AngelaHunter June 8, 2018 Share June 8, 2018 13 hours ago, meowmommy said: Dressed up like a Navy captain, wearing the rank of a Navy lieutenant, and plenty of scrambled eggs on his hat, but no naval insignia. An U-ber boat captain, ah. U-ber boat. omfg!! Hahaha! I have no clue about boats, insignias, ranks, etc, but that is very interesting. Since I couldn't understand mouthy def, I couldn't figure out what kind of captain he was supposed to be. From the little I got, def was going to lease out pleasure craft, and this character would be clients' captain? Or something like that. 12 hours ago, AEMom said: She was a snob, but she had a right to be pissed about being sued and got hurt in the accident, so I have no problem with MM giving her $500. I had no problem with that either. In fact, I wish she HAD brought some medical records and been awarded more, just to punish the outrageous behavior and lying of the plaintiff. 2 Link to comment
aemom June 8, 2018 Share June 8, 2018 7 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said: I had no problem with that either. In fact, I wish she HAD brought some medical records and been awarded more, just to punish the outrageous behavior and lying of the plaintiff. Agreed. 14 hours ago, meowmommy said: It was so hard to listen to the family talking about the loss of their dog. Damn the camera operator for zooming in on the poor daughter's face as she told her story. But then the plaintiff father goes on about the defendant as if the defendant planned for the dog attack, and that just wasn't fair. Hallclown really mischaracterized the attitude of the defendant in the intro. It was a terrible situation, but the defendant was remorseful. I didn't understand this, either. I don't remember hearing in any of the earlier dog attack cases anywhere where the liability is capped at the value of the pet. I could not look at the dog pictures. My cat Tommy was my life, too and my best friend. You guys have to make sure I don't watch any more dog bite cases. I was also surprised that the amount was capped. I'm wondering if that was because the dog died? In most of these cases, the dog survives, but in this case, the dog passed away. Dogs are considered property and the case now becomes assessing how much the lost property was worth. So how much is a 13 year-old beagle worth? The answer is, less than $1800. The situation was awful, the 15 year-old daughter opened the door and the dog bolted out and ate the other dog. We have seen case after case where the defendants try to weasel out of responsibility, but this guy was nothing but apologetic. The plaintiffs were kind of aggressive assholes pounding on doors late at night and complaining about how he got the money he did pay them. Yes, you are upset, and rightly so, but still, we are supposed to be living in a civilized society and when you treat someone with politeness, that goes a long way. Nobody won in this case. When I was a teenager, I also had a cat that was badly injured - but no idea what happened. We spent close to $1000 that we could not afford and when he wasn't getting better, had to pull the plug on this treatment. A similar thing happened again to my next kitty when I was a young woman at my first job. It was so awful living through those times, that I never got a pet again. It sucks, but sometimes bad things happen to our pets and you just have to live through it. I can't live through that again, so I am now pet free, but never miss an opportunity to cuddle someone else's kitty. What was that military uniform supposed to represent? Dressed up like a Navy captain, wearing the rank of a Navy lieutenant, and plenty of scrambled eggs on his hat, but no naval insignia. An U-ber boat captain, ah. Probably there to make MM swoon at the sight of a uniform. Both MM and I might swoon at the sight of a uniform, but you'd frankly have to put a different guy in that uniform for swooning to happen. ;-) That place was so disgusting. I have seen a place that disgusting before and wondered how can you live like that? The answer is, that they just don't care, and probably don't even see it anymore. *shivers* 3 Link to comment
Brattinella June 8, 2018 Share June 8, 2018 49 minutes ago, AEMom said: I also had a cat that was badly injured - but no idea what happened. I know what you mean. My cats have always lived to ripe old ages (18-20 yrs) after I starting keeping them inside 24/7. It used to make me feel bad when they whined about going outside, like I was denying them their right to the great outdoors. It really doesn't take any time to have them be happy indoors. They have great perches to look out, we feed the birds right next to the house so they get a show every day. I do hope you can eventually get another cat! 5 Link to comment
AlleC17 June 8, 2018 Share June 8, 2018 (edited) On 6/6/2018 at 2:24 PM, Pepper the Cat said: The person I bought my condo from was just about to lose it to the bank. I got my place below market value because of that. It was priced to sell quickly. My lucky dat. But did it have stainless steel appliances, white kitchen cabinets and double sinks in the master bath? Sorry, House Hunter addict here! Good for you on getting a good deal! Count me in as another who didn't get why the vet bills were capped to the value of the pet. The dog was out of the control of his owners and ultimately killed the beagle. So, so sad. The defendants at least were not assholes, denying their responsibility at least. I hate cases involving animals. Please, show STOP. Edited June 8, 2018 by AlleC17 3 Link to comment
AngelaHunter June 8, 2018 Share June 8, 2018 Interesting today to see someone displaying the results of "military training." Apparently, that training includes freaking out and going into a blind rage if someone passes him or cuts him off on the highway (unlike most of us, who might curse and then forget about it) following the guy, blocking his car in at a parking lot and getting out to go confront him - I mean, to calmly inquire of this person his motivation for the incident, ask him what's going on and discuss the ramifications of the whole thing. JM buys it - not. The "Macho" garbage is strong in this one. Then plaintiff was so worked up - maybe because he didn't get the heart-to-heart talk he truly wanted - that he goes haywire and runs over a curb, further damaging his car, for which he also wants def. to pay. Video shows plaintiff on the verge of running down def, but even if it's on video it never happened. Plaintiff was merely trying to steer around def, so as not to harm a hair on his head. The fact that he stood there, turned to def. and gave him the "Stare of Death" to the point where JM had to scream at him didn't really help his case. I don't know how much of def's story was true - he was kind of mealy-mouthed - but we know for sure he punched plaintiff's car (possibly after plaintiff tried to run over him) and lying about it made him look bad. Whatever. Plaintiff's behavior was so outrageous he gets nothing for his damage. The military will be so proud of one of their own, so maturely and professionally defusing a situation! Then we have plaintiff who is a flight attendant and "Bi-Coastal" . JM asks for clarification. I too, didn't know if this was a mental condition or some new orientation I hadn't yet heard of, but it just means she lived on both sides of the country until she got married and wanted to live permanently in CA. She asks def, - who she had taken in when her boyfriend beat her up - to keep an eye on her stuff or pay the fee monthly on the furniture plaintiff had put in storage. The two lose contact, but def. ends up paying a bill of over 800$ on plaintiff's stuff. Why did she do that, since she said she thought the stuff was "abanded"? She replies nonchalantly that she thought she'd sell plaintiff's stuff and make a profit on it. Nasty little reptilian person is Shakira. Other than that, I'm wondering why this entity called "HRA" would be paying for plaintiff's storage, when she has a good job. What's the deal with that? Then we have again a judgement I didn't understand. Plaintiff puts down 1500$ to buy def's car. He takes it off the market. She goes home and in a few days figures out she can't afford it so wants her money back. He says if he sells the car, he'll give her back 1000$, which he has zero duty to do. Not his fault if she's clueless and doesn't bother checking her facts. She doesn't want to wait, so sues him. Anyway, JM awards her the 1000$ because he promised it to her. Now, I know I've heard her say many times that a promise is NOT a contract and the person who promises something is free to change his/her mind and I don't recall her awarding judgements on the basis of retracted promises before. Not sure what's right now. 7 hours ago, AEMom said: I was also surprised that the amount was capped. I'm wondering if that was because the dog died? The only time I recall seeing the amount capped at the value of the animal is if the animal died never seeing a vet, i.e. a cat killed by a dog, or a dog run over by a car. Always vet bills were awarded if defs were at fault. Even if the dog died, the owners still have to pay the bill and none of this was in any way their faults. 4 Link to comment
aemom June 8, 2018 Share June 8, 2018 (edited) 59 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said: Interesting today to see someone displaying the results of "military training." Apparently, that training includes freaking out and going into a blind rage if someone passes him or cuts him off on the highway (unlike most of us, who might curse and then forget about it) following the guy, blocking his car in at a parking lot and getting out to go confront him - I mean, to calmly inquire of this person his motivation for the incident, ask him what's going on and discuss the ramifications of the whole thing. JM buys it - not. The "Macho" garbage is strong in this one. Then plaintiff was so worked up - maybe because he didn't get the heart-to-heart talk he truly wanted - that he goes haywire and runs over a curb, further damaging his car, for which he also wants def. to pay. Video shows plaintiff on the verge of running down def, but even if it's on video it never happened. Plaintiff was merely trying to steer around def, so as not to harm a hair on his head. The fact that he stood there, turned to def. and gave him the "Stare of Death" to the point where JM had to scream at him didn't really help his case. I don't know how much of def's story was true - he was kind of mealy-mouthed - but we know for sure he punched plaintiff's car (possibly after plaintiff tried to run over him) and lying about it made him look bad. Whatever. Plaintiff's behavior was so outrageous he gets nothing for his damage. The military will be so proud of one of their own, so maturely and professionally defusing a situation! The plaintiff was a lunatic and he's lucky that he didn't get shot and/or beaten. I would never even honk my horn if I was driving down in the US because of all the guns, never mind block someone and berate them! I believe the defendant when he said that he had no idea that he had cut off the plaintiff and I would have taken a photo of his license plate too for the same reasons he stated. Did he punch the guy's car? Yeah, I think he did. I also think that the case was settled fairly. 59 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said: Then we have plaintiff who is a flight attendant and "Bi-Coastal" . JM asks for clarification. I too, didn't know if this was a mental condition or some new orientation I hadn't yet heard of, but it just means she lived on both sides of the country until she got married and wanted to live permanently in CA. She asks def, - who she had taken in when her boyfriend beat her up - to keep an eye on her stuff or pay the fee monthly on the furniture plaintiff had put in storage. The two lose contact, but def. ends up paying a bill of over 800$ on plaintiff's stuff. Why did she do that, since she said she thought the stuff was "abanded"? She replies nonchalantly that she thought she'd sell plaintiff's stuff and make a profit on it. Nasty little reptilian person is Shakira. Other than that, I'm wondering why this entity called "HRA" would be paying for plaintiff's storage, when she has a good job. What's the deal with that? I looked up HRA: The New York City Human Resources Administration/Department of Social Services (HRA/DSS) is dedicated to fighting poverty and income inequality by providing New Yorkers in need with essential benefits such as Food Assistance and Emergency Rental Assistance. Indeed - why does an employed flight attendant need these services? Gosh - is there just a lot of free government money out there that I'm just stupidly not taking advantage of? 59 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said: Then we have again a judgement I didn't understand. Plaintiff puts down 1500$ to buy def's car. He takes it off the market. She goes home and in a few days figures out she can't afford it so wants her money back. He says if he sells the car, he'll give her back 1000$, which he has zero duty to do. Not his fault if she's clueless and doesn't bother checking her facts. She doesn't want to wait, so sues him. Anyway, JM awards her the 1000$ because he promised it to her. Now, I know I've heard her say many times that a promise is NOT a contract and the person who promises something is free to change his/her mind and I don't recall her awarding judgements on the basis of retracted promises before. Not sure what's right now. I wondered about that promise business too. We have seen people who promised to pay an amount and then weren't held to it on TPC. At any rate, she was lucky to get anything back and admitted that she learned something, he was nice to offer it back, and end of a short case. Edited June 8, 2018 by AEMom Transposition 4 Link to comment
