The People's Court - General Discussion

[AngelaHunter]

9 minutes ago, meowmommy said:

Learned a new word:  he "likeded" it.

Not new! We previously heard that on JJ when she asked a plaintiff why she bought a 700$ phone when she was on public assistence and had kids. "I like-ded the phone" she famously replied.

10 minutes ago, meowmommy said:

WTF is MM thinking? 

I didn't watch this but was surprised to read he was awarded that much. I"ve got three pretty nice diamond rings (and the receipts for all) and I'd never let someone who gets "really, really drunk" take them to parade the bling around some bar. Personally I feel the case was a scam. Disclaimer: I could be totally wrong in thinking that a drug addict one year out of rehab could or would buy a 3K piece of jewelry, so maybe it was all completely legit.

15 minutes ago, meowmommy said:

Ya mean they didn't actually write them?

Probably the sneaky producers or whoever takes the statements altered them on the sly, just for laughs.

[meowmommy]

3 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

I could be totally wrong in thinking that a drug addict one year out of rehab could or would buy a 3K piece of jewelry, so maybe it was all completely legit.

Yeah, I threw a little sideeye when MM congratulated him on his purchase under those circumstances.  Really, MM?  Who knows what the chain was worth?  That was a very high rough justice considering there was not the slightest evidence of value.

4 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

We previously heard that on JJ

Not enough to make me try JJ.  Every time I try to watch her, within a week or two I get disgusted at how unprofessional she is and delete her from my DVR.

[aemom]

I'm going to back up a bit:

Sept 19 and 20 episodes: 

Sept 19

1. This was a couple together (unmarried) for 10 years.  She already had 2 kids and they had 2 kids together.  Over the years they bought a house and property which they rented out, but it was all in his name.  When they split up, she went to live in one of the rentals with her new boyfriend (she is now expecting another baby with him).  She is trying to get property and cash back and he has filed a counter-claim which he fully admits is tit-for-that.  They each get nothing.

2. This guy is in jail for 10 years (during the ages of 15-25) and when he gets out, his aunt helps him many times with various loans to get him back on his feet.  He pays her back each time, except for the last time - $4200 and change.  He alleges it was a gift, she says it was a loan like the other times.  He seems very unappreciative of everything she ever did for him and has to pay the loan back.  She says she's done with him.  MM does zero family counseling spiel.

3. I forgot again.  I must be getting senile or the case was really boring.  Or both.  Edited to add: I remember!  This guy was a total yahoo.  He's stopped on the side of the road near a stop sign on Christmas Day waiting for his wife to pull up in the car behind him.  When she pulls up, he goes to the stop sign, and doesn't check properly to see if there are cars coming (It's a 2-way, not 4-way stop).  The 17 year old girl coming down the road t-bones him in the back of his car.  Somehow, in his mind, it's her fault.  She was speeding!  He couldn't see her - there was a truck parked on the corner blocking his view!  He's suing for the repairs to his car.  It turns out that he's not insured and girl and mom have counter claimed for their deductible which MM awards them.  He gets nothing because he's 100% in the wrong and the D's insurance company will probably sue him for the repairs to their car since he's not insured.  He still doesn't get that he is at fault when interviewed by Doug.

Sept 20

1. This one was something.  This young woman is car jacked at a gas station by three boys.  She jumps in front of her car to try and stop them.  One boy presses on the gas so she jumps on the hood.  He keeps going and she flies off the car.  The cops find it 3 days later after a chase where one boy and his girlfriend run out of the car and throw the keys (a witness saw this).  She managed to identify 2 boys in a lineup and is suing the parents of the one who was caught in the chase.  She is suing for the damage to her car and pain and suffering as is is allowed to do under Wisconsin law since he is a minor.  The parents seem all business.  They acknowledge what their son did, and mention that she already received some money under a different settlement.  P gets the cost of repairs (over $3K) + $500 pain and suffering.  MM then deducts the settlement she received from a different case - which was about $1,800.

2. This real estate broker sets up a contract with another broker to help an old-lady neighbour move.  She is not licensed to practice in that state.  But she shoots herself in the foot by signing a contract with the other agent for a 1% commission.  It turns out that if the agent who did sell it gives her anything when she's not licensed, then he can lose his license.  He acknowledges that he would have been happy to pay her, but not under the circumstances that could make him lose his livelihood.  She wrote up the contract - she should have done her homework and gets nothing.  Clearly the satisfaction of all the time she spent helping the old lady doesn't count for much in her head.

3. People come to lay down carpeting.  First day is fine.  Second day, one of the cats gets out a window that had the screen removed to put carpet through.  The installers kept asking where the cats were (there are 3) and the owner said "They're fine."  Until it wasn't, when Tuxedo got out.  Well, he was out for 6 weeks and was on death's doorstep when he was found in the yard.  He's suing for the vet bills.  MM tells him that the cats were his responsibility, not the installers, and if he had been minding the cats the whole time, like he should have, then this would not have happened.  The installers were there to work, not babysit the cats the whole time.  He's pissed, but luckily Tuxedo did survive.

Edited September 25, 2019 by aemom
I remembered the case!

[AngelaHunter]

12 hours ago, aemom said:

This was a couple together (unmarried) for 10 years.

Gotta love these people who don't get married because they didn't have time, couldn't afford a big wedding/fancy honeymoon, don't believe in marriage, haven't decided if they want to get that involved BUT who have no problem having a bunch of kids together, co-mingling funds and making major purchases with everything in one person's name.  This woman just doesn't learn, does she? Instead of getting a job and being independant she's knocked up again with another boyfriend she'll expect to take care of her and will probably never have even a coffee pot in her name.

12 hours ago, aemom said:

This guy was a total yahoo. 

But why? As he says, he couldn't see what was coming, so it's normal in that situation to just hit the gas, right? That's what I do.  The girl and her mother should sue the owner of the truck that blocked his vision. Not the def's fault!

[NYGirl]

Boy did we have a mouthy defendant today disrespecting our beloved Judge!!!  Took awhile and she finally got kicked out.

I hated the defendant in the opera singing case.  What a bitch.  As an aside I don't think I'd like to hear that singing in the morning but Im sure they could have worked something out on where and when she could practice.

[VartanFan]

10 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Gotta love these people who don't get married because they didn't have time, couldn't afford a big wedding/fancy honeymoon, don't believe in marriage, haven't decided if they want to get that involved BUT who have no problem having a bunch of kids together, co-mingling funds and making major purchases with everything in one person's name.

From what I've learned, if you marry the person you have babies with, you also can't be a 'single' mother and be eligible for lots of free stuff.  Sad but true.  

36 minutes ago, NYGirl said:

Boy did we have a mouthy defendant today disrespecting our beloved Judge!!!  Took awhile and she finally got kicked out.

I would have kicked her algae green-haired self out of the courtroom prior to the video.  MM had WAY more patience with her than I would have had.  

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, NYGirl said:

Boy did we have a mouthy defendant today disrespecting our beloved Judge!!!

Wow. "We don't care what you think!" Who was "we"? Did she have a frog in her pocket? I am so obsolete that I think those green talons she was sporting, along with the green hair are beyond hideous and revolting and look like she's covered in a creeping fungus, but it may be stylish. What do I know? And of course, this belligerent, ignorant, rude, mouthy, nasty brute is a caregiver. Deepest sympathy to her victims. Aunt helped her get a GED? I'm not sure what that entails, but her grammar was horrific. Oh, and I remembering correctly that she is in a new category as SSMON(Sainted Single Mother of NINE)??

