can only imagine if plaintiff had gotten the bleach in her eyes--she could easily have been blinded. These entitled beyotches should be facing criminal charges. MM should have given them a complete beatdown, but she didn't. Thanks for the heads-up about the cat case. I FF at max speed so I wouldn't even see a picture of the poor meowie. 6 Link to comment
Florinaldo May 17, 2018 Share May 17, 2018 (edited) 6 hours ago, SRTouch said: ex roomy suit: quite the spoiled brats I thought that the plaintiff, for all her faults, was a model of decency compared to the defendants, who were indeed spoiled, irresponsible and nasty. 6 hours ago, SRTouch said: dog killing cat case The truly vicious animal in this case was the plaintiff. Her cat got out because of her negligence, found its way into the defendants' closed yard and was disposed of by the dog. It was clear from the start that it was entirely her fault even though MM let the pleadings drag on. The vindictive old crone decided by her own judgement that the dog was a dangerous animal and had her lawyer send a threatening letter to the dog oeners, even though as MM pointed out he must have known she did not have a legal leg to stand on. I think that punitive damages against her would have been warranted but at least her complaint was dimissed, not summarily enough though. 6 hours ago, SRTouch said: neighbor had dude's ride towed: Plaintiff is either completely idiotic or crafty enough to use an act of behaving as addled-brained to get away with a lot of stuff and preying on other peoples' pity to swindle them out of money or property. Edited May 17, 2018 by Florinaldo 3 Link to comment
NYGirl May 17, 2018 Share May 17, 2018 To those of you who avoided the dog vs cat I took a bullet and watched it. Form your own opinion. Plaintiff's big black house cat got out and was missing for days. Defendant had his dog (not sure I know what breed) in his fenced in yard. One night when it was dark the dog got in a fight with "another animal" Defendant thought it was a raccoon. Tried to call his dog but dog ignored him. JM says hoses are a pet owner's best friend. His autistic son was very upset so he ran out and put the animal in a trash bag and put it in the trash..not even seeing what kind of animal it was. Reason he was sued was because he didn't tell her it was her missing cat. She had lost posters on all the poles in the neighborhood but Def never saw them. JM found for Defendant. 6 Link to comment
teebax May 17, 2018 Share May 17, 2018 3 hours ago, NYGirl said: To those of you who avoided the dog vs cat I took a bullet and watched it. Form your own opinion. Plaintiff's big black house cat got out and was missing for days. Defendant had his dog (not sure I know what breed) in his fenced in yard. One night when it was dark the dog got in a fight with "another animal" Defendant thought it was a raccoon. Tried to call his dog but dog ignored him. JM says hoses are a pet owner's best friend. His autistic son was very upset so he ran out and put the animal in a trash bag and put it in the trash..not even seeing what kind of animal it was. Reason he was sued was because he didn't tell her it was her missing cat. She had lost posters on all the poles in the neighborhood but Def never saw them. JM found for Defendant. You're doing God's work. I can't with those cases! 3 Link to comment
califred May 17, 2018 Share May 17, 2018 The cat owner was a piece of work. And saying a dog in its own backyard is vicious for attacking an animal that doesn’t belong there. 7 Link to comment
SRTouch May 17, 2018 Share May 17, 2018 (edited) 19 hours ago, NYGirl said: To those of you who avoided the dog vs cat I took a bullet and watched it. Form your own opinion. Plaintiff's big black house cat got out and was missing for days. Defendant had his dog (not sure I know what breed) in his fenced in yard. One night when it was dark the dog got in a fight with "another animal" Defendant thought it was a raccoon. Tried to call his dog but dog ignored him. JM says hoses are a pet owner's best friend. His autistic son was very upset so he ran out and put the animal in a trash bag and put it in the trash..not even seeing what kind of animal it was. Reason he was sued was because he didn't tell her it was her missing cat. She had lost posters on all the poles in the neighborhood but Def never saw them. JM found for Defendant. Ok, I skip these cases because 99.999% of the time a pet owner screws up and refuses to accept they screwed up. Most the time, it's both pet owners screwing up. What I'm reading indicates this dog owner did absolutely nothing wrong, well, except not making more of an effort to find the owner of the cat. This cat owner was the screw up - and instead of accepting the blame she is suing neighbor because his dog acted like a dog. Tragic, I would have been heart broken if it was my cat, but I would never even think of suing or trying to label the dog vicious. Edited May 17, 2018 by SRTouch Added the comment in bold 7 Link to comment
AngelaHunter May 17, 2018 Share May 17, 2018 11 hours ago, NYGirl said: To those of you who avoided the dog vs cat I took a bullet and watched it. Form your own opinion. Thanks! So it was no one's fault, yet plaintiff felt someone should pay? How much did she want and on what did she base the amount? We love our animals and mine are priceless to me, but on the open market a DSH cat has no monetary value. Oh, that poor cat.:( To have one of my cats die that way would tear me up, but dogs - the breed matters not - may attack a strange animal on their property. When I was a kid our neighbour had a Labrador retriever who would immediately kill any cat that landed in his yard. Lots of dogs will do that. It's prey drive and it has no connection to being "vicious". I HATE when anyone wails, "What if it were a child?" Seriously, dogs very well and instantly know the difference between a human being and a cat or raccoon or chicken. 6 Link to comment