SRTouch June 8, 2018 Share June 8, 2018 (edited) @AngelaHunter beat me to the punch today as I'm late getting started - oh well, 2 recaps are better than none ?. I was up and at it early. Mowed the lawn, then noticed a strange smell in the pantry.... investigated, oh the horror, found the freezer door open. Not sure how long, but long enough for everything to thaw and start to smell.... didn't take any chances, everything out in the garbage - luckily (if anything about this is lucky) today is trash day so the smell won't linger. Oh well, guess a trip to SAM's this afternoon... ?? couple jerks in road rage incident - ends with MM telling both to wise up and neither learning anything... ???? Interesting, unusual case and runs long with resolution put off til followup by Shorty - think real loser is NYC taxpayer, but not really sure who paid what.... ?? entertaining short case where nice guy defendant is stuck honoring an offer to return a portion of a nonrefundable deposit road rage case: talk about not taking responsibility for your own actions... in intro P says the D cut him off, so P chased him into a parking lit, tried to box D in, D gets away and P gives chase, ended up with D running over a curb and causing a thousand dollars of damage to his car... oh, and in intro P says it's D that has anger problems! Dude, count yourself lucky all D did was punch a car door, you're big enough, and were probably angry enough, that he thought you were a threat - and in some places that can get legally you shot and killed. Course, D intro boring by comparison.... nutty P chased him, cornered him in parking lot, he never punched any door, just drove away from nut case. Ok, when testimony starts, well dressed P is soft spoken as he tells his prepared rehearsed story. Ah, not far into his story MM interrupts, uh, so you stopped your car to box him in - forcing D to stop his vehicle? Yep, says P in his soft voice, then I got out and started to take a picture of his license plate. MM has to look over and smile at Douglas. Ah, P says they exchanged a few words, then he got back in his car, and armed with the picture of D's license plate he was going to find a cop to report whatever it was he thought D did - I thought it was just cutting him off, but now he says D ran a traffic light - I really don'the think he even remembers... ah, but now when he's ready to go make his report, D supposedly follows P back to P's car, and now D wants pictures.... hmmm, anyone else having trouble with picture P is painting with his soft voice, quoting what was said, all sounding very civilized - yet, I'm thinking the reality was probably two hot heads yelling, cussing, acting the fools. So, now D is out taking pictures of P's license plate - but he also wants a picture of P, why oh why, asks P, would he want my picture. Anyway, still with P's narration, now it seems they're in a dangerous location with traffic zooming all around, and he's starting to fear for everyone's safety.... huh? Aren't they stopped where P himself stopped to block D from driving away? Now, P says he's driving towards D, who is in front of his car, and P is trying to get away. In his version, D starts running towards his car, and "strategically" looking for best best to punch P's car... which calls for MM to question how D was "strategically" looking for a place to punch, and P goes into pantomime mode to show us ?. Oh boy, now I'm LOL as P explains D must have done this car punching move before and was looking for a soft spot to punch this multi thousand pound vehicle P is trying to drive away in. Uh, assuming every word of this BS P is shoveling is true, in what world would D owe him anything? Ok, still with storytelling P, now while P gets out to examine the crater defendant hulk punched in his car, D hops in his car and attempts to make his getaway. Ah, and what does our retired bank vice president and ex military officer, plaintiff do, next? - did he call the police to report D, asks MM? After all, from his narrative all he wanted to do was stop D and get a picture for his report. But, noooo, instead P hops in his car and gives chase.... you can only hope when P watches this he'll realise what a fool he sounds like (but I doubt it, he's probably going to tell Doug the Judge just wouldn't let him tell his story! Ah, well, it is what it is!) Oh boy, and when MM asks WTH were you thinking? P starts to answer, well with my military training.... wow, dude said he was an officer (no rank mentioned), hope he had good NCOs to run the section/unit. After commercial break idiot P tells us that, while giving chase, he almost rams another car, swerves to avoid that car, jumps a curb, ruining his tire and rim, wrecking and having to be treated for a concussion. Oh, of course that's all D's fault, too. Ah, but MM not only isn't buying that BS, but goes so far as to say his wreck serves him right for being such an idiot A$$hole (well, I may have changed the language a bit - but that's my translation.) Anyway, case is over, no way I'd award this fool any money for that yarn.... well, except maybe, D, who has yet to say anything, sounds like just as big an ass and needs to share the pain. So, now time for MM to let the other side talk. Ok, yeah, listening to D I think he's probably another rolling traffic hazard who thinks he's a great driver. Seems he swerved around a big truck and cut into the parking lot - never saw P car, but yeah I'm betting probably cut him off, and he probably regularly leaves other drivers with their finger in the air. Oh well, time for MM to rant about the idiocy of stopping and approaching a stranger in a road rage incident.... ok, last commercial break before rough justice time, and D is doing his level best to convince us he IS just as big a loony tune and deserves a spanking. Ah, just as MM is about to jump all over D, she catches P squaring off and glaring at D, so she unloads on P instead. Ah, maybe D isn't quite the jerk I first thought - or at least he's better at spin control. Don'cha just love how he squeezes in how he went to PR to help with hurricaine relief? Anyway, what gets him out of having to share the pain (turns out P isn't trying to stick him with anything from the car chase wreck - he's just suing over the punched door damage)? See, going way back to P's narrative about how he drives away as D is in front of car taking his picture.... well, that's what was going on, and instead of P's version of a mad charge looking for the best strategic place to punch his car we see video, from Defendant's perspective, of car accelerating toward him. Case dismissed... as expected, P says MM flubbed and missed key evidence. At least Defendant says he learned something.... next time he says he'll stay in his car - but I'm guessing he'll see more than his share of 1 finger salutes. Storage war: P claims D helped her out by helping P store her stuff while P spent some time in California. Thing is, D helped by renting a storage space in her own name, and now that P is back D is refused to let P get her stuff (supposedly worth 7 grand) unless P paid $1500 in ransom. Listening to D intro, seems storage unit rent wasn't being paid, and D says she stepped in and paid the bill when she learned unit was about to be auctioned off. She has a countersuit for amount she spent on rent... oh, and ransom has gone up to $2100.... maybe she's still paying the monthly bill. Once testimony starts we learn P was flight attendant splitting time between NY and her bf's place in California. When her lease was up, good friend D arranged for her stuff to be stored - but since D was making all the arrangements storage unit was in her name... with P supposed to transfer contract into her own name at some later date - but tomorrow never came, and apparently nobody was paying the monthly bill. Hmmmm, really? Did P really just say she couldn't find a way to contact her friend - the one she let store 7 grand worth of stuff - when it was time to transfer the unit contract? I thought I heard the contract was to be changed in a month or two - how long was stuff in storage before D fell down a hole? If I'm hearing correctly, stuff went to storage in July under Defendant's name, with P listed as authorized user - P says she paid the rent first couple months, but come October her access was being denied (says she was paying online from California). Nah, says Defendant, actually it was D who didn't have success to enter to the unit, since only one with the lock combo was P. Defendant says she couldn't get in unit until storage place cut the lock in preparation to auction the unit after two months of rent nonpayment. Once D heard unit was going to be auctioned off, she paid the back rent and late charges. Ah, but she admits she made no effort to contact the P - nah, she figured maybe she could profit off the stuff... that bit impresses MM, where D freely admits she was willing to try to profit off the stuff instead of trying to contact to he owner. Oh, and at that point the bill D paid was $818 for 2 months back rent and whatever for late fees... how exactly does the mercenary D justify asking first $1500 and now $2100? Hmmm, both these litigants seem to be making up this story on the fly.... MM can't makes sense of their "evidence" and wants to talk to the storage unit people. P says sure, she's called so many times she's on first name basis with good old Kalif, the manager. Ah, but when she calls - just listening to her side of the conversation, seems Kalif isn't around, so we get to hear MM talk to the assistant manager, Greg. Oh dear, Greg isn't helping def much.... her evidence show payments being made, but account not being credited.... ah, says helpful Greg, those payments were voided because they were made with bad checks... uh oh, if this was later in the day the old lady would be talking about pissin' on her leg and calling it rain. Ok, a couple times now MM has offered def suggestions about how she could prove her defense by getting something off her phone, and defendant makes zero attempt to pull out her phone and act like she's doing anything. OTOH, P is positively eager and Johnny on the spot, whipping out her phone to call. Seems like only payment D made that we can confirm was that original $818 - which storage place demanded be made with cash... not looking good, D. Oh, and even me, having never been anywhere close to being in NYC, guessed right off the bat that HRA was Human Resources in the big City, while this New Yorker, D, acted like she had never heard of it. Seems in her filing paper, P said it was HRA making the monthly payments, not defendant.... and Asst Manager Greg is quick to say, yeah account was being paid by HRA. Thanks, to Greg last little bit of defendant's defense is blown away.... oh no, think MM is upset with defendant and her mercenary ways and lies... she decides to take this case into overtime so she can heap some more shame on Miss Rahh. Sooo, instead of rough justice time, we take a recess to let D get her bank statements. After we get back from several commercials recess, we find D has been in touch with her bank and was unable to produce any evidence of the payments she says came out of her account. Ah, now I wonder if maybe there IS evidence MM knows about and D just can't access, because instead of ruling MM gives defendant an extra week to produce the evidence. I just want to know whether the show production folks can make sure any money paid on bi-coastal flight attendant's account is going back to the taxpayer rather than into her pocket. Oh, and part of the delay in the ruling may be because MM wants to make sure P gets access to her stuff in the storage unit, and both litigants need to go there, with ID, to sign over control of the unit. Soooo.... cliffhanger with no resolution today..... ah for those wishing to avoid Harvey followup... P got her stuff, Def WAS ABLE to prove she paid SOMETHING, so get $490 of the 2 grand she wanted.... still no answer to my question.... how much was the taxpayer stuck with? Who else wonders if Miss Rahh has a job, or did the taxpayers give her that $490 that she gave the storage place before just sending the check directly to the storage company. smart car: this will have to be quick after long 2nd case.... oh, and I did a quickly google to learn smart cars are those little bitty 2 passenger cars that get like 50mpg - yep, when case starts MM shows a picture.... plaintiff put down a deposit on a smart car, backed out of deal when she checked on insurance, wants deposit back. According to intro, cops told her defendant was committing grand larceny because he has car and the deposit... does that mean all those litigants who won and kept the deposit were slapped in cuffs when they got back to their local jurisdiction. Ah, ok isn't your normal small percentage good faith money deposit. Dude ends up selling his used smart car for 2 grand and she put down $1500.... hmmmm yeah, not normal deposit - sound like dude was "unjustly enriched." Ok, dude says when she backed out he told her he'd be willing to return the deposit when it sold - but it took months to actually sell, and at a reduced price from what she had agreed to - and we end up here because he actually refunded zero. P tries to squirm out of the default non refundable deposit rule by pointing out her receipt doesn't say it's nonrefundable - to which MM replies, does it say it IS refundable? Soooo can dude keep all of this nonrefundable deposit when she paid 75% of the selling price? Dude says he offered to return $1,000 of the $1500, but she wouldn't agree. Hmmmm, will this be one of those cases where the judge forces the settlement offer even though it was turned down at the time. Technically deposit was nonrefundable, and P whining "it was only two days" should mean she doesn't get the deposit... but we still have the unjustly enriched deal. Ok, lecture on what a nonrefundable deposit means, what the default position means, etc.... oh, and it turns out it's not like dude reneged on his offer to return $1000 when he sold the thing, she had already sued before he sold it. Yep, again with MM ordering him to follow through with his original settlement offer.... I tell ya, never offer to negotiate a settlement and go on TPC, because if you admit to making an offer MM isn't going to let you back out. Edited June 8, 2018 by SRTouch 5 Link to comment