1 hour ago, NYGirl said:

I hated the defendant in the opera singing case.  What a bitch.

Indeed. An obnoxious, arrogant, uppity bitch - a real estate agent who knows nothing about laws governing rentals. Of course, she may not be a very successful agent, since she needs to run her rented place like a boarding house and moonlight at bars. When you invite mature strangers to live with you, it's to be expected that you may not like some of their ways and habits. If you think you might not like what they do, get rid of your uppity 3-bedroom place and get a 1- bedroom that you can afford.

Edited September 26, 2019 by AngelaHunter

[Florinaldo]

2 hours ago, NYGirl said:

I hated the defendant in the opera singing case.

I disliked both litigants. The "opera singer" (probably a  member of the chorus) should have been more forthcoming about how much practicing she would be doing each day and what form it would take. Hearing someone do vocal runs may be bearable for 30 seconds or so, but not for at least an hour, just as having them going over and over the same passage in a song or aria can quickly drive people bonkers. As a mature adult, she should have had at least an inkling that her habits would get on the nerves of some of her new roommates.

[SRTouch]

tenant wanting deposit back: tenant (P) is aspiring opera singer from England visiting NYC for three months. Landlady (D) is subletting P a bedroom in her 3 bedroom apartment. D knows P is an opera singer visiting the country who plans to audition while in NYC. After a couple weeks D starts complaining when P does her voice exercises in the apartment. Imagine that, a musician (of any sort), who expects to practice daily while in a foreign country to audition. Either the day, or maybe the day before, rent for second month is due D tells tenant musician her voice exercises are too annoying and to be gone in two weeks - or even sooner if possible she wants her gone ASAP. P moves out but D refuses to return deposit, saying not enough notice. Welllll, first off, MM tells landlady she wouldn't be entitled to keep deposit when tenant moved out because she was told to move..... MM missed out on really slamming arrogant snot of a landlady for not knowing this - didn't smirking little Landlady told us she works out of her home as a real estate agent? I've never been to NYC, but even I know a tenant isn't required to give notice in the 5 boroughs - anyway, MM quickly orders security to be returned and leaves the bench.... smirking D still smirking in hallterview when Doug points out she acts like she expected to lose

Money owed for washer/dryer sale: P claims defendant still owes $250 while D says she took the washer/dryer out of the goodness of her heart when P had no place to store it.... ok, break out the phones and let's see some texts - I'm already bored  and intro still going on (low cut tops displaying gold chains on both sides - P has the tatty tats going but extra points go to D for her green hair) - in case that defense plan  A doesn't work, her plan b appears to be that machine broke down after first load of dirty laundry..... uh oh, tatty tats girl losing me fast as she states her case - not so much that I can't see her story being true, but that she keeps stalling and can't look at MM when asked questions.... ah, what she doesn't  want to tell the national audience is that she (p) was caught by D's sister doing the deed on sis' couch, big kerfuffle and P bopped sis.... not sure why D is so happy to tell the story as it gives D motive not to pay - but I guess it does give D chance to embarrass P on TV.... I may not have been happy with P's testimony, but as soon as D starts yakking I'm ready for Douglas to gag her. I gave up when D starts arguing with MM about the judge not pressing play on the video fast enough. As already mentioned MM eventually gives her the boot when tell da'judge she doesn't care what judge thinks - P gets her money 

car deal gone bad: ho-hum, nonsense case - buyer of old Nissan  ('07 with 148,000 miles) wants judge to undue sale - he says car is piece of junk, seller says buyers remorse - doesn't really matter unless there's a warranty or some fraud (unless they're from one of those jurisdictions with ultra consumer protection laws).... okkkkk buyer didn't get car checked by mechanic before sale, but was smart enough to have written agreement that gave him 14 days to get it checked - yep, according seller gave a 14 day warranty on engine and transmission..... this may not be as cut and dry and expected.... yeppers, on very day P drives the car away the engine light comes on, and he sends long text to back out of deal - D offers to take care to his mechanic and D will pay - P wants it taken to husband own guy, but eventually agrees that D can take it to his own guy - D never comes to take the car to his mechanic...... D says he was fed up with P pestering him, but as MM points out, that's the deal he made.... doesn't sound like D has a defense, but where does P get off suing for 5 grand when he paid $2100 (plus money for a mechanic to diagnose the problem)..... oh, he wants  $1600 for emotional distress plus lost work 😀😀😀😀 oh yeah, now he tells us he was buying this car to drive for Uber - can you even use an '07 for Uber? Varying answers from google, with one saying car can't be over 10yo, while another says 15..... doesn't really matter, that gets tossed - MM unwinds deal - D has to return the purchase price plus all the expenses P paid..... 

Edited September 29, 2019 by SRTouch

[AngelaHunter]

25 minutes ago, Florinaldo said:

. Hearing someone do vocal runs may be bearable for 30 seconds or so, but not for at least an hour

I couldn't stand it for even 30 seconds, I don't think. I also couldn't stand someone blasting music I hate, flushing the toilet in the middle of the night, snoring, leaving a mess in the kitchen, thowing wet towels on the floor, etc, which is why no strangers inhabit any of my extra bedrooms. 😁

[AngelaHunter]

3 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

oh, he wants  $1600 for emotional distress plus lost work

He's very easily emotionally distressed, but not as bad as one on Hot Bench the other day, who wanted 3,200.00$ because her landlord hurt her feelings and the feelings of her Mama. I wish I had just 10$ for every time my feelings have been hurt.

Def in the Nissan case: "Yeah, I gave him a warranty but I got tired of him asking me to honour it so I just ignored him." So he just wrote the warranty to get plaintiff to buy the old beater and never had any intention of abiding by it.

[DoctorK]

21 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

I also couldn't stand someone blasting music I hate, flushing the toilet in the middle of the night, snoring,

That is why I live alone, but my goldfish has figured out how to bang the floating thermometer against the side of the aquarium to tell me he wants food. Maybe I should evict him?

[AngelaHunter]

13 hours ago, DoctorK said:

That is why I live alone, but my goldfish has figured out how to bang the floating thermometer against the side of the aquarium to tell me he wants food.

Your goldfish may be smarter than most of the litigants. He certainly learns faster.

[SRTouch]

Auto shop ripoff?  Little old lady plaintiff wants 5 grand because she says D's shop ripped her off. Case is short and quick - and fun to watch (when 3rd case was dog attack i came back and actually watched again to catch all P's facial contortions). Case itself nothing worth watching, but litigants were fun. P has no case, and all D has to do is let MM read the lengthy text exchange to have case dismissed. The fun comes from P's facial contortions as MM reads her texts aloud, and then D's comment that he and wife are fans of show and love watching litigants faces when they hear what they wrote.

tenant wants double security back: P wants back double the security, which in this case is a month and a half monthly rent.  Even though P admits there was some damage, and she agreed with landlord keeping 1 month rent cuz she left with no notice, but since she is a Sainted single mother of 4, an LPN, and works 2 jobs she really deserves double the whole security. When MM goes through the damages, even though she discounts/tosses some of what landlord withheld, her figures would mean landlord could have kept more than he did (not by much, IIRC he returned about $20 more than P was entitled to with MM's figures). Didn't like either litigant - P because she feels entitled to double award when she actually owed, and landlord yet another fool who acts as a landlord without knowing laws (thought he had 90 days to return deposit instead of 30 days permitted in jurisdiction) - oh, and he doesn't bother with receipts for repairs he charges his tenant.