momtoall May 17, 2018 Share May 17, 2018 Several years ago a possum got in my daughter's fenced yard. We can only assume the when her two labs were let out, they discovered the possum. My son-in-law found the possum's remains the early next morning when he was leaving for work. It was gruesome. Of course, the possum wasn't someone's pet but the point is that what the dogs did was instinct, no one's fault. The plaintiff, in her griet, needed to blame someone. 7 Link to comment
Florinaldo May 17, 2018 Share May 17, 2018 2 hours ago, momtoall said: The plaintiff, in her griet, needed to blame someone. I think that is a frequent motivation for court actions, in real life or on TV court shows. Something bad happens and people feel someone else must be responsible and must pay. As I wrote previously, in this case the plaintiff was correct: someone was indeed responsible, but it was her for negligently making it possible for her cat to get out of the house. However, judging from her demeanor in court, the very notion that she might be responsible is something her mind would be completely incapable of envisioning; she is always right and the world is always wrong, especially when the facts contradict her view. 7 Link to comment
DoctorK May 17, 2018 Share May 17, 2018 According to Cox, today's show is new. However, the first case about a non-existent warranty sounded familiar, and the defendant had a very distinctive appearance, especially his gray eyed blank stare. The more I listened to him, the more I could swear that I have seen him before in this case, or one very similar. JM's reaming of him was also familiar. Maybe just coincidence, but this one really looked like a re-run. Second case didn't look familiar, but third case (used scooter with battery dispute) also looked and sounded very familiar, just not as much as the first case. Link to comment
SRTouch May 17, 2018 Share May 17, 2018 (edited) yep, @DoctorK, first case ? ?? sure does look familiar - but then after a while some cases just sort of blur together... fun to watch totally clueless Fat Albert and sleazey used car dealer fight over a warranty and sleazy talks himself into paying punitive damages. Second case ?? fight over busted dryer warranty and nobody has evidence. Third case: ?yet a third warranty case - this time a scooter that doesn't work (getting so CC is turned on when I start watching - useful in both 2nd and 3rd cases today) watched but still not sure of the particulars warranty - or not? P bought an '02 BMW, and paid for a warranty. Not a bad idea buying the warranty (though all to often people hear the magic word - "warranty" - and think new car warranty) on a 15-16yo car. When car started acting up, he says he made numerous attempts to contact the seller, defendant, but was getting the run around and/or ignored. Finally, he took it to his own mechanic and got the repairs. He's asking for refund of what he paid for the warranty. Slick D has a couple defenses mentioned in the intro. 1) says the warranty specified the auto shop which was to do any repairs under the warranty, and P used a unauthorized repair shop. That one might actually fly, as warranties often require any covered repairs done by an authorized shop. 2) utter nonsense - says warranty required the buyer to take the vehicle to be inspected for any preexisting problems. Dude, any inspection needs to be completed before YOU sell the buyer the warranty - and an ethical seller would disclose any problems identified during the inspection. And P, dude, really, if you are smart enough to buy that high priced warranty - READ IT! Oh, we already know, from the preview before the intro, that MM is going to land on D with both feet about coming to court to defend his sale of the warranty without a copy of the warranty - actually, no proof warranty existed beyond the paperwork where he collected the money. So, is D a dirt bag scammer living down to lowest used car salesman stereotype? We'll find out - but have to say am NOT impressed with his attire... dude, when wearing a sweater over your pink shirt you really ought to tuck the shirt in instead of leaving a pink fringe around your beltline. Slow start with P - soft spoken and looking down, I actually turned up the volume. Says he bought the car, then went back a couple months later and bought the extended warranty.... ok, under that scenario, I can see why seller didn't get the inspection - he no longer had possession of the vehicle to get the inspection done, and it needed to be done as P could have been driving it into the ground. Ok, scale is tipping towards D - not sure good sign when P is the only one to testify so far. His story is he drove the car another 5 months, then it starts acting up. Says he called, and even physically went back to seller's lot, but no satisfaction. Hmmm, even without D opening his yap, right now I'd dismiss the case.... but then there's the preview and question if warranty ever got put through after collecting the money. Hey, if the inspection was a prerequisite for the warranty being issued, and inspection was never done, shouldn't P get the money back (but not any money for the repairs). Hoboy, now P is saying he paid three grand for this warranty, but never actually received a copy - well, that explains why he never read the frickin' thing. Yep, pink fringe dude needs to show us that warranty, and now is when he gets reamed for coming to court without the warranty. Recess time while MM gives