SRTouch June 8, 2018 Share June 8, 2018 12 minutes ago, AEMom said: Indeed - why does an employed flight attendant need these services? Gosh - is there just a lot of free money government out there that I'm just stupidly not taking advantage of? Only thing I can come up with is that mercenary little bespectacled Ms Rahh is getting assistance. Since unit was in her name, the taxpayers of NY got the bill... why the taxpayers should be paying for storage for someone on assistance is a whole other question.... I mean I could see if a person lost their job, lost their housing, etc, and this HRA stepped in, short term, until they get back on their feet or sell the stuff instead of just putting it on the curb - but even then I might have a problem helping foot the bill, depending on how much coffee I had that morning. 4 Link to comment
AngelaHunter June 8, 2018 Share June 8, 2018 31 minutes ago, SRTouch said: , D starts running towards his car, and "strategically" looking for best best to punch P's car... I guess he learned that in his military career. 33 minutes ago, SRTouch said: D, who has yet to say anything, sounds like just as big an ass and needs to share the pain. I noticed he had to get in that he was in Puerto Rico (or maybe Costa Rica? I forget) to help giving aid, as though that means he could never act like an asshole. He's lucky plaintiff was a way bigger asshole, and a dangerous one too. 37 minutes ago, SRTouch said: I tell ya, never offer to negotiate a settlement and go on TPC, because if you admit to making an offer MM isn't going to let you back out. But she never did that before! I'm no lawyer, but I learned from JM that a promise does not a contract make. We've seen and heard that many times. 20 minutes ago, SRTouch said: Only thing I can come up with is that mercenary little bespectacled Ms Rahh is getting assistance. Since unit was in her name, the taxpayers of NY got the bill... I guess that's it, but I'm sure had she sold the plaintiff's stuff "for a profit" she would have definitely reimbursed the unwilling charity donations from the public, right? I guess it really is like one JJ litigant said, "They gi' you free munny." Ask and you shall receive - no questions asked. Why, oh why have I never had the sense to root around in the public trough? Fool am I. 42 minutes ago, SRTouch said: AngelaHunter beat me to the punch today as I'm late getting started But your recaps are so much better! I've forgotten half the nonsense I heard by the time I've drained my last drop of wine and get here. 5 Link to comment
meowmommy June 8, 2018 Share June 8, 2018 The grammar society needs to get after MM. She did it again...imminently when she meant eminently. 47 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said: But your recaps are so much better! I've forgotten half the nonsense I heard by the time I've drained my last drop of wine and get here. Between the two of you, I can just turn off my (sadly, sober) brain, let you do the heavy lifting, and follow along with your handy Cliff Notes. Never watch TPC any more without them. 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: why the taxpayers should be paying for storage for someone on assistance is a whole other question.... I mean I could see if a person lost their job, lost their housing, etc, and this HRA stepped in, short term, until they get back on their feet When DD went homeless, she most assuredly did not get storage, paid for by the taxpayers or otherwise., but then, she wasn't in NY. She shipped what she could to me (at huge expense to me) and the rest, including stuff that really mattered to me, was just gone. These cases just made me feel tired. 3 Link to comment
Bazinga June 9, 2018 Share June 9, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: But she never did that before! I'm no lawyer, but I learned from JM that a promise does not a contract make. We've seen and heard that many times. We had such a decision in yesterday's dog case. The defendant promised to pay the vet bills but wasn't held to said promise. The promise was actually the gist of the plaintiffs' case. That is what they had proof of and what they were arguing about. The dog case now varied in two ways from other decisions. First, as to liability for vet bills, and second as to being held to a settlement promise to pay. Seems the promise only matters if the Judge wants the defendant to pay something anyway, so the decision is hooked to the original promise offer, as the law would not require the defendant to pay in the absence of the earlier promise. Seems wrong to me, in general, to require someone who was not liable to pay, to be locked in by some combination of kindness, ignorance of their not being liable, and/or the pressure of the situation. Seems even more wrong when promises are applied randomly and seemingly arbitrarily - i.e. sometimes a promise is just a promise lacking quid pro quo and other times a promise is binding. Like I wrote yesterday, I would prefer consistency in the reasoning behind decisions. There should be consistency with past rulings and if there is no consistency, then it should be explained why not. Yes, the defendant was getting HRA to pay for the storage, which was probably the real reason why it was put in her name in the first place, and she most likely had to claim some financial hardship/emergency to get such a deal. Too bad it wasn't her stuff and she had no actual need for storage so as to need the government to foot the bill. Edited June 9, 2018 by Bazinga 3 Link to comment
VartanFan June 9, 2018 Share June 9, 2018 5 hours ago, AlleC17 said: Count me in as another who didn't get why the vet bills were capped to the value of the pet. The dog was out of the control of his owners and ultimately killed the beagle. So, so sad. The defendants at least were not assholes, denying their responsibility at least. I hate cases involving animals. Please, show STOP. I’m in the same boat as all of you. Like the poor person who just saw their little dog mauled is supposed to hold up and do a cost-benefit analysis of if their dog is going to die because it determines how much the negligent assholes might have to pay?? Ridiculous. 2 Link to comment
AngelaHunter June 9, 2018 Share June 9, 2018 1 hour ago, VartanFan said: Like the poor person who just saw their little dog mauled is supposed to hold up and do a cost-benefit analysis of if their dog is going to die because it determines how much the negligent assholes might have to pay?? Ugh, yes. He was just sooooo sorry, wasn't he? Words are cheap. If my dog had escaped me and killed another dog, I would pay every cent of that bill, even if only a little at a time and never stop apologizing. He didn't want to pay so I guess he wasn't that sorry after all. To lose a pet in such an awful way is bad enough, but to have to shoulder such a huge bill even though the dog died is insult to injury. To top it off, defs dumped that dog back at the shelter, so again an animal suffers for the behavior of the owner. 1 hour ago, Bazinga said: We had such a decision in yesterday's dog case. True. Two in a row. I remember cases where a promise was given - I think someone promised to split a lottery win with a friend and then didn't. Friend got nothing because winner changed her mind and that promise wasn't a contract. JM has explained at length before why someone can't be held to a promise. I don't know why suddenly she decided they can. I guess the def in the car case who had to return the 1K non-refundable deposit learned to stop being honest. 2 Link to comment
califred June 9, 2018 Share June 9, 2018 My military officer spouse upon hearing the recap of today’s first case was like “We were never taught that, he’s crazy” ... I’ll go with him since it’s been 20 yrs now 2 Link to comment
Guest June 9, 2018 Share June 9, 2018 9 hours ago, califred said: My military officer spouse upon hearing the recap of today’s first case was like “We were never taught that, he’s crazy” ... I’ll go with him since it’s been 20 yrs now Please give him a big hug from PsychoKlown and tell him I said thank you. I really do appreciate his service to our country. And to keep it within guidelines I will add that even JJ doesn't enforce promises. And I hope no one tries because I really am tired of JJ's spiel about the little old lady driving.....and I'm also getting a bit weary of JM shouting like an out of control girlfriend. Loud doesn't make your right. Soft, measured tones are much more threatening. At least I think so. Link to comment
Florinaldo June 9, 2018 Share June 9, 2018 (edited) On 08/06/2018 at 5:49 PM, SRTouch said: Yep, again with MM ordering him to follow through with his original settlement offer.... I tell ya, never offer to negotiate a settlement and go on TPC, because if you admit to making an offer MM isn't going to let you back out. She has done it before and it irritates me each time. In a negotiation or in collective bargaining, if you put an offer on the table and the other party does not take it (often within a given time window) then the offer disappears and you cannot be held to its terms or rely on it later in the process. It's most often part of the stated rules of discussion, but it is good practice to state it formally each time an offer is not accepted. The same principle applies in civil mediation situations; whatever is discussed, proposed and explored during the mediation cannot be brought back before the judge or other judicial instance to argue that the other party should be forced to abide by an offer of settlement that was not accepted. It does not prevent the judge from coming independently to a judgment that coincides with an option one of the parties raised during mediation, but they should not say "you offered it, you are bound by it" as MM does. In this case the guy offered a generous settlement he had not obligation to come up with, but the plaintiff said no and she should then have been held to the principle that a deposit is not refundable; changing her mind once she looked more closely at the numbers is not sufficient justification to reverse that usual practice. Edited June 9, 2018 by Florinaldo 8 Link to comment
Guest June 9, 2018 Share June 9, 2018 On 6/6/2018 at 8:13 PM, meowmommy said: Ha! And they call YOU Psychoklown! You ain't got nuttin' on her. That's true. Not sure I could have pulled off her angst filled soliloquy. Even if I had the script for a month. Link to comment
PrincessPurrsALot June 10, 2018 Share June 10, 2018 On 6/8/2018 at 7:14 PM, AngelaHunter said: Ugh, yes. He was just sooooo sorry, wasn't he? Words are cheap. If my dog had escaped me and killed another dog, I would pay every cent of that bill, even if only a little at a time and never stop apologizing. He didn't want to pay so I guess he wasn't that sorry after all. To lose a pet in such an awful way is bad enough, but to have to shoulder such a huge bill even though the dog died is insult to injury. To top it off, defs dumped that dog back at the shelter, so again an animal suffers for the behavior of the owner. Once, while at the vet, former cat PurrsALot escaped the exam room and attacked a large black lab. I insisted on being the one to separate them so no one else would get hurt, and I paid the dog's vet bills. Wasn't the dog's fault or the owner's fault. I could have blamed the person that opened the door to the exam room while we were still in there, but it was an honest mistake. Then again, I won't be on The People's Court. Of course, if I did, I would be sure to wear a dress that was both too short and too low cut and use a paint gun to apply my makeup. You know, I would want to look nice! 6 Link to comment
SRTouch June 10, 2018 Share June 10, 2018 28 minutes ago, PrincessPurrsALot said: Then again, I won't be on The People's Court. Of course, if I did, I would be sure to wear a dress that was both too short and too low cut and use a paint gun to apply my makeup. You know, I would want to look nice! And a cross.... great big gold cross framed by cleavage over a tatty tat that Doug will have to ask about in the hallterview ? 6 Link to comment
AngelaHunter June 10, 2018 Share June 10, 2018 9 hours ago, PrincessPurrsALot said: I would be sure to wear a dress that was both too short and too low cut and way, WAY too small and use a paint gun to apply my makeup. You know, I would want to look nice! There. More specific. And don't forget the stripper heels. 9 hours ago, SRTouch said: And a cross.... great big gold cross framed by cleavage over a tatty tat And make sure the chain is long enough so the cross doesn't obscure JM's view of your saggy, yet Grand Canyon-esque cleavage. If you have no tat, get a disposable one and have it say something obscene, nonsensical, misspelled or all three. 7 Link to comment
PrincessPurrsALot June 10, 2018 Share June 10, 2018 Thank you, AngelaHunter, for the suggestions. For my tat, I choose "blesed baste". I believe that hits most criteria without being offensive and therefore blurred. I find it important to spread the confusion. 8 Link to comment