#3 was big dog mauling little dog - skipped

Edited September 26, 2019 by SRTouch

[HaaCHOO]

On 9/24/2019 at 1:11 PM, SRTouch said:

. too bad P didn't come in with estimates, because sounded to me like poor prep and to get a good job might require whole new paint

I agree; but what amazes me is that the Plaintiff had been a detailer for what? thirty-two years?  In that time SURELY he saw great paint jobs and had business with people who were professionals.   I was surprised at the way he seemed to love his car yet took it to a chain paint shop (not that there's anything wrong with that).

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

Auto shop ripoff?

Wasn't the plaintiff just so cute, standing there an peering over her cute little glasses? Well, until you hear what a scam artist she is. She just signs blank pieces of paper, with no idea what it will be used for. She's just innocent of everything.  JM was getting mighty fed up with her "I never said that. I never wrote that" scrunched-up, confused face BS.  I notice plaintiff's husband, who urged her on to try and scam the def, didn't show up here. JM was mighty pleased that def's wife watches this show and knew enough to get lying plaintiff to sign a release, and also that def had texts proving he was in the right. Why should someone else lose money because the plaintiff didn't bother having full coverage for a vehicle on which she still owes a bunch of money? I wonder if def and Tyrone (plaintiff's cousin) are still friends.

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

Sainted single mother of 4, an LPN, and works 2 jobs she really deserves double the whole security.

She just loves having babies and recently had another one, although she is no ditzy teenager but a 37-year old woman with no baby daddies around. "Do you know how to prevent that?" JM asks  her, because if plaintiff had done her homework she would know that the "I'm a SSMO(2, 4, or 9) carries no weight here. She should be rewarded for being so irresponsible that at her age if she can't work two jobs, she needs to move herself and her brood in with her mama? I'm sure Mom was just thrilled to have her middleaged breeder daughter and a bunch of little kids camping out at her place. Poor Mom. Def is yet another landlord who knows not landlord/tenant rules. Yes, he has evidence of paying for fixing stuff, broken window, holes in the walls and general filth, but of course, he didn't bring it with him! Who would? Why would anyone expect him to know about this landlord stuff?

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

#3 was big dog mauling little dog - skipped

I actually watched this. The defs are a senior couple who like to have big, powerful, young dogs over which neither of them have any control. They live in a senior community where fences are not permitted, so must keep their dogs on leashes. Mouthy def wife and dumbass, bigmouthed hubby feel that if the big, strong dog broke away from the wife it's not their fault. They aren't breaking the leash law there because the leash was still attached to their dog when it grabbed plaintiff's tiny, puppy mill special "Cavapoo" and shook it "like a rag doll.' 

Defs initially said they would pay the vet bills - even though none of this was their fault (whose fault was it? The dog's?) but changed their minds when plaintiffs reported them to Animal Control. Apparently their dogs are often running free in the nieghbourhood so they got fined 500$. They then decided they weren't paying a cent for the injuries inflicted on the plaintiff's dog whose vet bill was 975$. I was annoyed at how jovial and friendly JM was to the defs, who are utter assholes. In fact, she actually chided the plaintiffs for seeking advice from a lawyer. Both defs deserved a severe spanking. Judgement for plaintiffs for the full amount.

[meowmommy]

3 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Little old lady plaintiff wants 5 grand because she says D's shop ripped her off.

If they totaled your car, you got the money and they took your car, which is why people hate having their car totaled, right?  And that the insurance company forces you to accept it whether you like it or not.  But the defendant somehow talks the insurer into not totaling the car, he fixes the car and then gives her $400 for a rental car, lets her jack him up for another $1100, and gets sued for his trouble.  Truly no good deed goes unpunished.  I still don't know what the plaintiff was expecting the defendant to do, other than fix the car.  

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

JM was mighty pleased that def's wife watches this show and knew enough to get lying plaintiff to sign a release, and also that def had texts proving he was in the right.

It's always gratifying for us when the random litigant comes in prepared, and probably even more so for MM.  Sometimes I really wish a litigant who's been dragged into court for no good reason really could countersue for time and aggravation.  

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

Why should someone else lose money because the plaintiff didn't bother having full coverage for a vehicle on which she still owes a bunch of money?

I think she had full coverage; it's just that the insurance will only pay the maximum book value at the time of the loss.  And a depressingly large number of idiots buy cars with long-term loans so that the cars depreciate faster than their car payments can keep up, so she was upside-down $4K at the time of the accident.

How much you wanna bet she's got a separate action going against the tow truck driver for the loss in value, even though the car wasn't totaled?

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

JM asks  her, because if plaintiff had done her homework she would know that the "I'm a SSMO(2, 4, or 9) carries no weight here.

I swear 99% of the litigants have never seen this show.  But the sob story trope is so damn pervasive on teevee.  I'm a single mom, too.  Don't you feel sorry for me?

If there were nails sticking out of the walls all over the apartment from the prior tenant that threatened her precious spawn, why did the plaintiff even move into that apartment?

"To my knowledge, I didn't break any windows."  Who doesn't know whether or not they broke a window?

That is one of the most clueless landlords ever.  

3 hours ago, SRTouch said:

#3 was big dog mauling little dog - skipped

I'm with you.

[AngelaHunter]

29 minutes ago, meowmommy said:

I think she had full coverage; it's just that the insurance will only pay the maximum book value at the time of the loss.  And a depressingly large number of idiots buy cars with long-term loans so that the cars depreciate faster than their car payments can keep up, so she was upside-down $4K at the time of the accident.

Gotcher point!, as scumbag, increasingly dissipated-looking Levin would say to his gaggle of adoring nitwit fans in the doorway.

33 minutes ago, meowmommy said:

I'm with you.

If you want to watch it, the cute little dog had no life-threatening injuries - a few minor puncture wounds and bruising - and is just fine now. However, the hatred the defs might engender in you could be hazardous to your health. I just don't get these people. If my big dog was allowed to escape and run loose and hurt someone else's pet, I'd be right at the vet with the owner to pay the bill. Despicable cretins.

35 minutes ago, meowmommy said:

"To my knowledge, I didn't break any windows." 

She should have added, "But I don't know if one of my kids did", which is probably what happened.

[CrazyInAlabama]

They had the rerun this morning of the old geezer who loaned bail money to the defendant, for about $2k, and paid some other things, like apartment fees (first and last or something), He had a power of attorney that gave him rights over the woman's life for some ridiculous number of years, and it was revoked on national TV.   The defendant claimed the POA was to so he could help her apply for SSI-for a heart murmur, and some other issues, but it wasn't a limited power of attorney.     I think both sides were despicable, and trying to use the other person for every penny.  

I saw the wild case of the plaintiffs suing their ex-landlord for their security deposit back ($2200), they had two sets of teen twins.     The entire family were a bunch of slobs.   Marks on all over the walls were dismissed as 'normal wear and tear' by the plaintiff.   Marks all over the walls in the dining room were explained as the kids bicycles were parked in there, and the tires did it.    They even left a dirty baking dish in the oven, there was at least one big hole in the floor (it looked like laminate or hardwood, and the hole looked like someone bashed the floor with a hammer or burned it or something).    Cabinets were filthy, and had all kinds of junk left behind.      Landlord said they left no forwarding address, but even I know you send a registered or certified letter to the rental address, and if there's no forwarding address he would still be covered.   

The scuff marks weren't just on the lower part of the wall, but way up the walls, and all over every room.     The hole in the floor was all the way through, so there's no way that was an accident.     I've seen floor scrapes, but what the floor looked like in the bedroom was more than not having felt pads on the bottom.   I don't think the security deposit the landlord kept will come close to touching the repair costs in that house.    I bet redoing the bathroom floor tile will take at least $500, and I bet the painters will charge at least double to fix the wall.  