dude time to get proof warranty was actually purchased (oh, and recess nicely coincides with time for commercials.) Ok, after a "lengthy" recess, we come back and dude finally has copies for everyone.... geez, $3200 sure didn't buy much. First, this is an unsigned contract for a third party warranty (instead of a signature, dealer wrote "on file" in the signature block)... does that mean I can just sign a contract once and let the car dealer write "on file" every place else... MM is not happy with the way this dealer operates. After letting pink fringe fumble around and double talk a bunch of nonsense, she tells us that during the recess she called the third party warranty company - guess what? Warranty contract was never completed. Ok, once again, a litigant tries to fake evidence expecting judge not to follow through - come on dude, she may be a TV judge now, but before this long stint on tv she had full career as a lawyer, DA, and real criminal division judge... dude, your scam was really not that smart. Ok, case over when dude fumbles around and admits warranty contract was never submitted, uh, you see Judge, seller had to buy the warranty within 30 days of purchase... so that means you took his cash even though he couldn't have gotten the fricking warranty, sleazeball.... ah, well, your honor, I never disputed that I should return his money.... uh, then why the frick did he have to frickin' go to court to get the frickin' refund.... ok, calling this one early. Ok, not much of a case, P was boring and stupid, but sure enjoy watching pink fringe trip over himself and get caught.... oh, and ? get slapped additional $1,000 in punitive damages bad appliance sale: ??plaintiff claims she purchased a defective used washer/dryer set, and defendant refused to fix or repair them.... what, another warranty case? Oh, and now that deal has gone bad, she wants to complain that seller insisted on a cash deal and didn't collect sales tax. (Little confusion as P and her entourage enter - one of the group doesn't come through the gate and starts looking for a seat in the audience - kind of funny to watch her talk to lady in back row, pointing at lady's seat and lady shakes her head - no, she ain't moving.) Defendant intro says repair tech sent out three times and it appears the lady has electrical problem in the breaker box. Says the store has a no return policy, so it's on P. ? oh dear, stopped FF too soon and caught you know who saying "washer, he hardly knew her" ? ok, this is going to be a pretty lame case, but as usual, a litigant sounding the fool trying to make her case. Really, P trying get to back out of the sale by claiming seller just made the deal look SO GOOD, P was "induced" into buying. Yeah, so every buyer with buyer's remorse can undo a sale and ignore the store's no return policy. Ok, but there was a 90 days warranty on the used appliances, so when P had problems with dryer first time it was used, she called store right away. Ok, think I see the problem.... these new used appliances are bigger, use more electricty, and I get D's thinking problem may be circuit breaker can't handle the juice needed to run the new dryer. Ah, but that doesn't explain problems P had trying to get a response on this 90 warranty. First time she calls, two guys come out and announce dryer has been repaired. They leave, she tries to use it, nada, tumbler doesn't tumble. Repeated calls, store won't pick up and voicemail box full - tries going through FB - no reply - thinks maybe they're blocking her, so gets her witness to call - he says he called multiple times over a week to 10 days before anyone picked up. This results in promised second visit from service guy - but nobody actually showed. Hmmmm, not a very good picture of D and her store being presented.... MM crosses aisle and asks D what was going on - about as lame a story as P. Ok, her story is she sent a tech and he replaced the "computer", and dryer worked when he left after the first visit. Despite P and her witness claiming it took days to reach anyone to say it wasn't working, she says she was receiving calls right away, as soon as tech left. She says she immediately sent out a replacement dryer, and swapped it for the one that wasn't working. Whoa, are we sure these litigants are all talking about the same transaction. Should be fairly easy to figure out who is lying - all those phone calls being made by P side, surely they can show us the dozens of attempts and the FB messages going unanswered. And, D ought to have sone paperwork, work orders, inventory where dryers are being swapped.... hey, pretty much every time I've ever had an appliance worked on or delivered I had to sign something. Not looking good for D - she presented a work order that dryer was going to be replaced, but nothing showing the swap ever takes place - and P denies everything getting a different dryer. Evidence - great when litigants bother to bring E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E. Course, that's one way JJ speeds through 2 (or more) cases in half the time - no evidence - no case - GOOD BYYYYE! Defendant looks bad here with her flapping gums and "oh, but I rember, judge, your honor, ma'am." Then P witness helps out Def - when asked, he identifies the brand of the dryer he saw as an LG - the brand Def says the original Samsung dryer was replaced with, and he has to admit maybe he's not remembering correctly.... sit down, you open neck cleavage dude - you're no Don Johnson and don't even have a tatty tat or gold cross to show. Oh, but he says maybe he just picked up on Defendant saying LG, and really and truly judge, he helped move the non-working machine out the way, now he's just not sure of the