AngelaHunter June 10, 2018 Share June 10, 2018 24 minutes ago, PrincessPurrsALot said: For my tat, I choose "blesed baste". Is that an ode to sewing? You might want to consider something inspirational, to show what a good person you are. Just an idea: 4 Link to comment
Guest June 11, 2018 Share June 11, 2018 (edited) Wow. Just wow. I do like a challenge though...... And in keeping with the spirit of the way this thread is going do you remember the time when Doug asked the contestant what her tattoo said and if I recall correctly she was cagey but then said something so out there even he didn't have a response. That's what you want....a speechless Doug. Edited June 11, 2018 by PsychoKlown Link to comment
AngelaHunter June 11, 2018 Share June 11, 2018 (edited) 39 minutes ago, PsychoKlown said: do you remember the time when Doug asked the contestant what her tattoo said and if I recall correctly she was cagey but then said something so out there even he didn't have a response. Was that the woman in the criminal biker gang pleasant motorcyle club whose tat said something about war? I didn't watch the hallterview so don't know what kind of dumbass BS explanation she gave. As to your pic: Not sure I'd want to announce that I'm "HIV Postttve" but each to his own. ETA: The "Plan Ahea"? I guess someone didn't plan ahead enough to know that "ahead" has five letters. Darn! I found this one to be ironic, as the tat itself might result in regert: Edited June 11, 2018 by AngelaHunter 2 Link to comment
VartanFan June 11, 2018 Share June 11, 2018 (edited) I actually knew a guy (friend of my ex) who was all excited to show us this huge tattoo...up one forearm and down the other: "To young to live" "To old to die" I remember the Plaintiff you're referring to. Wasn't that the case that she bought his children hundreds of dollars in Christmas presents? He said her tattoo alluded to the fact that her boyfriend had killed someone...or something. Edited June 11, 2018 by VartanFan 3 Link to comment
aemom June 11, 2018 Share June 11, 2018 You want this one tattooed across your chest: 2 Link to comment
cinsays June 11, 2018 Share June 11, 2018 People coming to court who didn't pay their landlord rent and they don't feel sorry about it at all and don't think that makes them look like crap to the whole world. And, they bring no evidence of anything and yet the judge awards the plaintiff some money. Judge Judy would just throw them out and, in this case, I think that is what should have happened. 2 Link to comment
meowmommy June 11, 2018 Share June 11, 2018 I'd say I loathe tattoos because I'm an old fart, but people older than I am are covering their bodies with shitty art. I mean, this is stuff you wouldn't want on a black velvet canvas, but you pay money and endure pain to have it permanently attached to your epidermis; what's not to love? I guess at least for the old farts who are having it done, they don't have to worry about what it will look like when their body parts go south, since those body parts be already done gone. 15 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: Not sure I'd want to announce that I'm "HIV Postttve" but each to his own. Oddly enough, I think they actually got the spelling correct (the I is missing the cross that's on the T), but yeah, who the hell proclaims HIV positive? Obviously not someone old enough to remember when it was a guaranteed way to be shunned by your paranoid neighbors, followed by an automatic death sentence. While it's great that both the death sentence and the insane responses have faded away, seriously, tattooing it on your body? What's next? "I got herpes" or "Love my syphilis?" We nurses often joked about having "DNR" tattooed to our chests, but I wonder in this day and age how many actually have done it? It's to the point now where you almost have to have a tat to be on TPC; if MM shows up with a neck tat, though, I'm done. 1 Link to comment
Katy M June 11, 2018 Share June 11, 2018 18 minutes ago, meowmommy said: I'd say I loathe tattoos because I'm an old fart, but people older than I am are covering their bodies with shitty art. I mean, this is stuff you wouldn't want on a black velvet canvas, but you pay money and endure pain to have it permanently attached to your epidermis; what's not to love? I guess at least for the old farts who are having it done, they don't have to worry about what it will look like when their body parts go south, since those body parts be already done gone. Oddly enough, I think they actually got the spelling correct (the I is missing the cross that's on the T), but yeah, who the hell proclaims HIV positive? Obviously not someone old enough to remember when it was a guaranteed way to be shunned by your paranoid neighbors, followed by an automatic death sentence. While it's great that both the death sentence and the insane responses have faded away, seriously, tattooing it on your body? What's next? "I got herpes" or "Love my syphilis?" We nurses often joked about having "DNR" tattooed to our chests, but I wonder in this day and age how many actually have done it? It's to the point now where you almost have to have a tat to be on TPC; if MM shows up with a neck tat, though, I'm done. As for the HIV tattoo, well, at least nobody can say they weren't warned. I know a 15 year old who wants to get a tattoo as soon as she turns 18. I'm trying to talk her out of it. My main argument has been, you might not like how it looks when you're 80. But, what 15, or 18, year old worries about what will happen when they're 80? 3 Link to comment
arejay June 11, 2018 Share June 11, 2018 In today's first case, home seller v. home buyer, didja get a look at the girl just over lady P's left shoulder? I don't think I have worn that much make-up during my entire make-up wearing lifetime. Cumulatively. 2 Link to comment
SRTouch June 11, 2018 Share June 11, 2018 (edited) ? kind of interesting real estate deal where both litigants didn't really know what they were doing, had brokers, lawyers, inspectors, etc but the pros weren't much help and case ends with MM giving free legal advice... ?? ?not impressed with taxi case, but I'll give it a partial thumbs up for reminding me of Taxi and Danny DeVito... ?? confusing handyman case, where D did work he wasn't qualified to do, did it wrong, and ends up paying P want he was charged to do it right (I would have made him return his pay, but not had him 30% more than he received to do it correctly) bad house deal: plaintiffs sold a house to defendant. Problem is, now that deal is done, the defendant wants to change the deal, claiming needed repairs were not done. Defendant says there's no way plaintiffs didn't know about the leaking shower drain - says first time shower was used leak was obvious - says plumber she brought in to fix problem said the problem was covered up. Plaintiffs are suing for the escrow money, $3,500 - while defendant says she's found $30,000 in hidden problems, so is countersuing for the $5,000 max (so, if she wins she'll end up with $8,500). Ok, guess this whole thing hinges on whether or not plaintiff deliberately committed fraud and hid problems... used to watch the various Mike Holmes home improvement shows, and for awhile he went in and performed a "Mike Holmes inspection" which showed all the problems normal home inspections tend to miss. So, when testimony starts, Plaintiff tells us D not only had her own inspector/engineer do a full inspection and couple months before the closing, but also ran water in all the water fixtures the day before closing to check for leaks and make sure water heater worked. She tells us that in the 7 years her family lived in house the suspect shower never leaked. Anyway, sort of a strange closing - as seller stayed in house a few hours (15 hours, they claim) after everything was signed. Which is why $3,500 of the escrow money was not released at closing - bad idea, says MM, much smarter to be out of the house at closing and escrow money returned then and there. Anywwy, plaintiffs claim this $3,500 being withheld was news to them until everyone is sitting at the closing table. To cover them, their lawyer decides there will be another final walk through when they're finished moving out, and after that, both sides will sign that the walk through was done and that the final escrow money will be released. Sure enough, final walk through is done, and buyer/D signs the former promising to return the $3,500. Uh, except for the strange bit about staying an extra day after closing - which the buyer knew about and came to the closing table prepared to deal with - not sure WTH defendant is thinking... she had a professional home inspector inspect, was given plenty of leeway to conduct her own inspection, and signed a form promising to return the money. Only way I see her keeping the money is her having an expert witness that seller's somehow committed fraud and hid preexisting problems with the house - oh, and hid them well enough so that her professional inspector didn't find them. Nah, no expert here, instead she brought her friend... defendant has no defense, and I'm thinking same-old/same-old nonsense with 10 minutes left to fill.... ah, but as we head to commercial plaintiff wifey is saying no way! there were no leaks! while plaintiff hubby is saying weeeelllllll, maybe there was water damage to dining room ceiling. Ok, from pictures and video, gotta say this was a problem for a while - I mean there was mold on the ceiling drywall.... actually, going back to earlier testimony, I think plaintiff testified that was her kids' shower - now I hear plaintiff saying (without proof, mind you) that leak was caused by a poorly sealed shower drain pan that separated when weight was applied - hmmmm, wonder if plaintiff's kids were smaller and not that much water leaked, then defendant's heavier son stepped in shower and opened the flood gates. Anyway, still no evidence of intentional fraud - just a theory on possible reason. Ah, now D is getting testy with MM - when MM points out she had ample opportunity to test the shower, so her story that first time son turns it on after moving in sounds fishy - wait a minute, says D - but MM is on roll, so keeps talking - may I finish, asks D - no! you may answer my question, says the judge. Ok, in another twist. Seller forgot to cancel her homeowner insurance when they moved out. Sooooo, when leak discovered and buyer complained, it was stilled covered under seller's policy, and her lawyer said get their insurance adjuster to go check the leak - she says the insurance company told her they were willing, but D never contacted them - hold on, says D, I wasn't given the insurer's name/info for a couple months. Hmmm, could be true - P provides email from her lawyer to D's lawyer, but first email she has is almost 8 weeks after leak was discovered... and D makes good point - if she had been given info about insurance maybe covering the bill, why would she have just gone ahead and paid for the repairs out of pocket. Ah, this whole thing is sounding like both sides had lousy representation and didn't know enough to stay on top of things themselves. P opened a claim, an adjuster was assigned, etc... but by that time litigants have stopped communicating and are letting their lawyers talk - and the lawyers apparently are treating it as low priority. Eventually, insurance closes out the claim as adjuster's requests to come inspect the leak are buried in respective lawyer's offices. Ok, rough justice time - P get back the $3,500 since D has no legal right to keep it. MM tells D she should still make a claim against P's insurance - and includes in her ruling that P are to provide the proof of homeowner coverage to help D file her claim... oh, and countersuit for additional 5 grand tossed as D failed to prove fraud. taxi driver suing ex boss: plaintiff in case says he worked as a cabbie for D, but quit after a dispute when he accused cab company of playing fast and loose with the rules. Now, he says D refuses to return a deposit P had to make before he could drive D's cab.... hmmmm, after a quick google search, looks like cabbies are frequently ripped off by cab companies. Intro for D doesn't promise much of a defense.... if I'm getting this right, he says P worked for him for three years - quit without notice, and to come back P had to put down a $500 "security deposit" promising to give notice before he quit next time. Hmmmm, just from Intro I'm thinking Danny DeVito, Tony Danza, Marilu Henner and Judd Hirsch and Taxi. When testimony starts P wants to go back into the dark ages, to a time where he worked for D, but quit - or was maybe fired when he wanted to go be an Uber driver... nah, says MM, let's talk about this employment period, not long ago. So, when he comes back after not working for D for a year, D hires him, but says he needs to put down a deposit. Hmmmm, says MM, WTH is this "security deposit" she's never heard of an employee having to pay to work - well, according to articles I skimmed through on google, apparently it's not unheard of in the taxi world for drivers to put up a deposit when they are driving the company vehicle.... but taking money when a driver is late to his shift sounds shady. Oh, and fact that D is being sued for the "security" but didn't bother to bring a copy of his policy.... yep, shady may be too nice a spin to put on it. Anyway, this case came about when P quit (again) and D, unilaterally, decided to keep the $500. If D came in with a written policy saying driver's security will docked a set about for various offenses (Late for shift, dirty unkempt appearance, etc) and kept a log of the dates P was docked - well, I wouldn't think much of the policy, but if P agreed when he was hired and D had a log - that's one