The former renters moved to a house they purchased, and I bet it will be just as bad, since all of the people who moved into that house are nasty slobs.   

Edited September 28, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama

[Brattinella]

I really need to start catching up.

[AngelaHunter]

A case of families fighting over cell phones and JM trying to play family counsellor again. Grandma is suing her grandson's girlfriend. Grandson and girlfriend have been together since girlfriend was 15 and she is now 25. They have two kids, but grandson lives with his mommy, and baby momma lives with his grandma and no one pays any rent. They may not live together, can't afford their own place and they may be what seems to be homeless, but grandson's girlfriend needs a 750$ iPhone so Grandma agrees to put her on her plan, which of course includes installments for the astronomically expensive phone the girl really must have. Grandma orders free loading g/f out and a big altercation occurs in which Grandma wants to fight grandson's girlfriend - yeah, physically fight her. Grandson holds her back, blah blah. Phone is damaged. Grandma wants her 750$. She gets it, but no longer sees her grandkids or her grandson. Such dreary nonsense, punctuated with utterly horrific grammar. JM's counselling doesn't work. Does she really think that when you have a grandma who wants to fistfight there is going to be some lovey-dovey resolution? Grandma doesn't care if she sees the kids again.

Then we had the family who lived in def's premises for five years. They bought a house and moved and want double their sec. deposit of 2,200-odd dollars back. They left the place a mess, saying they didn't have time to clean the disgusting stove with rotting food left in it, or fix the extensive damage they did to the walls and floors and even an electrical outlet. They have two sets of twins here who appeared to be in their teens and who must have thrown everything at hand, including bicycles, against the walls. They get nothing back. I just bet that in the home they purchased the kids aren't allowed to destroy anything. But when you live in a property that someone else bought, renovated and is paying a mortgage on, who cares how you mess it up?

The last case was kind of funny but boring. Plaintiff has lived in his apartment for 13 years. Def, who appeared to be rehearsing for a comedy club or maybe a sleazy reality show and constantly flashes a gap-toothed smile, has lived under him for 10 months. He's complaining about all the noise from the def. specifically her banging. She says she hung pictures one evening. I've hung plenty of pics, and never did one hammer bang every 10 seconds which we see is what def did, on a vid the plaintiff had. Plaintiff also has a letter, hand-written and not notarized, from the landlord, talking about the def and JM disregards it. Landlord wants nothing to do with these two. Plaintiff calls the police, def denies doing anything wrong but says the plaintiff stomps around over her head, and yadda yadda. JM gives him nothing, but tells a rather long story about being a kid and brooms and banging on ceilings and being terrified and all that. She advises the litigants to learn how live in peace and tells plaintiff to inform the landlord that if def doesn't move out, he will.

[NYGirl]

As a grandmother I was appalled that the plaintiff in the first case didn't care if she saw her grandson and great grandchildren any more.  It boggles my mind...really.  Not that the defendant was any better either.  What dysfunction.  Ugh

No words for the 2nd messy tenant case.  When I saw that stuff left in the stove I gagged and decided that they needed to not get back any of their security.  Plus the wife's voice was so annoying.

As far as the noisemakers you know she was banging the broom.  She was trying to get out of her lease from day 1 I'm sure.  When the Plaintiff was interviewed in the hall he struck me as maybe being autistic (Aspergers?).  He had no facial expressions at all during the whole case.  Just too serious.  He had nothing to worry about.  She's definitely running out of that building so fast that the suction is going to pull everyone with her.

[meowmommy]

What is it with -- and I see it everywhere -- so many desperately heavy women wearing these shirts with cutouts in the shoulders (I don't know what it's called in fashion)?

And why do we care about the long backstory of the argument?  Who gives a FF?  WTF does it have to do with the merits of the case?  Don't answer, I already know.  I just know that in the first ten minutes, the phone is mentioned for about ten seconds.

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

JM's counselling doesn't work. Does she really think that when you have a grandma who wants to fistfight there is going to be some lovey-dovey resolution?

I wish to F that just once, MM would treat litigants as litigants and stay out of their family situations.

When did Apple start offering iPhone insurance?  I know forever you couldn't get insurance for their phones.  I've had three iPhones and nobody ever tried to sell it to me, either.

14 minutes ago, NYGirl said:

As a grandmother I was appalled that the plaintiff in the first case didn't care if she saw her grandson and great grandchildren any more.

Coming from the original dysfunctional family, I wasn't appalled at all.  If I never see my sister again, it will be too soon.  However, my issue with her is a little more significant than a damn phone.

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

Then we had the family who lived in def's premises for five years.

I was with the plaintiffs at first.  I'm not shocked at scuff marks when you've lived in a place for five years.  The walls should have been painted anyway.  The plaintiffs should have slapped some white paint up themselves.  Then I saw the pictures of the kitchen.  Changed my mind!

Why did they bring four bored, bratty adolescents with them?  

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

She advises the litigants to learn how live in peace and tells plaintiff to inform the landlord that if def doesn't move out, he will.

I didn't understand this case when Hallclown was presenting it, as I don't think MM can order specific performance.  Seems like the landlord should either let the plaintiff out of his lease or evict the defendant, as the plaintiff has a right to quiet enjoyment.  Especially since she's generated noise complaints from other tenants to the super.  What good is a $100 judgment going to do?  If she'd lost, she'd probably bang on the ceiling twice as often just for spite.

They never met?  Why didn't he just go downstairs and hammer on her door for a while before escalating to the cops and court?

[SRTouch]

2 hours ago, NYGirl said:

As a grandmother I was appalled that the plaintiff in the first case didn't care if she saw her grandson and great grandchildren any more.  It boggles my mind...really.  Not that the defendant was any better either.  What dysfunction.  Ugh

No words for the 2nd messy tenant case.  When I saw that stuff left in the stove I gagged and decided that they needed to not get back any of their security.  Plus the wife's voice was so annoying.

As far as the noisemakers you know she was banging the broom.  She was trying to get out of her lease from day 1 I'm sure.  When the Plaintiff was interviewed in the hall he struck me as maybe being autistic (Aspergers?).  He had no facial expressions at all during the whole case.  Just too serious.  He had nothing to worry about.  She's definitely running out of that building so fast that the suction is going to pull everyone with her.

Thanks for the recap. I watched this from the kitchen table and started to recap, but cases were so forgettable I couldn't remember #1 & 3 by the time I made it to living room. Your recap brought it all back, but still don't have much to say about Granny of the Year (1) or the broom banger (#3). I MIGHT have given tenants something from #2.... that would depend on what "no receipt" landlord was asking for the floors. I mean, after 5 years I wouldn't give anything for paint (even though they REALLY scuffed up the walls) as he should paint anyway..... but as soon as I heard P mommy look at the destroyed floor and explain "oh, that's where the bed moved back and forth...." nope, I agreed with MM that tenants probably caused more damage than amount of security

Edited September 28, 2019 by SRTouch

[Broderbits]

22 minutes ago, meowmommy said:

What is it with -- and I see it everywhere -- so many desperately heavy women wearing these shirts with cutouts in the shoulders (I don't know what it's called in fashion)?

That look is called the "cold shoulder" and IMHO it screams "fashion victim". I saw a woman who had to be at least 70 wearing a "cold shoulder" dress today and it was very difficult not to yell at her.

25 minutes ago, meowmommy said:

I wish to F that just once, MM would treat litigants as litigants and stay out of their family situations.