brand. Oh, another hit for P.... MM picks up on his saying he moved defendant's machine out of the way and asks where it is now after she bought a replacement dryer from someone else.... P, oh, still in the basement... MM, so, did you buy another washer, too?... P, no, still using washer from D... uh, then why are you suing for money back from washer?... oh, just wanted to sever all ties with defendant (and get a washer for free).... other little thing I pick up on and wonder about - defendant's unproven theory on inadequate circuit breaker - is the replacement dryer from somewhere else have same power requirements?.... another time when evidence would be nice - like maybe a picture or two with brand names and data plate showing voltage/amp requirements. Times a wasting on this one, and MM is ready for it to end, so she starts trying to find a way to determine who is being truthful about the phone calks. She asks defendant is she, MM, we're to call right niw, would she being able to leave a voicemail. Then she asks P how many times she called Defendant - 60 to 70 times - great, there should be lots and lots of records between the numerous calls from her and her witness. Hmmm, but MM doesn't even ask for phone records. Guess she figures defendant needs to tighten up her business practices and start keeping better records, so she undoes sale - but only on the dryer, not the washer. She says it was a close call - yeah, close, but I lean the other way, I would've gone with the exchange store credit that was evidently printed on the receipt. scooter that doesn't scoot: ?? plaintiff wants to unwind sale on a scooter. Defendant says this was as-is sale on used scooter. Says he already went the extra mile when he replacement battery several days after purchase, and isn'the about to take back the scooter niw and refund guy his money. Oh dear, P in this case giving CC a workout almost as bad as little old lady defendant with the junk cars behind her building yesterday. Anyway, I gather dude bought this used, 2yo scooter and immediately had issues with the throttle, then a couple days later a dead battery.... and I'm wondering if the throttle worked properly during the test drive - oh, silly me, what test drive? He don't need no stinking test drive! Soooo, first throttle - which defendant talked him through and apparently they figure out; next, dead battery - not sure, sounds like P bought the replacement somewhere else and then defendant replaced it, or maybe defendant replaced the battery with one from his shop - oh, so confusing, it's a little of both - 1st time used battery from D's shop, then P buts a new battery and D puts that one in; two days later, again won't start.... MM is getting tired of trying to make sense of this testimony, and finally asks dude WTH it is he wants. Oh, he wants all the money he spend buying and trying to get this thing working. To which MM answers, why, this was as-is sale - no warranty. Ok, another litigant helping other side out. Defendant agrees he gave clueless P a verbal 30 day warranty - not sure that means a money back warranty, and dude is already working with P to address his concerns. Ah, defendant is really helping P out here. Not only does he admits to the 30 day warranty, but he admits he took scooter back and gave dude a partial refund. Seems when P bought the scooter he bought a few other things - scooter itself was $725. When he took the scooter back, he says he refunded $300 and admits he still owes $425. Problem is, P figures he should get back $815, and they couldn't cone to an agreement. MM quickly trims the add-ons dude bought and didn't return. Ah, seems he not only wants $815, but doesn't figure the $300 he already received back should count.... so, if I'm not totally confused, that means he wants total of $1115 refund on a $725 purchase. Seems Defendant got fed up and stopped taking his calls when plaintiff calley 50-60 times wanting money. At end of of case, P gets the $425 D admits is still owed - oh, and he promises to mail back the license plates from when P registered the scooter. Edited May 17, 2018 by SRTouch 5 Link to comment
AngelaHunter May 17, 2018 Share May 17, 2018 I never saw any of these cases. I'm sure I would have remembered the warranty case, where car dealer def. outright stole 3K from the plaintiff and put it in his own pocket. Wow. The whole case hinged on the warranty and wouldn't you know it? Def. didn't bring that with him today. He never thought about bringing it. Why would he need it? Can't bring it because it didn't exist, as JM found out when she called the warranty company, who never got a cent from crooked def. Really, scumbag thief def should be in jail. I mean, if someone mugs you on the street and steals your money, they get arrested if found, right? "We wuz going to refund him," says slimeball, but gee, they never did. The fact that buying a 3K extended warranty for an old car is simply insane - in fact, I never ever buy extended warranties on anything. These things make up a big portion of profits for stores. Employees are ordered to talk really fast and aggressively push them but they're just a money grab. Plaintiff wanted to spend probably more than the old car was worth for it, and that's his perogative however silly it may be. Maybe he seemed a little dim, but he won his case. I just wish JM would have given him 1800$ in punitive damages, just to ensure the thief def. got not one cent for his reaming and exposure as a lowlife thief here. I hope he enjoyed whatever he spent the plaintiff's money on, and that it was worth the spanking he got here today. 41 minutes ago, SRTouch said: bad appliance sale: I didn't quite get this. We had the League of Nations here today. I have a hearing problem anyway, so maybe didn't quite follow. Plaintiff states absolutely that def didn't replace the defective dryer but her very own witness claims they did and states he remembers it quite clearly. Very helpful friend he is! Kind of boring. 43 minutes ago, SRTouch said: scooter that doesn't scoot: I don't know what the hell they were all going on about - the scooter and the "battry" and renting some kind of wheeled taxi/van thing to bring it back to the seller or something like that. Whatever. Who cares? JM has more patience than I to try and decipher all this crap. 6 Link to comment