thing. But, apparently there was no log, and P says the security was supposed to be to ensure he gave 2 week notice if get quite and nothing about deductions for being late. P says he gave the 2 week notice, and wants his money. So, MM reads P's copy of deposit receipt aloud - which says exactly what he said - he gave D $500 and it will be returned when he gives 2 week notice - D agrees he received the 2 week notice - so, asks MM, why are we here? But, but, but Danny D says, P only worked 60 days and was late 38 days! MM hold up the copy - signed by D, and says she doesn't care if P was late 60 of those 60 days, nothing here on this signed agreement says you can keep anything for being late. Soooo, D owes the $500.... ah, but wait, P has a $150 traffic ticket he hasn't paid, so MM takes the ticket out of the $500, so P gets $350. Oh, and we don't hear anything about company breaking rules until hallterview - really had nothing to do with case, anyway. handyman flub: P says he hired D to put power to his shed because D claimed he was licensed - but no license and job flunked inspection and will cost $1498.75 to do correctly. D apparently has no D. His intro is that the way he wired the shed worked, not his problem if it's not up to code, and he never claimed to be licensed. Huh, and he has a countersuit for $1500, saying he wasn't paid for the crappy job he did. Ok, when testimony starts it sounds like license was intro clown fantasy.... way P explains it, he wanted work done, D is neighbor of his son who son said did electrical work and needed a job, so he hired D - sounds like cheap becoming expensive - for $1000... ok numbers all over here, and of course nobody agrees and nobody wrote anything down. Uh, first D is doing the bobble head while P tells his story, but then has to speak out and get admonished by MM. OK, now I'm sure P didn't think D was a licensed electrician... really, says it took dude 6-7 days to do the job? Ok, he says dude wasn't there full time - but still, says he was there part of 6 or 7 days - and MM asks did he really expect dude to work that much for $1000. Ok, story is reason D took so long is that nothing was right the first time - D would do something - sparks and fireworks - D would redo it and it would eventually work. ... uh, think maybe after the first fireworks display dude should have called in a real electrician? So, anyway, eventually everything was working... right up until an inspector happens to be inspecting some work at a neighbor's house and notices a problem with the shed. Oh, yeah, P had the shed installed without the needed permit, so inspector tells him he needs to get it permitted - which opens a can of worms, because when code enforcement looks at the application for the shed permit, they notice he has power running to the shed, so they decide to inspect the power - which of course is mismatch/trial and error/horror and cheap has turned into expensive.... not seeing any case here, but am seeing entitled joker who expects son's neighbor to work for a week for free (although sounds like he got what the work was worth). Sooooo, now things get even better. Now, we cross to hear from defendant. Seems P had been using the illegal power in the illegal shed for a couple years before the passing inspector came to neighbor's house. Now it's P doing the bobblehead. At least I learn what the countersuit is about. See, way back when all this was happening, he says the original job, wiring the shed, was for a $1000 - and he got that money. But, while he was doing that, P wanted his power panel updated/upgraded - and that's where the other $1500 comes from - he was never paid for that job, but P was such a problem customer D just finished and walked away and wrote off the power panel upgrade money. Oh, wait, turns out it was actually over two years since he wired the shed before P called saying the job was not up to code, and he wanted it done over at no charge.... huh, some hack about burns you out installed a power panel wrong and you call him to redo the job. Ah, but D knows a guy who knows what he's doing, so the friend goes over, looks it over, and says he'll do the job at the friend discount price of $2300 (yep, D was scared P was going too sue, so he was thinking about paying the friend)... at this point D is thinking he'll get a bigger discount if he helps the friend - but P doesn't want him back. Soooo, then D gets to thinking back about how P treated him when he did the job, and about not getting paid in full... convoluted case and more D talks less I believe. Anyway, MM says D was hired for the job, and doesn't matter if he was to be paid $2500 or $1000 - everybody agrees he was paid $1000 and what he did was useless since the materials used were incorrect and had to be ripped out and redone. MM rules for P.... leaving me wondering why D is paying for the wiring and panel. I would have made D return the $1000 he was paid - his job was unacceptable and had to be redone - but would not have made him pay the difference between the new price and what he was paid... Edited June 11, 2018 by SRTouch 4 Link to comment
AngelaHunter June 11, 2018 Share June 11, 2018 Today's cases were a breath of fresh air and I really enjoyed them. So nice not to have get incensed at Sec8 / welfare scammers, SSI collectors who do construction under the table, physical altercations with a little stabbing here and there, no vandalized property,murdered and buried English, bleached clothes, or weepy sainted single moms with a bunch of kids by incarcerated or errant baby daddies. I don't think I even saw a single titty tat! NO goddam cell phones or unfortunate dog cases. Oh, frabjuous day! How relaxing to see that rarest of litigant - civilized human beings! 37 minutes ago, SRTouch said: bad house deal: So, snarky def appeared to do extensive research, hired inspectors and brought a vertible army of family and friends over to go over the house with a fine-tooth comb and a magnifying glass. All was satisfactory, until they moved in when a leak was discovered. So many other problems that I think she may want to sue the inspector and her friend and kid too and they all let the water run for 1/2 hour and saw no probs. - since not one of those entities saw anything she's complaining about. However, plaintiff should have left her hubby sitting in the car since he confesses he did see a little bubble there, but def could have seen it just as easily. Oh, but she was looking in the dining room where apparently stuff was piled so high the entire ceiling was obliterated. Anyway, she feels she should keep the 3500$, even though she could have gone through plaintiff's insurance. Not sure why she never responded to their letter. I saw no fraud here either. There was a leak in my house that was dripping down into a closet and it took us forever to find it since entering the closet of an unused bedroom and staring at the ceiling was not something we'd ever done. 44 minutes ago, SRTouch said: taxi driver suing ex boss: That was a bit more fun. Plaintiff, who had to be interrupted and re-directed more than once by JM, since he preferred to take the scenic route to tell his tale of woe. I understand why he can't keep a job. Late 38 days out 60? He seemed a little old to be an overly-entitled snowflake. But it was a long drive for plaintiff, so of course he was late! That's YOUR problem, buddy. I worked at the same place for over 30 years and can count on one hand the number of times I was late and I live someplace that has massive blizzards. As a teacher of mine told us, "If the weather is bad, LEAVE EARLIER. There is rarely a good excuse for being late." Maybe plaintiff thinks starting time is just a suggestion. With someone so unreliable and lax about his hours, I understand why def wanted a security deposit, in case plaintiff again decided to quit on the spot. Def's contract, which he neglected to bring, did hurt him. 55 minutes ago, SRTouch said: handyman flub: JM's Rule: "The cheap comes out epensive." Plaintiff wants to save a buck, so hires some guy down the street his son knows to do rewiring job. He's not a licensed electrician and doesn't seem to be a particularly knowledgeable one but they don't think they need any contracts - what could do wrong? I wonder if plaintiff realizes that if his house burned down because handyman got a wee bit mixed up and put the wrong FRIGGIN' wires (oops!), he couldn't collect a dime? That he'd be left homeless and with no money? Some saving that is. Not a wise economy after all. But it's all fine. I'm just happy no one had their windshied busted out with a baseball bat and no one took anyone to the floor. Oh, and not a single "Had went." 4 Link to comment
meowmommy June 12, 2018 Share June 12, 2018 So many things strange to me about the house case. I don't understand why the date the insurance was cancelled would be relevant. If the seller doesn't have title to the house, regardless of whether she cancelled her policy, I can't imagine her insurance would be willing to pay for anything. And didn't the buyer get her own policy to start on the date of closing? Where was evidence of the original inspection, normally done during the due diligence period? I sold my house in January. My agent wrote into the contract that I got five days after closing to move out. I didn't ask for that; she wrote it and nobody questioned it and nobody asked for money to be placed in escrow. In fact, I've never heard of a seller having to put money into the escrow account. And this case made it sound like escrow meant the money was sitting with the buyer, instead of in a neutral escrow service office. And then I was stunned when my buyers didn't ask for a walkthrough. Even when I've been associated with walkthroughs, no one has ever treated it like a second full inspection where you're there two hours. You do a look-see to verify everything you asked for after the inspection was completed, and that there's no new obvious damage. MM seemed shocked that walkthroughs take place when the sellers haven't moved out, but I've had that experience more than once. 2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: Plaintiff, who had to be interrupted and re-directed more than once by JM, since he preferred to take the scenic route to tell his tale of woe. I understand why he can't keep a job. Late 38 days out 60? He seemed a little old to be an overly-entitled snowflake. But it was a long drive for plaintiff, so of course he was late! That's YOUR problem, buddy. Even if all that is true, what does that have to do with keeping a "security deposit?" Talk about pay to play. A security deposit to ensure the taxi is taken care of is one thing, but a deposit to ensure a standard of performance sounds like an unenforceable contract to me. 5 Link to comment
AngelaHunter June 12, 2018 Share June 12, 2018 10 minutes ago, meowmommy said: A security deposit to ensure the taxi is taken care of is one thing, but a deposit to ensure a standard of performance sounds like an unenforceable contract to me. It all seemed crazy to me, both the plaintiff's perpetual lateness and the def. hiring him back when he knew he was unreliable, but that's the way they agreed to do it. Link to comment
califred June 12, 2018 Share June 12, 2018 I also wondered why the new buyer didn’t have insurance and how the othe companies would cover a home the plaintiffs no longer owned. I have a lot of insurance, I help keep USAA in business. 2 Link to comment
SRTouch June 12, 2018 Share June 12, 2018 Today's recap may end early - my channel is experiencing problems and I'm losing signal for several seconds every so often, so if case is dragging I may hit FF early... ??? as a legal case, nothing to watch, but I had fun watching, anyway.... ?? so so, disorganized litigants, false advertising, P trying to act as general conteactor and wasn't, then hires someone who advertised as a general contractor - and wasn't (but WAS articulate).... slumlord, or tenant from hell?: plaintiff complains that landlord was so slow responding to needed maintenance requests (inoperable sink and toilet) that she complained to Housing Authorities - which resulted in 3 day eviction notice - we'll have to wait and see how that translates into some $6,000 lawsuit. Hmmm, could this be a case from California - where court max is higher? Bald headed defendant comes in all smiles - I hit pause to type and decide all he needs is the big ears and he'll pass as Ferengi (ultimate greedy species from Star Trek) - oh, wait, when I hit pause D was giving us toothless grin, and Ferengi also have prominent bad toothies. Anyway, his intro denies he ever dragged his feet when responding to tenant's maintenance complaints - says plumber was there within 2 days for sink/toilet, sent an exterminator (at cost of $650) right away when she complained of bedbugs (but exterminator found no critters) and woman was 3 months behind when he took her to renter/tenant court (result of hearing was her eviction.) Ok, if his defense holds, I get why he'd appear here - he would have won a judgement in tenant court which hasn't seen a penny - but wait, he doesn't have a countersuit. Just not sure what sort of case this is, wouldn't the legal issues have been settled in previous court.... ah, what am I thinking, this isn't about the legal issue, this is entertainment. Ok, lady moved into apartment May 1st, and says by the 7th toilet quit working - water supply problem, so she had to fill tank by hand to flush. Ah, yep, California case - actually San Diego. Sounds like she was without a working toilet longer than two days. See, P had the bad luck to move in just as apartment was being sold - she moves in May 1st, D becomes owner a week to ten days later, so her first complaints are to prior owner's maintenance