Amen to this! It always boils down to "so and so disrespected me!" Most of us at home just don't care, so grow up and move on.

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, meowmommy said:

I was with the plaintiffs at first.  I'm not shocked at scuff marks when you've lived in a place for five years.  The walls should have been painted anyway.  The plaintiffs should have slapped some white paint up themselves.  Then I saw the pictures of the kitchen.  Changed my mind!

I was with them at first too. I thought any landlord will have to paint after 5 years, but those walls need more attention than a coat of cheap paint. I have oak floors and I put those felt pads on my furniture legs to avoid scuffing up the floor. You can get them at the frickin' dollar store.  The plantiffs could have done that, but couldn't be bothered since they're the kind of people who just don't give a shit how they treat someone else's property. I can't believe JM let Ms. Piggy rant and talk over her as long as she did. I grew up with 2 siblings and two parents in a rented flat. My mother was always after me and and my brother not to stomp on the floors over the downstairs' neighbours or break anything. My parents painted the place every few years. No broken windows, scratched up floors or beaten-to-hell walls. I guess respect for the property of others is a thing of the past and these plaintiffs are yet more parents teaching their brood, "If you didn't pay for it, you can do whatever you like to it".

[DoctorK]

10 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

I have oak floors and I put those felt pads on my furniture legs to avoid scuffing up the floor. You can get them at the frickin' dollar st

What really got me was one of the holes looked like they had gone through the flooring, the subflooring and into the concrete slab

Edited September 28, 2019 by DoctorK

[meowmommy]

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

I have oak floors and I put those felt pads on my furniture legs to avoid scuffing up the floor.

I was renting a few years ago a cute little bungalow with newly finished oak floors and the landlords put it in the lease that all the furniture had to have felt pads on them.  I did as requested, but some of the boards got scratched anyway.  The landlords were kind enough not to charge me when I moved out, maybe because they knew that I had tried, but probably just because they were really nice people.

[AngelaHunter]

11 hours ago, meowmommy said:

I was renting a few years ago a cute little bungalow with newly finished oak floors and the landlords put it in the lease that all the furniture had to have felt pads on them.  I did as requested, but some of the boards got scratched anyway.

People have to walk on floors and they can't stay the way they looked the day they were refinished. I, and a whole slew of others including three big dogs and kids have walked, run and lived on my floors. Sure, there are scratches, but even after 24 years there is not the kind of damage these people did in 5 years. Aso, floors finished in high gloss are bad news. A single pet hair lying on it, or even the most superficial scratch will stick out like a sore thumb. My floors are a duller, satin finish and you'd have to look very hard to find a scratch.

13 hours ago, DoctorK said:

What really got me was one of the holes looked like they had gone through the flooring, the subflooring and into the concrete slab

Sometimes I look at the kind of damage litigants do their rented premises and really wonder how the hell the did it - broken ceiling fans, tons of marks on the wall up to the ceiling, cupboard doors hanging off, bathroom sinks detached from the wall, etc. And what kind of maniac punches holes in walls? Those nuts should not only have to pay to fix them, but pay punitive damages for deliberate destructiion.

[SRTouch]

bad horse trade: couple years ago P hurt her shoulder and couldn't take care of her horse and donkey. She made a deal with D for the critters. Thing was that D needed additional fencing, so P let her have some livestock panels temporarily. Not sure what exactly happened, but think D decided not to take the donkey. So, even though D took the panels home, she says she no longer needed them and they sat unused in a pile for a year.  Then D bought another horse, and contacts P asking if P has any more unused panels. P offers to let D keep the panels she has had for a year and 6 additional panels for low low price of $1500. D doesn't want panels if she has to pay for them, so says no deal. P decides she wants money for the panels D already has - D says no way, come and get them - P sends repeated texts asking when she can pick them up - D ignores texts. Both sides asking ridiculous amounts in damages. MM gives nobody money, but orders D to let P come get the panels - moral victory for P but doubt she even wants them as she has moved out of state and part of her ridiculous claim is the cost of transporting the panels to her new place....... I was listening to D trying to excuse not answering those texts - she says she works 14-15 hours a day and just didn't have time - I'm wondering who takes care of her animals?

tow case: this is typical case where car is towed, and owner let's it sit in impound until fees are more than car is worth, then owner claims police/tow company are in cahoots and unfairly impounded his ride - turns out he had 2, 3, or maybe it was 4 parking tickets and owed 3 or maybe 500 bucks, let it slide for almost a year, car was booted and then towed when fees mounted over $2500, still ignored it (well, I guess he was 'investigating' and trying to 'work it out'). Now the impound lot is about to auction off his ride, and he finally decides to do something (fees now up over 4 grand). Should have been a cut and dried case, but while in impound lot his ride gets banged up and he present evidence it will cost big bucks to fix. Owner gets nothing, and tow guy told to lower his fees by amount of damages...... not really sure how that will work out. When it goes to auction does tow company have to give the city/county their fees and he keeps the rest? Maybe they split based on a precentage? MM wants to punish tow guy for the damage (and his attitude in court) but I have a feeling good he won't be out any money (even if he actually had to pay any of the judgement)

security for flop house room: nobody came to court with evidence and nobody gets any money.... recap short since I watched - maybe - 3 minutes of this one

Edited October 1, 2019 by SRTouch

[meowmommy]

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

couple years ago P hurt her shoulder and couldn't take care of her horse and donkey.

No, no, don't you know, it's a DUNKY.

I think, between plaintiff and defendant, there were about eight shades of hair color.

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

MM gives nobody money, but orders D to let P come get the panels - moral victory for P

I think the plaintiff was on firmer ground before she started asking for hotels and meals.  Any other case, MM would have done some rough justice, but I think she was just tired of both litigants.

Does Douglas really get involved in making arrangements, or does he just play that on TV?

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

turns out he had 2, 3, or maybe 4 parking tickets and owed 3-500 bucks, let it slide for almost a year

I didn't get his excuse about not appearing in court because of parking tickets.  Why do you have to go to court for parking tickets?  You just send them the money.  Unless he was contesting all four tickets.  And as MM said, he waited nine months without making any payments while he was "working on it."  He was the poster child for not taking responsibility for anything.  She asked him if he understood how his ignoring the tickets led to this huge problem, and he said yes like a robot, clearly not understanding a goddamn thing.  And the storage fees continue, would probably be to this day, except by now the car's been seized and sold.   

OTOH, the tow truck guy's excuse for how two cars are wedged together in his lot was almost as lame as the plaintiff's excuses.

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

nobody came to court with evidence and nobody gets any money

The plaintiff was just sad.  And MM got to break out her toilet paper and crayon speech.  It must be in her contract that she has to say that once a week.

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, meowmommy said:

And as MM said, he waited nine months without making any payments while he was "working on it."

Such hard-working litigants. So many are "working on" getting insurance, car registration, dealing with parking tickets, etc. I'd like to know what all this working on things consists of.  Just workin' away, they are!

2 hours ago, meowmommy said:

I think the plaintiff was on firmer ground before she started asking for hotels and meals.

Gotta give these money-grubbers an "A" for their chutzpah and greed. I admit I wasn't paying attention to most of this nonsense and plaintiff's Lily Munster-ish hairdo was disturbing , but my ears perked up when I heard them wanting their meals paid for by the defendant. How do they come up with this shameful crap?