Florinaldo May 17, 2018 Share May 17, 2018 2 hours ago, SRTouch said: bad appliance sale: I thought that the plaintiff was lying and greedy. She probably concocted a story with her witness but he fumbled his testimony. Unfortunately MM glossed over that confusion and was negligent in not pursuing other aspects of the case like the faulty breaker theory (couldn't the store's technician have at least checked if it was tripping?). I would have only issued her store credit for the dryer, but at least she did not get a free washer out of this case, while the defendant should chalk this one up to a good life lesson in the need to tighten her business practices. 5 Link to comment
AngelaHunter May 18, 2018 Share May 18, 2018 5 hours ago, Florinaldo said: She probably concocted a story with her witness but he fumbled his testimony. If there were Olympics for fumbling, he'd get gold. He directly and totally contradicted what she said - "Never got a replacement dryer." Her helpful witness - "Yes, she did. I helped move it in" and then supplies details on how he did that and even remembered that the new one was an LG. I thought a person's witness - especially a friend - was there to corroborate the story, not deny it. Hee! 3 Link to comment
Florinaldo May 18, 2018 Share May 18, 2018 I wonder how much of a hard time that stern-looking plaintiff gave her witness on the way back home. She did not look happy as he was talking, but then again, she does not give the impression of being happy very often. 2 Link to comment
DoctorK May 18, 2018 Share May 18, 2018 Today: abandoned car versus parking lot tow. Entertaining because we get to watch (once again) an actual lawyer represent himself and make a complete fool of himself on national TV. If you are a lawyer and actually watch this show (lawyer claims he does, I don't believe him), don't go either People's Court or Judge Judy, it probably will not go well. 4 Link to comment
SRTouch May 18, 2018 Share May 18, 2018 (edited) started out with recap - then realized I have lunch appointment - finished later and appearing a few posts down yesterday was all about warranties, today starts out with family drama case?? that I zip through.... 2nd case - friend towed my BMW.... 3rd case - deadbeat rented a room in lady's place exes fighting over tax check: yesterday all about warranties, today starts with family drama. These two plus plus size litigants have been married for 10 years (separated for 2 1/2) and are in court battling over their last jointly filed taxes - not sure why plaintiff filed a small claims suit instead of settling this through divorce court. My take after just the preview and intro.... P abusive during marriage - when MM asks if he hit wifey as wife claims, his reaction seems off, sort of a fake "who me? I would NEVER..." Defendant is wife, who booted him from the family home after he bopped her one too many times - oh and seems she had recently inherited some money, which may have given her a boost in confidence. Seems back in 2015, year they split, they filed income taxes jointly and got a big refund, which she kept. He's here claiming half ($4,000) the refund - she says the big refund was result of her inheritance, and he doesn't deserve a cut... like I said, should be settled with divorce court. Not should why they're still married, but as long as they are in figure their finances are co-mingled.... when testimony starts Dude seems a bit slow, lots of hmmmm and looking up to think while he's talking - just not very believable... cut over to wife and she looks pleased with his performance (which, BTW, not exactly how I would expect a abused woman to act - but maybe after a couple years she's rediscovered her mojo.) As case going along I really wonder why they're not in divorce court. Seems they have 2 children together, are legally separated and have pretty strict visitation schedule set up for him to see the children... so I'm guessing they'really not exactly strangers to family court. Ah, soon as I think that, MM asks and is told the divorce is pending..... ok, this case is just legal tactic in the pending family court case and at 4 minute mark I'm ready to send them on their way. Some folks like MM playing family counselor, but I hit FF. When I stop for hallterview I find case has been tossed, wifey telling Doug hubby is looney and been to multiple psych evals etc. Hubby's hallterview - my doesn't he look pitiful, almost teary eyed as he moans about hoping to see the kids more... silly car tow case: plaintiff another of those litigants with an old junker with a fancy nameplate. Seems he has this 2003 BMW something or other. Past two years thing has had electrical problems, so has been sitting in lot at friend's "dormant" hotel. Ah, but his friend actually hotel property caretaker/manager died, and owner got tired of junker on his property, so he had it towed. Now P is here looking for the value of the old, non running clunker - he says $2,500. Ah, funny thing is his choice of defendant. He's not here suing the owner who had the car towed - he's suing the tow company who was hired to tow several illegally stored vehicles off the lot, which included P's. Case pretty well summed up in intro... defendants only did what they were hired to do, followed the applicable laws, even notifying, by certified mail, P they where his car was and setting a time limit to reclaim it before they started process of claiming title as an abandoned car - well, if they have the evidence, P is circling the drain (and both defendants came with folders/papers, so I'm betting they DO have the evidence.) So, no riveting legal case - but maybe litigants will be entertaining..... ah, need to stop for now.... more further downstream Edited May 19, 2018 by SRTouch 1 Link to comment