guy. So, new owner takes over May 12 - but more bad luck for poor tenant, he lives across the border in Mexico - so, times awasting as tenant complains to people who are no longer interested in her problems - eventually, she gets new property management company. Ah, but D says when property closed he notified all the tenants (small place, total of 5 units) of the ownership change, leaving a notice on each door and every mailbox with phone number and email for any issues to be reported - sounds reasonable.... more bad luck for tenant - she doesn't deny getting the notice, but says she "doesn't do email" and got no answer when she called - actually, she says it was end of May before she actually reached him, he promised to send someone, toilet finally fixed June 11th (D coming across as honest 1 P first says someone came June 2nd and he corrects her and says it was fixed on the 11th... actually, when D came in with the big smile I was ready to think smug ass hole slumlord, but so far he's coming across as reasonable and honest - and polite!) If (always a big if) litigants are telling the truth, problem may be with maintenance guy.... seems she would complaints maintenance dude, who would promise to tell owner, eventually after not hearing back, she'd eventually call the owner (like she was instructed to in the notice when dude bought pkace) and he'd arrange to fix whatever she was complaining about. Bedbug complaint same as toilet - she made first complaint mid-May to maintenance guy, but D doesn't get the message for awhile, then when he finally does he schedules the exterminator - who doesn't come til end of June. To this point tenant is paying her rent, but getting frustrated at the long response time. Ah, and now the stories diverge - D says exterminator found no bedbugs, but went ahead and fumigation just in case; while P insists she had bedbugs, she was instructed to wash all her fabrics and use high heat dryer to kill them, and exterminator told her he'd be back in 30 days - but says she still had bedbugs come August. Ah, and it seems she stopped paying rent beginning in July, and zctually starts demanding return of may rent since toilet was busted whole month of May until June 11th. Ok, I could see a rent reduction for May... but unless she can show she was putting July and August rent aside because of the bed bug dispute she's spinning her wheels - bed bugs that she claims were there but he says exterminator didn't find. Not to mention, shouldn't all this have been handled in their earlier housing/tenant court hearing. Ah, now MM asks about the settlement arrived at at the eviction hearing. Seems, both sides were represented by lawyers, and a settlement was reached - P to repay 3 grand in back rent at rate of $100 monthly and she gets an additional month before she has to be out. Whoa! P lost her eviction case, signed a settlement, but subsequently filed this case asking for 6 grand?!? I predict MM will rant a bit about P filing this case. And, yeah, now I see why there is no countersuit - D has to be satisfied with a hundred bucks a buck since that was the settlement he agreed to. Ah, but MM gets on a roll while ranting about this case being filed in retaliation over P losing the eviction case - and she offers free legal advise to D, telling him this lawsuit violates the settlement agreement, and he has cause to refile in the housing court and demand more than $100 a month. Case ends 5 minutes early. When D gets out to Doug, Doug asks if he's going to go pursue the case as per MM's advise - and he says, nope, he figures that'd be a waste of time, as P probably has no money to pay, anyway. fencing fail: P says he hired D to put up a fence, and it turned into a disaster. Wants his money back as when it was finally done city inspector came to tell him it wasn't to code. D says it was homeowners who caused the problems - he built a great fence, homeowners lived it, his responsibility ended when he got paid.... ok, apparently there were three components to this disaster fence build. 1) a dumpster on site that was over filled; 2) a broken gas line; and, 3) the fence violating code. On the face, I figure fence dude is on the hook for all three, because his intro and the preview have him spouting nonsense... ok, backstory here - P was doing some reno work, but hadn't hired a general contractor to boss the job and supervise the subcontractors. Already, I'm expecting we'll hear the "cheap turning expensive" line - not sure what this guy's background is, but your average homeowner should not act as their own contractor... and I think this job will demonstrate why. Not sure what all this reno was going to involve, but P says the fence install was first thing he wanted to do - shouldn't that be one of the last things. Apparently, he hired D to do the fence based on a flyer D left at the house when he saw work being done on the house - really smart way to choose who is going to put up a multi-thousand dollar fence for you. Ah, at least he has a written contract, which both sides pass up - well, not a signed conteact, but both are providing same email where there agreed on scope of project, and what would be paid. According to P first screw up comes with the busted gas line. He says he had all the utilities marked by the county with the little flags before work began, but D dug down anyway and hit/broke the gas line while putting in a fence post. Ah, old fashioned he said he said case. P says D admitted breaking the gas line, but now D says no way, never said that. His explanation is that when the truck came to retrieve the overloaded dumpster, the weight of the truck and dumpster was enough to break the line. Ok, next issue - the over filled dumpster. P says D was to clear the fence line of some brush and shrubbery, and put the foliage debris in the dumpster - says in their jurisdiction you can't take dirt to the landfill. Ah, but he says D was using a bobcat to put all the debris in the dumpster, including dirt. Thus, the dumpster weight was over on three loads - which cost an extra 2 grand. More he said he said with P saying dirt can't go to the landfill, and with each load he reiterated D needed to separate dirt from foliage - while D says that's nonsense, nothing says dirt needs to be separated. Ok, last deal us this code violation deal - which really is a cosmetic issue versus construction. Seems code requires the finished side of a wood privacy fence to face out, but D built it with finished side facing in. Ah, but before he put it up, he asked and P told him to on it finished side facing in.... another thing a general contractor would've caught (or at least should have). Ah, really P isn't putting on much of a case here. First impression had me leaning his way, but he can't back up anything he's saying, and now he can'tell even show there was a code violation. Oops switcheroo, just as I was about to toss P out, turns out he thought he was hiring a general contractor when he hired D. Seems he didn'the just hire D on basis of the flyer as suggested early on - no, he used the flyer and then googled D up popped an ad saying D is a general contractor. And, now MM turns to D and asks, are you a general contractor? No, he says, and that's not me or my company (although it is his picture). And he tells us maybe P is presenting fake evidence - but P says he checked on the he way thereof court, and same ad still comes up - easy enough, same MM, as she starts googling - yep, sure nuf, dude is advertised as a general contractor. Ah, but he says, maybe his ex wife put up the ad.... hmmmm, major hit there. But also more disorganized case from P when MM asks what it cost him to bring the fence to code and he has to scramble to answer what should be an obvious question. Ok, everything P is complaining about would/should have been avoided if D were an actual contractor, but MM isn't ready to rule he knew about the false ad. Sooooo, she decides that as the professional, he should gave known the code requirement - and all she's willing to award is the cost to bring the fence into compliance, $625.87. Ok, back to other stuff... dumpster charge increase - P spinning his wheels, frantically digging through his mountain if disorganized papers and, from what I hear, even if the dumpster was overweight there were other reasons for the charge increase - cars in the way, door not shut, etc that D can't be blamed for. Gas line - no evidence.... forget the 4 grand, but he P gets the $625 silly car case: quicky recap, as I need to get going. P rear-ended, and insurance has already covered most of to he damage. Apparently, dispute is over medical bills, D doesn'the want to pay as he feels she's running already scam since she didn't immediately claim to be injured. Kind of doubt a scam, as she's only asking $800, and many times someone doesn't realise they've been hurt until hours, or even days, after being rear-ended. Ok, both sides silly for not knowing enough to go through insurance from the get go, then P went through own insurance instead of going through D, then defendant's foolishly comes to court instead of going through HIS full coverage insurance 1 scam theory makes No sense - D pays P as she has evidence she is out of pocket $800. 4 Link to comment
VartanFan June 13, 2018 Share June 13, 2018 3 hours ago, SRTouch said: Bald headed defendant comes in all smiles - I hit pause to type and decide all he needs is the big ears and he'll pass as Ferengi (ultimate greedy species from Star Trek) As soon as I saw him, I thought his head looked like I was seeing it in a fun house mirror - the ellloooooongation one. 2 Link to comment
AngelaHunter June 13, 2018 Share June 13, 2018 4 hours ago, SRTouch said: Ok, I could see a rent reduction for May... but unless she can show she was putting July and August rent aside because of the bed bug dispute she's spinning her wheels - Maybe it's just me, but I got the feeling this isn't the first time she's done this - moved in to a place and started complaining and not paying rent, gets to live free until she's forced out, probably by dynamite. Courts feel sorry for her, aww, poor little lady needs a chance and shouldn't have to pay all the rent for a place she lived it. 100$/month? Sure, like he'll see a dime of that. 4 hours ago, SRTouch said: fencing fail: P says he hired D to put up a fence At first I thought plantiff was just a doofus with no clue what he was talking about, but then when he get to the def. turns out he's an oily, shifty little character, with a fraudulent ad on line. That's not his ad! That's not his company! Someone put his picture there! He never said he's a general contractor, except that's a bunch of lies. Oh, well - yeah, that's him but it must have been his nasty virago of a ex-wife who did all that. HE would never misrepresent anything! That witch was just trying to get even with him by getting him jobs! To top it off he had the gall to roll his eyes at JM. I was expecting to see all that oil come dripping down his face. 4 hours ago, SRTouch said: silly car case: quicky recap, as I need to get going. Grr. Big Stoop def was so annoying. He slams into plaintiff, then gets all haughty and indignant when she asks him to pay for her damages. She kept asking him! Just for that, she's getting nothing. Why should he have to pay for his negligent damage to the person he caused to have trouble, repairs and hospital visit just because he's too stoopid to keep his eyes on the road when he's driving? He'll get around to paying her when he's good and ready = Never. He was still a belligerent idiot in the hall. All together now: "It is what it is." 2 Link to comment
aemom June 13, 2018 Share June 13, 2018 On 6/11/2018 at 5:32 PM, AngelaHunter said: Today's cases were a breath of fresh air and I really enjoyed them. So nice not to have get incensed at Sec8 / welfare scammers, SSI collectors who do construction under the table, physical altercations with a little stabbing here and there, no vandalized property,murdered and buried English, bleached clothes, or weepy sainted single moms with a bunch of kids by incarcerated or errant baby daddies. I don't think I even saw a single titty tat! NO goddam cell phones or unfortunate dog cases. Oh, frabjuous day! How relaxing to see that rarest of litigant - civilized human beings! I was thinking the same thing. However, I must point out that the driver had a massive tattoo on the side of his neck, but didn't see it long enough to catch what it was. On 6/11/2018 at 8:21 PM, meowmommy said: So many things strange to me about the house case. I don't understand why the date the insurance was cancelled would be relevant. If the seller doesn't have title to the house, regardless of whether she cancelled her policy, I can't imagine her insurance would be willing to pay for anything. And didn't the buyer get her own policy to start on the date of closing? Where was evidence of the original inspection, normally done during the due diligence period? I sold my house in January. My agent wrote into the contract that I got five days after closing to move out. I didn't ask for that; she wrote it and nobody questioned it and nobody asked for money to be placed in escrow. In fact, I've never heard of a seller having to put money into the escrow account. And this case made it sound like escrow meant the money was sitting with the buyer, instead of in a neutral escrow service office. And then I was stunned when my buyers didn't ask for a walkthrough. Even when I've been associated with walkthroughs, no one has ever treated it like a second full inspection where you're there two hours. You do a look-see to verify everything you asked for after the inspection was completed, and that there's no new obvious damage. MM seemed shocked that walkthroughs take place when the sellers haven't moved out, but I've had that experience more than once. As for the insurance, I remember that I had to have coverage (and provide proof) on the day that we took possession of the house, so I was a bit confused by the seller's insurance being on the hook and the buyer not even having insurance. That whole thing seemed kind of weird. Why didn't they just have the closing for the day they actually left? 4 hours ago, SRTouch said: slumlord, or tenant from hell?: ... (D coming across as honest 1 P first says someone came June 2nd and he corrects her and says it was fixed on the 11th... actually, when D came in with the big smile I was ready to think smug ass hole slumlord, but so far he's coming across as reasonable and honest - and polite!) I thought so too. I didn't get any sense that he was a bad landlord - I got the sense that she was a bad tenant. I wasn't surprised that he said he wouldn't follow through because she had no money to pay. MM saw right through her scam. The fence guy may have been a bit shifty, but he clearly knows how to build a fence. The plaintiffs were happy with it and it did look very good in photos. I often take long walks around my neighbourhood, and I often see a fence that is crooked and whatnot and shake my head wondering why people can't build a decent fence and why the people who had it built don't complain about them. 3 Link to comment