5 hours ago, SRTouch said:

security for flop house room: nobody came to court with evidence and nobody gets any money.... recap short since I watched - maybe - 3 minutes

I kept nodding off, but plaintiff wants money for...? Because his new room (it seems the denizens of this flop house play "Musical Rooms") was smaller? It was too cool? The people upstairs made noise? I dunno. Def had proof all written down in his "white" book or whatever he called it, but he decided not to bring that with him.

[SRTouch]

almost married rip-off: couple in long term relationship, complete with joint bank account. P says when they broke up the gf took 5 grand from the account. Funny thing here is that dude left the money in the joint account for months after the breakup. MM really gives dude a hard time - especially when she learns he talked to the bank and was told he should move the money, but it was too much of a hazzle and he 'trusted this woman.' Oh well, MM hears enough to convince her it was in fact his money. D gf tries to argue with MM when MM informs D that P could have her prosecuted, and MM informs D that, of the 2 of them, she, MM, is the lawyer and judge. Case has its moments, but long before it was over I was fed up with P talking over the judge and wanted to hear JJ toss case as 'courts don't deal with almost marrieds'.... P gets the requested 5 grand because - well D freely admits the money in account was his from P's mother's estate.... full disclosure - I gave up early and zipped through most of this one

lousy siding job: P hired D to put siding on property (a sober living house) - says D's workers were all recovering addicts and did such a botched job it needed to be redone - wants $4300.....  D says all his dealings were with P's partner (who, says D, was a recovering drug addict - actually I think everyone on both sides might be recovering - or maybe active - addicts) and that partner knew and approved of the sober living house residents doing the work and getting paid for their labor - says lawsuit filed because the partners ran into money troubles.... sounds like partnership is thing of the past, as P refers to the partnership in past tense and, according to D the partner had relapsed and was using at the time - P complains D never finished the work even though he was paid in advance - D counters that P fired him and kicked him off job - oh and says this took place a couple years ago and first time he heard about P wanting money back was when suit was filed.... hmmmm, D pretty excitable, a hand waver/pointer, but he says it was the missing partner who suggested using the recovering addicts even though they had no experience..... since the partner isn't here (later we hear the partner is being sued in another court), this is turning into a 'he said - he said' case, and it sure hurts P's case if he really waited 2 years before asking for money back - sounds like an under-the-table, on the cheap, job and P got what he paid for.... waiting to see if P can prove what he says - he says he has a contract, but it isn't signed - yeah both sides claim they have a contract - but they're different and neither side had an actual signed contract..... come commercial break MM is quizzing P's witness, dude claims to be a licensed contractor but MM isn't so sure when dude can't produce the license.... hmmm, I didn't know there was an actual licensed to carry - my experience is that the license # is on a business card and a customer should call and check to see is it is current and whether contractor is licensed/insured.... ok, not sure if D is changing his testimony or what - I thought he said he had been paid for the job, but now he's telling us the part that wasn't completed was a change order addition for which he wasn't paid..... actually that sort of makes sense.... uh-oh, D just lost me when P comes up to show pictures of what he's complaining about - P points out that the seams in the siding are not staggered, D and his witness both argue seams should not be staggered, but hey, even I know better (confirmed with quicky Google search) hmmmm, but MM apparently doesn't know..... ok, despite D claim to have done siding before, I don't think he knew what he was doing - but I still think P got what he paid for when it was done on the cheap - and remember, job was done 2 years ago and P hasn't had it redone - it was good enough for 2 years, and I'm not giving him anything now to have an actual licensed redo the job even if it was crap (and yep, pix show a pretty crappy job)..... ah, MM finally told us what D was paid - 11  grand! Ah, but it was for multiple buildings? So not as cheap as I was thinking..... now time for P's witness to get grilled about the license - not good when judge catches your witness lying about being licensed - are you licensed - yeah - are you licensed - yeah, well my partner is licensed - no, are you licensed!?!? D argues witness is not only not licensed, but is a mason and doesn't know squat about siding - oh and he's another recovering addict/resident of the facility..... ahhhhh P's case really taking nose dive here - his witness says P paid him $4300 in material and labor to finish the crap job D did, but are the pictures he's showing taken after that his witness 'fixed' the problems - I remember him saying they were from how the house looks now..... also, as MM points out, he paid D by check but for some reason paid his witness cash and has no receipts for the materials he says he bought for his witness to redo job - case dismissed

friend never finished making payments on truck sale: this will be a short one as second ran long - more commercials than case) D says his good friend sold him a lemon that needed let's of work, so he used the final $500 owed on truck to fix the problems..... sounds like self help...... P makes case pretty easy as he has signed purchase agreement, and D admits he was to pay $1000 and only paid $500 - MM asks D why he didn't pay what he agreed to pay, and he says it needed work..... hmmmm imagine that, a $1000 '04 Chevy needed work! Oh, but wait, the best part is that D,  the guy buying this 14yo heap, is an actual auto mechanic..... yeppers, dude agreed to pay a grand for the heap, but then, after the fact, decided he should get a 50% discount because there was more wrong than he bargained for because he trusted his good friend when he said it was in good condition..... after heaping scorn on D, MM  rules for P 

Edited October 2, 2019 by SRTouch

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

almost married rip-off:

This was excruciating. Neither litigant could answer a direct question without meandering off and grandstanding. I couldn't believe it took JM so long to tell the plantiff to "quit whining" and answer the damned question. Plaintiff is 59 years old and got his house from his mother and his car from his father and he did so much for this woman and yadda yadda. I don't know why they broke up. They're both the same with their convoluted half-thruths and evading questions. I just didn't understand the verdict. I thought if there was a joint account (and one person is too lazy or stupid to fix that after a breakup), that both parties have the right to withdraw money from it. Is that not so?

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

lousy siding job:

We had what we see a lot, which is an alternative to "I have the evidence, but not with me TODAY" with the plaintiff who indeed has a contract, but no one signed it. His toothless friend/witness, John, was kind of a hoot. It took JM all kinds of trouble to get him to admit he has no license to be a contractor, even though he said he did. All the litigants, including def's beastly, braying "domestic partner" , were unbearable.

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

friend never finished making payments on truck sale:

Another despicable litigant in the def, a shameless POS who ripped off his friend because he expected a 15-year old, 1K vehicle to be in top-top shape, so of course he wasn't going to pay for it. Worst part of this case was the plaintiff in the hall saying he'll continue being a friend to the person who cheated him and showed not an ounce of remorse here.

Levin, you did an outstanding job in dredging up all these litigants. I'm sure they made you and your dim-witted fan club in the doorway very happy.

Edited October 1, 2019 by AngelaHunter

[meowmommy]

4 hours ago, SRTouch said:

couple in long term relationship, complete with joint bank account

On what normal planet do unmarrieds, especially not even living together, keep a joint bank account?  And in what world does the person on a lease with you have to share your bank account?  I'd run like hell from that co-op board.  

And then she says she has the right to "borrow" money, but missed out on paying it back.  He says she won't answer him and she says he blocked her phone.

Points for plaintiff for using "incredulous," and even using it correctly.  He's lucky she only took $5K and didn't clean him out completely.

MM, it's "God's green earth," not "God's green acres," even though we all know Green Acres is the place to be.  And then she got it right in the third case.

4 hours ago, SRTouch said:

hmmm, I didn't know there was an actual licensed to carry - my experience is that the license # is on a business card and a customer should call and check to see is it is current and whether contractor is insured

Wonder if there really was a W-9 or if it was all off the books, or if, as MM suggested, the plaintiff just brought in the "contractor" off the street to be a voice in court.