AngelaHunter May 18, 2018 Share May 18, 2018 (edited) 3 hours ago, SRTouch said: silly car tow case: I didn't see the first case which was interrupted for a regularly scheduled high school shooting. JFC. Like, WTH??? Tow case? We got a 2-in-1: The usual idiot who parks illegally and thinks he has the perfect right to do so, but he's also a dumbass lawyer(I love those!). I guess he's not the most successful lawyer since the car he dumped and left for two years is a broken-down, 15-year old junkpile, full of crap and serves as a home to mice. JM asks him repeatedly what he did to get his car out of that lot after the caretaker, who apparently gave him permission to leave his wreck there, died. He answered multiple times but the answer was always the same: He phoned and phoned, trying to find someone connected with the hotel who could give him permission to leave the wreck there til the end of time. He couldn't get hold of anyone, so what was he supposed to do with his car? He just left it there. Of course he never ever got a tow truck and hauled the POS shit away but is suing the tow company who got it out of there. Instead of being grateful to them for not continuing to rack up storage fees, he sues them. As always when I see the caliber of lawyers who appear on these court shows I really hope I never need legal services. This wee little moron took the cake in the "Stupid and Incompetent Lawyer" category. Doug in the hall tells plaintiff (paraphrased) "Boy, the judge really ripped you a new one, didn't she?" Then we had plaintiff suing oily little def for not paying rent. She puts an ad on CL to find a total stranger to move in with her. Who here would ever do that? He can't pay his share in Dec because he didn't get some money he was expecting. Not his fault, so he should live for free. He didn't pay in Jan because some girl at the pharmacy or the restaurant told him he paying too much. He didn't think he should pay his share of the utilities because he never EVER used the kitchen. Turns out he actually was overpaying. He also took a video of plaintiff and the other roommate opening his bedroom door. Plaintiff was wearing only a towel. Whatever. Too much arithmatic in this ep for me, but I think if I invited a strange guy to live with me in my house I'd be glad if the worst thing he did was to not his pay rent. I guess she trusted him. She must be a very trusting person. Maybe she has a big heart too. Edited May 18, 2018 by AngelaHunter 3 Link to comment
Florinaldo May 18, 2018 Share May 18, 2018 4 hours ago, DoctorK said: Entertaining because we get to watch (once again) an actual lawyer represent himself and make a complete fool of himself on national TV. There was another example of this today on Hot Bench with a lawyer suing over rent and security; she quoted several statutes but was obviously out of her depth. I think both of them have a good case though; against their respective law schools who let them graduate with so little obvious skills in law. And perhaps also against their bar association for accepting them into their ranks, thus raising false expectations in them and causing them untold levels of emotional distress when reality caught up with them. 3 Link to comment
DoctorK May 18, 2018 Share May 18, 2018 1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said: He also took a video of plaintiff and the other roommate opening his bedroom door Note that not only was the plaintiff banging loudly on his door in a towel and the other room mate was a hulking giant, it was also at 12:56 AM! That's a bad way to explore "stand your ground" laws. 2 Link to comment
meowmommy May 18, 2018 Share May 18, 2018 2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: I didn't see the first case which was interrupted for a regularly scheduled high school shooting. JFC. Like, WTH??? I know, right? No words. First case was bizarre. None of the testimony made sense, and the bottom line is that MM can't rule because it's all part of the divorce case, but no, we have to listen to MM playing social worker for 20+ minutes. 2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: Doug in the hall tells plaintiff (paraphrased) "Boy, the judge really ripped you a new one, didn't she?" It had to be because he was a lawyer. The last idiot who parked illegally got tongue-bathed by MM plus punitive damages. But what was the discussion over the value of the car, if (pre-weight loss) Drew Carey defendant now owns the car and he's just planning to scrap it? 2 Link to comment