Florinaldo June 13, 2018 Share June 13, 2018 5 hours ago, SRTouch said: slumlord, or tenant from hell?: Second option. And probably a repeat offender at that game, knowing how to play the system and screw her successive landlords. Defendant certainly considers himself lucky that he got some money out of the show's award kitty, since he had no illusion about her paying the money he was awarded by the other court. 5 hours ago, SRTouch said: silly car case: One thing I did not understand: once she put a claim through her insurance company, shouldn't it have contacted his insurer and asked them to pay? Or does the subrogation doctrine apply differently in the US as compared to Canada? 3 minutes ago, AEMom said: The fence guy may have been a bit shifty, but he clearly knows how to build a fence. The plaintiffs were happy with it and it did look very good in photos. Yes, his work did look like it was excellent. Too bad he was not aware of the city's regulation regarding which side must face the outside. As the expert, it was incumbent on him to know such things. Link to comment
Silver Raven June 13, 2018 Share June 13, 2018 I've never heard of having to contact the other person's insurance instead of going through your own. 1 Link to comment
aemom June 13, 2018 Share June 13, 2018 52 minutes ago, Florinaldo said: One thing I did not understand: once she put a claim through her insurance company, shouldn't it have contacted his insurer and asked them to pay? Or does the subrogation doctrine apply differently in the US as compared to Canada? It's a good question. In Quebec, we pay high driver's license and car registration fees because we have No Fault Insurance. When there is a car accident, there is a standard form to fill in and the insurance companies fight it out. Nobody is allowed to sue anybody and if you're injured, you make a claim to the Quebec equivalent of the DMV who will then cover whatever medical expenses they deem acceptable. 3 Link to comment
galaxychaser June 13, 2018 Share June 13, 2018 9 hours ago, VartanFan said: As soon as I saw him, I thought his head looked like I was seeing it in a fun house mirror - the ellloooooongation one. No working toilet for a month? Pay for the plumber yourself and deduct from rent. Doubt it was broken for that long. 3 Link to comment
Florinaldo June 13, 2018 Share June 13, 2018 9 hours ago, AEMom said: In Quebec, we pay high driver's license and car registration fees because we have No Fault Insurance. When there is a car accident, there is a standard form to fill in and the insurance companies fight it out. This applies also in other civil responsibility cases; for example if a tenant or unit owner floods another unit, the two companies (or three if an HOA gets involved) will settle things between them, or fight it out if there is no agreement. They also determine who is at fault and will have to pay the deductible on their policy. 1 Link to comment
VartanFan June 13, 2018 Share June 13, 2018 (edited) Quote I've never heard of having to contact the other person's insurance instead of going through your own. I think her premise was that, it happened technically before she owned the property (the flood part is iffy but the mold makes it pretty clear) and that therefore the previous owner's insurance should cover it, since it happened on their watch. I can understand in one way why she was leery to go through her insurance....if you make multiple claims on a policy, they're likely to drop you...but her attitude was so off-putting that I was glad she had to take additional steps. If I ever have occasion to go on PC, I will have a temp tattoo put in my neck that says "Ruff Justus". Especially if it's a dog case. Edited June 13, 2018 by VartanFan 4 Link to comment
aemom June 13, 2018 Share June 13, 2018 3 hours ago, galaxychaser said: No working toilet for a month? Pay for the plumber yourself and deduct from rent. Doubt it was broken for that long. But that would have interfered with her scam where she complains about everything and then pays for nothing - not even rent. ;-) 2 Link to comment
AZChristian June 13, 2018 Share June 13, 2018 Regarding the car accident . . . defendant SAID he had full-coverage insurance. Judge Judy would have required proof ("give me your insurance company name and the policy number"), and might have even called to get it directly from the insurance company. Also, there are some minimum "full-coverage" policies that don't provide much at all, but they satisfy the state's requirements for insurance. I would definitely have contacted the defendant's insurance company before contacting my own . . . but if he actually HAD insurance, her company will go after his. Either way, he absolutely owed for her deductible and Urgent Care costs. 2 Link to comment
SRTouch June 13, 2018 Share June 13, 2018 (edited) ? ? ? long drawn out nonsense case where two 30 something brothers sue each other (apparently multiple lawsuits) for thousands of dollars and case ends with $50 award for fish tank like you often see on the curb waiting for trash pickup - maybe 5 minutes worth of entertainment and ran an extra 5 minutes - but best 5 minutes are at the end.... ??? Interesting case which would have been settled long before a lawsuit was filed if litigants were half way reasonable - defendant had no defense, but plaintiff damage claim 3 times what it should have been... ??? Interesting as-is case - only because of a couple twists - oh, and we don't know who gets the junker running late - so expect lots of typos until after work when I'll proofread/edit tenant suing landlord with a couple curveballs thrown in - seems this was an illegal apartment - oh, and landlord is P's older brother... have to wait and see about the illegal apartment/ landlord-tenant bit, since I would not really think that way if I let a sibling move in (or I needed a place and moved in with family). I wouldn't expect to give (or receive) a free ride, but wouldn't really expect regular tenant/landlord relationship. Ok, intro has these brothers "sharing" a house, which I understand means little brother and gf move in and are kicking in $300 a month towards expenses - depending where they are, big brother not letting little brother live there free, but not exactly gouging him, either. Ah, but things didn't work out, according to little brother/plaintiff his big brother/defendant, felt free to invade his space and took some of his sh%t - he's suing for $3200+. Intro for big brother - he was doing P a big favor letting him squat in the basement short term while little bro looked for permanent housing - little brother wouldn't kick in anything towards expenses, so big bro wanted him out, but little bro was so happy squatting in the basement D had to go through eviction process to get him out - when little bro finally un-asses the basement, he dumps paint in big bro's fish tank on the way out - big bro has filed a countersuit for 2 grand. These two sound like little kids fighting, like brothers tend to do when they're little kids - but when you start growing beards and figure out how to make wife/gf pregnant, it's time to grow up. Oh my, don't you know how proud mommy and daddy are of their boys! Ok, time for testimony - yep, pretty much as I expected - grown men sound about 8 or 9 year old brats. MM quickly establishes basement was being treated as an illegal apartment - regular rent was expected - not a room rental as no kitchen privileges... well, at least little bro is making this into a regular landlord tenant arrangement in his testimony - but pretty obvious that he's tailoring his testimony to match his case - really obvious when MM asks how long he was there when he starts to answer 3 months, but stops himself and changes to 4-5 months. Not even sure why it matters how many times he paid rent on time - but one month he admits he was late. Testimony is he explained he was going to be late, but would pay next week when he got paid (really, only paying $300 a month and can't pay on time!) Uh oh, now gf opens her mouth and starts contradicting his timeline - 3, no wait, 4-5 months now becomes 8 or 9 months (well, after MM stops gf when she starts out with wrong year). Never a good sign when two plaintiffs are so mixed up they can't agree on ANYTHING - sort of hard to award them 3 grand. So, anyway, after 3 4-5 or maybe it was 8-9 months, they're a week later paying rent and big bro starts eviction proceedings... hmmm maybe the difference over time is because little bro remembers this was supposed to be a temporary, short term stay - but then, where does he expect any other landlord to rent him anything for $300 a month (and just forgive and forget when he doesn't pay on time.) Uh, if I'm big bro, and am letting little bro stay in basement while he gets finances together and finds his own place, I'd be questioning the arrangement if, after 9 months he needs another week to pay $300. Oh, and his case is supposed be about 3 grand worth of his stuff big bro took from his "apartment" - what is this $3200 worth of stuff that was more important to buy than paying his measly rent on time. Oh my, gf shouldn't have opened her mouth... here I thought little bro had been paying rent all along and was late this one time after however long he lived there - but no, now MM brings out they hadn't been paying the $300 a month. Nooooo, after 8 or 9 months of paying once, little bro says he'll finally pay $300 - next week when he gets paid. The nerve of big bro! starting eviction proceedings just because they owe months and months of back rent and they're going to be a week late before they pay THIS month. Ah, another "believe me, your honor, I paid cash" litigant. After just admitting they stiffed big bro for 7 months, didn't have the $300 to pay on time this month either, now P says he paid full about in cash when he was served with eviction papers - but paid cash and has no E-V-I-D-E-N-CE. Oh, and whiney little brother tells MM that's big bro's fault, he never gives receipts.... maybe I need to revise earlier statement - dude doesn't sound like 8-9yo, more like a pretty schooler. We haven't even gotten to the $3200+ worth of stuff the claim this supposed to be about, and I'm ready to spank the brat and stand him in a corner. Ok, big bro admits they paid him half of the $1200 they owed - after they failed to show for eviction court... apparently, these folks think that, since this was an illegal apartment - not only don't they not have to pay the back rent, they claim a lawyer told them big bro landlord owes them 6 months rent to help them relocate. Oh, and they continued to squat in basement for a few more months - then sued big bro because he took them to court for money they were to pay to squat in his basement... geez, all this time and all big brother has said is that the basement rental was not a legal apartment, and they paid half what they owed (before squatting a few more months - wonder if they paid for that time). Ok, MM has let the pre-k kid (36yo he says) whine enough, now she wants to hear about the essential stuff they could afford instead rent that big bro stole. Ok, in January, little bro files this case... to recap, he has now been in a basement he agreed to pay $300 a month, after 9 months he gets served with papers and either paid all the back rent or half, depending on who you believe since nobody has any evidence, eviction stops, but he continues to squat in basement, big bro allegedly comes and helps himself to some of their crap, and little bro sues him - oh, and finally moves out. Ah, but no, he doesn't really move his stuff out, he gets a job and lives in a different city, but leaves stuff behind. (Really, this guy got hired as a building super!?!)Then, when he comes back to his storage unit/big bro's basement, he finds big bro has put on a new lock. Soooo, little bro sues to get access, gets into the basement, alleges some of his stuff is missing - oh, and dumps paint in the aquarium. Holy cow, has this really only been going for 10 minutes? Ok, little bro has presented zero evidence of anything (except that he believes in never never land and is never going to grow up.) I have serious doubts he's about to prove any of his claim.... but then big bro's claim for back rent is equally stupid - can't collect back rent for something he can't rent - so all I see him getting is for the paint in