The 2 1/2 years waiting to file the lawsuit might be a clue that the case is a little shaky.  Sounds like the plaintiff is desperate to collect from anyone he can, given that Rico soaked him for $100K.

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

All the litigants, including def's beastly, braying "domestic partner" , were unbearable.

She and Reggie needed to stop to draw breath once in a while.  

Jesus, any damn excuse for MM to break out toilet paper and crayons!  Enough, already!

I'm on the stagger side.

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

Levin, you did an outstanding job in dredging up all these litigants. I'm sure they made you and your dim-witted fan club in the doorway very happy.

Probably any nice normal litigants wouldn't touch TPC with a ten foot pole.  Some people actually still have their dignity.

[AngelaHunter]

16 hours ago, meowmommy said:

On what normal planet do unmarrieds, especially not even living together, keep a joint bank account?

We've seen litigants who have opened joint accounts and credit cards after knowing each other mere months and sometimes only weeks. It's mind-boggling. I've never even had a joint account with my husband!

16 hours ago, meowmommy said:

Jesus, any damn excuse for MM to break out toilet paper and crayons!  Enough, already!

I agree. I couldn't follow her advice anyway since I have no crayons in my house. I've never tried it, but I would think trying to write on TP with a crayon may be difficult unless you use the super cheap, extra-tough TP.

[CrazyInAlabama]

This morning's rerun (we get two episodes on weekdays here) was the despicable loser who had to have his Arizona Iced tea in a certain flavor, so he parked in the handicapped parking space.   He claims the defendants (the tow company that's been on here several times) towed his car instantly, but tow operators say it's 15 minutes or so to their tow yard, and despicable defendant calls when his vehicle was already at the tow yard.     Mr. Despicable thought he would get all of his tow fees back, and he was so wrong.   MM had zero sympathy for him, and even Levin couldn't get anyone of the street trolls to say plaintiff wasn't a bad person.  

I was hoping someone would take something and smack the plaintiff upside his useless head, but I hope someone has since.   

Then the Section 8 lady who gave the right notice about the move to the landlord, but then left some of her stuff in the house until the middle of the month was entertaining.    Plaintiff was required to get approval for the new place, and give notice, but forgot to mention the damages to the landlord's place.  Damage included her 17 year old daughter doing a hideous, sloppy paint job in a dark color, that would require several coats of paint, and painting the ceiling to get her splattered, and dark paint off of that too. Sadly, the landlord didn't send the required itemized list required by law, and the repainting wasn't finished yet.   So landlord only kept about 2/3 of the deposit.   

[SRTouch]

landlord suing tenant's neighbor for kicking in door: couple of neighbors get in hissy fit over kids' carpool when 1 kid gets left stranded, angry mama bear comes banging and kicking on carpool driver's screen door. Soon as I saw D I dubbed her Betty Boop cuz of her red red lips and 'never been in sun' white face. Apparently, carpool driver didn't pick up Betty's kid because she overheard Betty saying she was a bad driver and didn'the know how to park. Betty doesn't deny saying driver can't drive, which had me wondering why she would WANT her kid riding in carpool driver's car. Anyway, short case made shorter as Betty blushes/giggles every time she tries to lie, and despite words coming out of her mouth denying she was person kicking door nobody watching doubts she did the deed. P doesn't need to say much, and it's refreshing to have a litigant (P, not Betty) not only be believable, but limit claim to very reasonable about....

lousy bus painter: D hired good friend to do back alley paint job on his 50+ passenger bus for a quick sale. D claims he got estimate from professional painter of 9 grand, so he was willing to pay his friend 3 grand, plus D was to reimburse P for supplies (plus cheap sanders from Harbor Freight). P, a repo guy by trade, spends few hundred buying paint and materials and paints the bus. Granted he did a lousy job (and paint looks kind of dull) but D got what he paid for, and amateur job done with cheapest paint as agreed. Problem arises when D refuses to pay - not only for the labor, but not even for the materials (P claims he was $700 out of pocket, but only has receipts for $500+). Not only did D get his bus painted for free, but he filed a countersuit for 7 grand. MM gives up on trying to lecture D as he stands there smirking. P gets the $3000 they agreed on plus the $500 odd he was out of pocket. Final thought - WTH did D come here to tell national audience about what a cheapskate he is - never mind trying to stiff a friend, he's here saying he repairs buses for a living and sometimes flips them - this bus would be worth 50k had it been painted properly, but now only worth 30k because of the crappy paint job..... yeah, anyone here ready to buy anything from this guy?

#3 is tenant wanting big bucks from landlandy: tenant here after lotto money because he rented a dump with plumbing problems, his stuff got moldy, he found out the dump was an illegal apartment.... his crap valuable sneaker collection and other classy property was damaged so he wants every penny in paid in rent while living there (oh, did I mention this is after he lived there for months without paying rent until landlady got a lawyer to get him evicted). Case dismissed

[AngelaHunter]

17 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

landlord suing tenant's neighbor for kicking in door:

That def. was so distasteful. I have no idea what her attitude, posing and smirking were all about. She's a loser who is a SSM and has to live with her kid at her grandma's house. Other people have to be enlisted to get her kid to school, since she can't get herself a car. I just want to know where she got the word, "Culpatory." I guess she Googled it and wrote it on her palm since you know someone with her miserable grammar didn't know it. Potential litigants: Just remember how much JM loves it when she has trashy, ignorant ninnies telling her that something is irrelevant and will no doubt thank you for your input on legal matters.

23 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

#3 is tenant wanting big bucks from landlandy:

He seems like  a professional grifter. He moved into this dump, knowing full well it had no kitchen therefore could not be legal. Probably not the first time he's done this. He didn't pay rent for months yet wants back what he did pay. I guess he needs the cash to renew his gym membership. Again, I find it really amusing and telling when we see a seemingly quiet, genteel litigant like the def who appears one way in court, and then see her screeching like a lunatic on a video. I have no idea why she was yelling about lesbians. Of course, the grifter gets nothing.

[Broderbits]

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

I just want to know where she got the word, "Culpatory." I guess she Googled it and wrote it on her palm since you know someone with her miserable grammar didn't know it. Potential litigants: Just remember how much JM loves it when she has trashy, ignorant ninnies telling her that something is irrelevant and will no doubt thank you for your input on legal matters.

Maybe she spends her days watching Law & Order reruns; that's where a lot of these litigants seem to get their vast legal expertise.

[meowmommy]

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

I just want to know where she got the word, "Culpatory."

Oh, no, it was "inculpatory."  You know, the opposite of exculpatory.  Of course.

Buttercup thought she was soooo cute.  She thought wrong.

20 minutes ago, Broderbits said:

Maybe she spends her days watching Law & Order reruns; that's where a lot of these litigants seem to get their vast legal expertise.

Never having seen L&O, hafta ask, is that better or worse than the days when everyone got their law degrees at Perry Mason U?

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

this bus would be worth 50k had it been painted properly, but now only worth 30k because of the crappy paint job

You're in the bus repairing business and you haven't arranged sweetheart deals or volume discounts with the body shops?  You get what you pay for.  But the plaintiff worked without an advance?  Work and materials?  He should have planned to be stiffed.

Those looked like paw prints, not fingerprints.

MM's latest incredibly boring cliche is, "If it's good enough for you, it's good enough for me."

2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

He seems like  a professional grifter.

The convoluted explanation of how he found the place to begin with was enough that MM should have demanded his tongue be notarized.  And then amputated.  The lady was trying to get him out from the moment he moved in.

The mold traveled?  So you just stand there and watch the mold climb over your shoes?  It's not lava, buddy.  