SRTouch May 19, 2018 Share May 19, 2018 (edited) Continuation/completion of today's recap - starting with 2nd case (copy of earlier part in intalics) silly tow case: ??? plaintiff another of those litigants with old junker with a fancy nameplate. Seems he has this 2003 BMW something or other. Past two years thing has had electrical problems, so he's been parking it at friend's "dormant" hotel. Ah, but his friend died and real owner got tired of dude storing the junker on his property, so he had it towed. Now P is here looking for the value of the old, non running clunker - he says $2,500. Ah, funny thing is his choice of defendant. He's not here suing the property owner who had the car towed - he's suing the tow company hired to tow several illegally stored vehicles off the lot, which included P's. Case pretty well summed up in intro... defendants only did what they were hired to do, followed the applicable laws, even notifying P, by certified mail, where his car was and setting a time limit to reclaim it before they started process of claiming title as an abandoned car - well, if they have the evidence, P is circling the drain (and both defendants came with folders/papers, so I'm betting they DO have the evidence.) So, no riveting legal case - but maybe litigants will be entertaining..... continued: ok, case lame, but always fun when lawyers come on and show such ineptitude - with bonus points as this particular inept lawyer brought a few of his besties to see him bomb on national tv -- oh, and a few misc bonus points for not grossing me out like car salesman/lawyer with 3 black toothies. Really deserves points for his pictures that he opens his well rehearsed case.... but why show pictures of signs warning parking is for hotel only and anyone else will be towed. Oh, his defense is that hotel caretaker, his good friend Tony, gave him permission to park there. Problem is good Ole Tony has passed on.... hmmmm, what should we call that testimony - is it still inadmissible as hearsay if the witness is dead and gone? Heck, even if Tony was here, he's obviously no longer the guy in charge and his Ok wouldn't let dude ignore the posted signs. So, lawyer plaintiff dude, guy with the 15yo inoperable junk heap, says he makes multiple attempts to contact the owner or new caretaker/property manager. MM points out parking signs he so helpfully provided pictures of have the number for the Defendant's company since he has the towing contract - oh, and D says he also has the tow contract for the neighboring business, a busy laundromat, and that business has same owner as the closed down hotel.... so, how much of an effort did our lawyer make. Next 10 minutes is more of the same nonsense. One of those cases where litigant is either a moron or just doesn't care how foolish he appears, he wants to be on tv. He tells us he's a lawyer, he's also a fan, so MM rants a little, but case going downhill fast as it's getting old and still time on the clock. It's past time to talk to defendant - so far he's only said a couple sentences, and only reason I'm still watching is to see if he's actually brought evidence in his folder. Too much time spent with silly P. Not sure I agree with the judgement. What MM ends up doing is giving P credit for low bluebook against the $2,800 in storage fees in Def's countersuit. But is the KBB figure ($2,000) she's using for a rodent infested vehicle which hasn't moved under it's own power for 2 years. I think she's being overly generous... OTOH, maybe she's just thrilled to have someone speaking proper English she's letting him slide... especially as D really never expected to get any of that storage bill and probably appreciates getting the $800. latest example of renting a room to CL stranger: ?? plaintiff comes in, and I'm thinking her 50-60's retro look is spoiled with those shoes - she really should be wearing heels to complete the look. Ah, but the pink frame glasses and headband matching the dress go great with suitcase handbag, necklace and big belt buckle. Case simple... same old story - she puts an ad onetwork CL and then let's strange dude move into a spare room to share expenses. @AngelaHunter has already hit the high points... I'll just say I had some laughs with this one. D tries to excuse not paying his share of rent/utilities because, weeks and months after moving in, girl in pharmacy down the street told him he was paying to much. Actually, turns out he might had a point - even as silly as it sounded to me at first. Seems the point he's trying to make is neighbor girl told him P is collecting too much rent because apartment in rent stabilized. P says no, when he brought that to her attention she checked with landlord she was assured place was NOT rent stabilized. Ok, that's the key for MM, if there is rent control they were all being overcharged - if not he has to pay what he agreed to when he moved in.... either way he owes money, as he freely admits he didn't bother to pay anything for two months. Ok, recess time.... Guess what, neighborhood pharmacy girl gave him the right scoop... thing is I totally believe P that it was HER landlord that was ripping off all three roomies by charging too much. Problem is deadbeat D only has to pay what is legal - if P wants the overage back she needs to go after her Landlord - not exactly fair to P, says MM, but that's the law. MM needs the calculator for this one, as everybody's math is off due to her landlord ripping them off. Oh, and the security deposit is still up in the air, as shifty landlord is taking every minute law allows before returning anything and there's still sand in that hourglass.... final amount deferred until MM finds out what/if any landlord keeps from the deposit. For today, P collects a little under $800. ? I watched Harvey hoping to find out something about the final total.... nothing, we don't know if they get any of the deposit back or if P ever gets anything back from landlord after he collected too much rent. Edited May 19, 2018 by SRTouch 3 Link to comment