the aquarium. Aquarium could be cheap, or expensive, depending on size, what was actually in the tank, etc and how hard MM decides to spank little bro for obvious brattiness. Oh no, it was okay the first few minutes, then I was just shaking my head at bratty little bro.... now, big brother is talking, and only difference is he's a 37yo immature brat (but at least he went to school and supports himself). Ok, nonsense about how P lost the super job, and snuck back to the basement - says still has a key as he was now renting the basement as a storage unit - says he called cops when he found little bro and gf were back - they split before the cops get there, but first thing next day they're in court claiming they've been illegally evicted from their illegal apartment. Geez, really, couldn't make this crap up, big bro worth a few more incredulous chuckles (not laughs, not that funny). Ok, little bro's case to get back in is tossed, so big bro files a new case (not sure, is that three or four cases these brats have filed at that point) Anyway - only at 12 minutes, still not to where little bro filed THIS case, but past time for me to zip through to judgement (and again, think how does MM make it through without yelling for Douglas and whole security team to take these over aged brats to the woodshed.) And this is the nonsense the show runners at TPC let run over!!! Ok, admittedly I zipped through a lot but check out gf shout out/tantrum interrupting MM ruling around 23 minute mark ??? yep, she fits right in with pre-schooler crowd. So.... nada for P, while D gets a whooping $50 for the fish tank. Oh, another laugh as little bro and gf storm out, refusing to do hallterview, as Doug calls come back, nothing to say? while thinking glad they didn't stop! Big bro does stop (and we get a better look at his little man bun.) Doesn't have anything to say, but at least Doug gets a few lines - including get "door's that-a-way!" When dufus tries to exit the wrong way. inept chimney sweeper dude: ah, 'nother case where homeowner hires a "professional" and ends up with code violation. This time, plaintiff needed work on his chimney, hired D, and ended up having to hire someone else to undo the work and do it right - suing for $3205.14. D intro says he cleaned the dude's chimney several times over the years, and doesn't know where dude gets off suing him now. Ok, things go fine for several years, then one year, while cleaning the chimney, the sweeper dude notices a problem and tells homeowner the three layers of brick and cap need repair. I suspect MM knows how these things work, but she's taking time to educate us folks (oh, and practice making chimney a three syllable word). Anyway, she seems amazed that chim-in-neys are sometimes cleaned from the inside, bottom up, rather than on the roof top down (apparently never watches This Old House). Anyway, D's company doesn't just sweep chimneys, they also have masons who do brick work and put caps on the top.... which is where the code violation comes in. Seems the mason installed a permanent, non-opening cap - a no-no in their town. Ah, then next year when D's company employee comes to clean the chimney, the employee says it can't be done because of the way the mason installed the cap - saying with amount of creosote, caused by frequent use, cleaning has to be done from roof - which can't be done with the way the cap was installed, and now homeowner can't use his wood burning furnance, his main heat source - code requires cleaning, but it can't be cleaned... Ok, this isn't like many homeowners trying to go the cheapest route - this guy is spending to do annual maintenance, and the professionals he hired don't have their act together. Which has dude understandable hopping mad - which has him inflating his claim. And P hasays his case prepared, before and after pictures, videos of how repair guy says he chimney needs to be cleaned and why it can't be cleaned... D - not so much, evidence lacking, even blew opportunity to explain how to clean chimney from inside, course, not sure what he can offer as a defense when one of his employees recommended a new cap, another does the install, then another (or maybe it was first guy a second time) tells P he can't clean the chimney because of what second employee did... and when MM wonders why not, after D said chimneys are sometimes cleaned from inside, P is ready with video of why it now HAS to be cleaned from the roof. Ok, this may be where the extra time spent on 1st case ended up - I thinking quick ruling once we get to damage claim. Ah, but our prepared P has even more ammunition to fire at D. Seems he has instructions, pictures, and original box for the cap that D's mason installed - which show mason didn't install it properly - if he had the chimney could be cleaned from the top as D's employee says it needs to be. Anyway, chimney not cleaned and wood furnance can't be used that winter - so P has to pay more to run backup oil furnance (part of what he wants D you pay for). Decides that isn't the way to go. He tells us when he called D, he was told they would fix the problem - but he'd pay $5-600. Uh, no - and this is how D treats a long time customer? Anyway, P brings in someone else to properly installed the cap and is charged $1100. Ok, obviously D should pay to repair the cap his guy made inoperable - but how much over that amount? Forget the extra which ballooned the $1100 repair job to 3 grand he gets the repair paid for. True to form, when D gets to Doug he pretty much agrees ruling was fair - so, why did P have to drag him here. Ah, maybe P was insisting on that extra 2 grand he tried to get here. BMW lemon: ah, intro makes big deal about junker being a BMW, but when I hear clunker barely made it off the lot before transmission failed (twice - she took it back, dealer "fixed" it, then failed again in zero time. Oh, and before I get to far into case - quite the outfit P chose for court. MM compliments her youthful appearance, says she looks 22 rather than actual 32yo... nope, not seeing it - she might get a second look with the lashes, fake fur vest, and yellow Lil Abner clodhopper booties - but the second look would be accompanied by a head shake not a wolf whistle). Apparently she only has $1600 in the car - wants a full refund. All I'm thinking, is how old is this heap and was there a warranty. Ok, D intro answers half my question - no warranty. Course, since Earl is such a nice guy, he tried to fix the tranny after her first complaint, then then refused to to waste more time on this AS-IS junker. Oh, and 2nd case ran normal time - so this will be the short case. Ok, no case here, but may be good for a few laughs - oh, like the preview when MM asks Earl what he means by a "slight transmission failure." Once testimony starts, the silly case becomes even sillier. Not only is P buying her BMW 520 from a place called Discount Auto, she can't even prove how much the deposit was that she paid. Earl agrees she gave him $1100 initially, but she says she followed up the $1100 with another $500 - Earl says, no way, and she can't prove the $500. (Still no word on how old the BMW with faulty tranny is.) Ok, unless this is a jurisdiction with very strong consumer protection, she's out of luck - even then, forget $1600 when she can only prove $1100. Oh, I forgot, of course she claims she got a receipt when she paid the additional $500 - but she left it in the car when it went back the first time the tranny failed. As her story goes, she drove car one day before the transmission "clocked out", dealer took it back to lot and took 3 weeks to "fix it" - car ran like crap when she went to retrieve it (uh, just now started running like crap, or was it running like crap before it was fixed) - yeah, she says it always ran like crap, but good old trustworthy Earl said he'd have it purring, and she knows nothing about cars and apparently no one she knows everything heard of a mechanic.... ok, that line has me reaching for the remote, this 32yo ditz deserves her BMW paperweight.... but hold up on the zip button - she doesn't even have her $1600 $1100 BMW, it's sitting back on Earl's lot, and $1100 was only the deposit, we not only haven't been told the year and mileage, we haven't heard the final price. Ok, enough with the dizzy 32yo kid, time for Earl to talk. He says transmission problem was actually not mechanical, but failed mounts. He says he was willing to do the repairs, but needed her to pay towards the repair. Now things get dicey. On one hand, he seems to be saying it's her car and her problem - but he also just said he has done the repairs. So does he want her to come get her car after paying for unauthorized repairs, is he now offering the repair free of charge, or does he now want to rewind the deal? Ah, and despite Earl's claim there was no warranty, ditz claims, and passes up, a 30 day warranty... uh, not only doesn't ditz not know cars, she apparently signs anything without reading. Yeah, there's a clause in the contract about about a warranty - but she signed was a waiver that negates the warranty offer. Heck, not only doesn't she read before signing, but even after she sues she doesn't understand WTH she signed and entered it as evidence. Ah, back to WTH Earl wants to happen - he says he wants her to come get her car! Ah, but he wants the rest of her down payment, and there the question of two months missed payments.... heck he can probably repo the car and resell it (easy repo as it's already on his lot). Contract she signed called for $2500 down payment - even with her $1600 figure she still owes $900 - plus two months payments. No, what he really wants is the rest of her down payment and the car (guess we'll never learn age, mileage, and purchase price - and, now that we know Earl is his own lender, I'm wondering about the interest rate). MM decides if P pays the down payment she can reclaim HER car - but she'll have to come up with $1400 - which she says she can't do. (Ah, during ruling MM mentions this is a 13yo car) Earl agrees not to go after the late payments, if she can make the rest of the down payment she can take it away - as MM pointed out, he probably makes his money in finance charges after the sale Edited June 14, 2018 by SRTouch 5 Link to comment
AngelaHunter June 13, 2018 Share June 13, 2018 (edited) 7 hours ago, AZChristian said: defendant SAID he had full-coverage insurance. Yes, and had JM asked, "Did you have insurance on the day of the accident?" I bet the answer would have been "No." But he has it NOW! So he says, anyway, but I have doubts. Today's first case: Thirty-six year old big-time loser who still can't take care of himself, moves - along with his brutal-looking "girl" (please tell me she wasn't pregnant here) is homeless and moves into his brother's basement which is not an apartment, not legal and which doesn't even have a kitchen. He can't even keep a job as a janitor, his "girl" is applying for welfare and wants man-bunned def to help her scam the system, yet they had 3200$ of belongings in brother's basement. Brother stole all that stuff. We know this because some upstairs neighbour said he saw brother take stuff out. Yes, let's decide cases on gossip and hearsay, since neighbour is not here, nor has he provided an affidavit. BUT, big weenie loser plaintiff says, he has a police report that proves def. brother stole the crap. Turns out police report says what plaintiff told cops, about upstairs neighbour and blah blah. One of the things plaintiff is squawking about: A man his age wore his grandma's ashes around his neck and that ashy necklace is GONE. Boo hoo. Go away, all of you. Another BMW afficionado: Plaintiff, swaddled in the skins of dead animals (which I hope were as faux as everything else on her exterior) really needs a BMW, so she cashes some retirement fund and apparently uses the entire amount to buy a 12 year old POS car with a slipping tranny. BUT - it's a BMW!! Yes, it drove like crap when she tested it, but she "doesn't know nothing about cars, oh my pretty little head!" and her grandpa is too old to work on it, so what's a girl to do? She buys the heap but never finishes giving the downpayment, according to dealer, because it doesn't run right. She takes it back to the dealer, dumps it and tells him she doesn't want it and wants her money back. That is not the way it works! She claims she gave him more money than he says, because don't we all pay cash with no receipt when buying stuff? Take her word for it. He wouldn't give her one, so I guess she doesn't know nothing about receipts either. Dealer still wants her to come get HER car (he could have sold it since she's not paying a dime for it) if she pays what she owes on the downpayment, and says he fixed the slipping transmission. The old heap was sold "As is" and plaintiff signed that acknowledgement, but still doesn't think that applies to her. JM telling her, "You look so young!" Well, 32 IS young and she looked older than that, IMO. Watching this show is actually making me feel some slight sympathy for used car dealers when we see the kind of shenannigans and BS they deal with. Then we had the CHIMNEY (not "CHIM-IN-EY" - oh, JM!) case. It was kind of awesome the way chimney guy readily admits his worker put the cap on all wrong so that it can't be removed for certain kinds of cleaning, and then he had the chutzpah to tell plaintiff he'd fix his own screwup for another 500$??? Hall Clown says, "HUUUUHHHH?" Don't think so! Chimney guy has to pay the cost of plaintiff getting someone else to fix the mess. SRTouch: You posted just as I was finishing. I hate doing the recaps, because I never get them as detailed or accurate as yours!! Edited June 13, 2018 by AngelaHunter 4 Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.