2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Again, I find it really amusing and telling when we see a seemingly quiet, genteel litigant like the def who appears one way in court, and then see her screeching like a lunatic on a video.

What the hell was the point of this video, other than for MM's amusement?  I call BS on MM saying, cue it up, maybe there's something actionable there.  She just wanted to see cray-cray, and it just wasn't that cray-cray.

[AngelaHunter]

4 minutes ago, meowmommy said:

Oh, no, it was "inculpatory."  You know, the opposite of exculpatory.  Of course.

Is that what she said? I admit I don't pay much attention to the garbled shit that comes spewing out of the pieholes of these imbeciles. I'm too distracted by thinking of them looking in the mirror before coming here and thinking, "Oh, damn! I look like all that and a box of cookies!"

6 minutes ago, meowmommy said:

Never having seen L&O, hafta ask, is that better or worse than the days when everyone got their law degrees at Perry Mason U?

🤣 I've been catching bits of that late at night and I think you're right! Everyone on that show shouts out from the sidelines or the back of the room, confesses from the doorways and "I object" flies thick and fast.

[DoctorK]

2 hours ago, meowmommy said:

Buttercup thought she was soooo cute.  She thought wrong.

You nailed it. Not just appearance but her mannerisms.

[CrazyInAlabama]

They had the rerun where the woman sent her dog to the dog trainer for a month or so, then when they arrive home she refuses to even listen to the trainer, or work with the dogs.   Dog trainers don't just do magic, change the dog permanently, or get the dog to change without the owners doing their part.     Plus, the woman wanted Giardia treatment paid for by the trainer, because "they didn't have worms when they were at out house".   Giardia is a very common disease, and only treated if the dog has symptoms, or the owner does (people can catch it, don't ask), and has nothing to do with worms or the dog trainer.   So MM gives the woman everything for training, and vet bills back.   Not fair at all.    

Edited October 3, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama

[SRTouch]

We only had time for two cases today as MM needed to spend so much time counseling dysfunctional families. First case was over for me before intro was finished. P suing her parents over an old ATV which was stored in their garage for years. Seems P's first marriage ended in divorce, she blames her sister for leading ex hubby astray, ex hubby died after the divorce was final and evil sis became executor of his estate. Seems the ATV P is suing for was titled in hubby's name, and is part of his estate. IMHO, P has latched onto this ATV as a way to get back at parents because they sided with hubby during the divorce and, at least in her mind, favor the sister. Some time in the past, maybe as long ago as the divorce, P signed papers granting her parents visitation to her kids, their grandkids. P is bitter shrew who cut off agreed upon visitation, so grandparents took her to court and won, forcing her to abide by the earlier agreement. Soooooo, P lost that case, and now the vindictive b*tch is suing  grandparents over this ATV that was stored in their garage for years and now is at the evil sister's house..... sounds like thing hasn't been used for years and probably doesn't even wotk.... all adults sound like vindictive a$$holes - especially the P and absent sister..... ex-hubby has been gone awhile now and absent sis isn't in any hurry to settle the estate  (in addition to the ATV, sounds like hubby got marital home and had $250,000 life insurance policy)..... oh, and did I fail to mention vindictive bitter shrew of a mother, the Plaintiff, felt need to drag the three kids to court..... ok, long winded recap boils down to P suing parents over piece of hubby's property they moved to other daughter's garage with other property/vehicles tied up in estate - P should either be suing her sister as person with ATV or as the executor of the estate. 

#2 is another family suing family, this time cousin suing cousin. Boring case, entitled D trying to play Sainted single mother of 3 card along with insisting dear cuz gifted her the $3500+.... only interesting part of case is when we learn P cuz, who is out on workers comp from her federal job, flashes her Federal ID folder, complete with badge, to deadbeat cuz's landlord while trying to verify deadbeat's address so she can serve her the small claims papers.... unfortunately the interesting part was about 30 seconds and the case ran a half hour..... another case where D lost case as soon as MM read the texts - from D's own phone as she tries to use the same text to prove the money was a gift

Edited October 5, 2019 by SRTouch

[AngelaHunter]

34 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

. First case was over for me before intro was finished.

What a disgrace. That brute really wanted her kids here to hear all the sordid crap that came out. JJ would have sent the kids out first thing.

36 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

another case where D lost case as soon as MM read the texts

The SSMOT was quite the genius, wasn't she? She offers up a text where in reply to plaintiff asking her to pay back the money, she replies, "Absolutely!" Duh. Another deadbeat trying to claim money for harassment, when - as usual - the harassment consists of someone trying to recover money owed by the deadbeat. And I'm sure her employers had other reasons to fire her.

[AZChristian]

On 10/1/2019 at 2:25 PM, AngelaHunter said:

His toothless friend/witness, John, was kind of a hoot.

Sorry for the late response.  My life hasn't been my own lately.

Did anyone else crack up when MM said something to the witness about needing more proof than his "flapping gums"?  Given his complete toothlessness . . . they were!

[Guest]

On 10/4/2019 at 5:18 PM, AngelaHunter said:

What a disgrace. That brute really wanted her kids here to hear all the sordid crap that came out. JJ would have sent the kids out first thing.

She was seething. I would not want to be anywhere near her when that pot boils over.  Her children were terrified and that’s the one thing that makes me sad about this case. The stupid adults will kick the stuffing out of each other and go on their merry way while the children file this emotional roller coaster in their fragile memory and never quite recover because they know from experience that it will happen again and again  

I see this all too often.

[zillabreeze]

Catching up...wedding photographer that just "loses" pictures and twenty flimsy excuses why.

Out in the hall, Doug ask a couple of times "aren't you embarrassed?" "Nah", he's not, "life happens".

Ding! Ding! Ding!  There it is folks, society in a nutshell.  No one is ever embarrassed, contrite or feels shame about ANYTHING.  Just happyass along, crapping on everyone else, it's all good.

[SRTouch]

#1 is one eyed dude suing alley mechanic dude over lousy car picked up from auction along with not fixing the junker as promised. Instead of usual as-is sale case, in this one D not only charged a couple hundred bucks for his 'expertise' in picking car at auction, he also collected $500 for repairs he didn't do. P wins - D is ordered to return the $700. Also, for reason I never understood, title is in D's name, and D is ordered to sign title over to P

#2 is tenant wanting lotto money after being evicted from an illegal apartment. P actually acts surprised when told landlord doesn't have to pay her hotel and moving expenses after she stopped paying rent, lived rent free for months, lost in housing court and was evicted and then stayed a month past the date housing court ordered her to be moved out after court gave her even more rent free time to find new apartment and move out. Only unusual thing here was that when Marshals came to kick hefty-hefty greasy-haired tenant to the curb they brought along moving people and forced landlord to pay for a month of storage plus the movers. Landlord sued to collect for the rent tenant didn't pay, which of course didn't fly. What did fly was keeping the security because she actually paid more than amount of security in legal fees and to move and store tenant's stuff. Nobody gets any money, but landlord does keep the deposit 

#3 dog attack - according to intro, D claims her pitty didn't appreciate P's little dog pissing on D's lawn - then in same breath intro-clown says D claims there was never really an attack, no blood, no puncture, etc - as we go to commercial MM is questioning D as it seems during testimony there's a new element of defense introduced by D - if her pit really DID attack the little dog, the P would be suing for cremation fees rather than cost of surgery - sadly, not first time I've heard this crappy defense attempted..... skipped after intro, but think this is case that was on FB this morning showing pix of shaved dog with stitches and drain

Edited October 7, 2019 by SRTouch