SRTouch May 19, 2018 Share May 19, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, meowmommy said: First case was bizarre. None of the testimony made sense, and the bottom line is that MM can't rule because it's all part of the divorce case, but no, we have to listen to MM playing social worker for 20+ minutes. Yes, wasted time I think could have been used in 2nd case Quote It had to be because he was a lawyer. The last idiot who parked illegally got tongue-bathed by MM plus punitive damages. But what was the discussion over the value of the car, if (pre-weight loss) Drew Carey defendant now owns the car and he's just planning to scrap it? That's where I think all the family counseling time should have gone... I view lawyer dude's junk heap as abandoned and belonging to tow company after they followed applicable laws to get title transfered. So, giving P a cent credit towards the storage/towing/impound was a penny too much. If she had to give him any credit (I certainly wouldn't give him anything), I sort of get why she gave the low KBB value. Maybe, with more time, D might have whipped out pictures of rodent infested vehicle and proved it was a junker.... but there was no time left, so no evidence showing condition of car. Edited May 19, 2018 by SRTouch 3 Link to comment
AngelaHunter May 19, 2018 Share May 19, 2018 34 minutes ago, SRTouch said: What MM ends up doing is giving P credit for low bluebook against the $2,800 in storage fees in Def's countersuit. Okay, I didn't understand why she gave him credit for an inoperable junk car that was illegally parked, immovable for years and then abandoned at the tow yard. Can anyone explain? 2 hours ago, DoctorK said: Note that not only was the plaintiff banging loudly on his door in a towel and the other room mate was a hulking giant, it was also at 12:56 AM! Heh! I wouldn't want to wake up and see those two standing in my doorway. It's the stuff of nightmares, but of course - unlike that annoying little shit def. - I wouldn't set up housekeeping with complete strangers either. Do people feel that CL ads offer some unwritten warranty that anyone you hook up with there is beyond reproach? It's as if I were to stand on a street corner and stop random people to ask them if they want to come and live with me. Are they sex offenders, drug dealers, scammers or worse? Do they make a career of renting rooms and never pay rent? Who knows? Come stay with me. I'm sure it will be fine. 1 4 Link to comment
SRTouch May 19, 2018 Share May 19, 2018 2 hours ago, DoctorK said: Note that not only was the plaintiff banging loudly on his door in a towel and the other room mate was a hulking giant, it was also at 12:56 AM! That's a bad way to explore "stand your ground" laws. Ok, something I'd have changed shortly after moving in if I had been the defendant... dude moving in with a couple strangers he found on CL.... no locks on bedroom door or anyway to secure my property in my room... dude, instead of complaining about roommates not respecting your space and and setting computer your to take video when door opens, how about stopping at Home Depot and buying a frickin' door handle with a lock. Heck, I don't consider myself paranoid or anything, but.... just wow... a screwdriver and less time than you spent setting up the camera and you'd have no worries.... well, except half nekked roomies banging on door at 1am 2 Link to comment
aemom May 19, 2018 Share May 19, 2018 I loved MM throwing the book and punitive damages at the car dealer that tried to pull the fast one on the $3000 warranty. Who buys a $3000 warranty anyway? For the appliance case, I had a lot of Chinese teachers in college and university, so I was lucky and understood her without a problem. Her witness said that she went and bought another used dryer somewhere else and that was the dryer he helped switch out. Was he telling the truth? Who knows. Settlement was fair. For the scooter case, that guy was lucky that the scooter salesman was so honest, the complete opposite of the parasite in the first case. For Friday's show, I also missed the first case which was preempted by yet another school shooting. I cannot believe how many of these happen in the US. It's very sad. We have a lot of clueless litigants that just don't get it, but I couldn't believe that the guy who had his car towed from the hotel parking lot was a lawyer. He must be the worst lawyer in town and should have been better dressed for court. MM gave him the lowest Kelly blue book value for his car, which I guess is what he was entitled to since the car now belongs to the tow people. I enjoyed Miss Retro Polkadot who answered "of course," when MM asked to see proof of her claims and was well spoken. I am sure that she will go after the landlord about the rent stabilized thing. Glad she got what she deserved. 3 Link to comment
meowmommy May 19, 2018 Share May 19, 2018 2 hours ago, AEMom said: MM gave him the lowest Kelly blue book value for his car, which I guess is what he was entitled to since the car now belongs to the tow people. Wish MM had offered to let him take his oh-so-valuable Mercedes back from the impound lot. I still don't get, since the tow people legally took title and didn't actually want the car, why MM made them deduct KBB value from the daily impound charges. 6 Link to comment
Katy M May 19, 2018 Share May 19, 2018 8 hours ago, meowmommy said: Wish MM had offered to let him take his oh-so-valuable Mercedes back from the impound lot. I still don't get, since the tow people legally took title and didn't actually want the car, why MM made them deduct KBB value from the daily impound charges. Because they no wown it. Doesn't matter if they want it or not. It's like if you're house gets foreclosed. If they sell if for more than what you owe, you get the difference. Even though, they legally took it, they still owe you what equity you have in it. 1 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.