KA-52 February 10, 2020 Share February 10, 2020 On 1/31/2020 at 8:39 AM, Bazinga said: JM directly asked him what the word meant and he said you would have to ask Monty Python. No, sir, you have to know the answer, so say it. Long time reader, first time poster. I made the account just to complain about this clown. I am firmly in the camp that he thinks it is a made up word and does not even realize it is someone pronouncing "knight" as it is spelled. I'm not sure if he didn't want to be outed as not actually getting the joke or was afraid it might actually be offensive, but he sure sounded foolish with that smug response. 2 Link to comment
SRTouch February 10, 2020 Share February 10, 2020 (edited) Quicky recap As-Is new/old boat: p bought BIG boat that texts prove he knew had problems - he's also insisting trailer was to go with boat despite text evidence to contrary - says when he got boat to marina, marina mechanic looked at boat said boat was crap - oh, and it sank first time it was put in water - not only wants money back, but almost double (not sure, but if I heard correctly but he paid $2800 and is now asking 5 grand - says he deserves the extra for what he spent getting boat to marina, plus marina mechanic who declared it crap - oh, and nothing from mechanic saying what all is wrong, but supposedly boat sank....... not much for D to say - MM asks if D has any evidence and he says nada - helpful P interrupts and says he has all the texts - oh my, once again litigant destroys own case with texts, as P hands his phone to Douglas and MM reads texts providing proof for D - P gets nothing but an order to finish paying for boat and give D back the trailer...... Break up drama: if I have this right, couple move in together 3 months after meeting and live together for 9 months - things definitely not smooth going in that year as they go to couples counseling because he's jealous and insecure and she's a liar who lies to avoid confrontation - ah, who cares that the counseling isn't working, the love bugs decide to go all in and sign a year long lease on a house - what could go wrong? - they meet up at lease office & sign the lease, he pays deposit and she pays 1st month rent (well, she's a hundred bucks short, so he pays $1200 and she pays a grand) - same day, while at leasing office, he notices vibes between gf and dude in office, asks gf and she denies knowing office dude - later that same day, she admits she and office dude used to be an item - bf has hissy fit, decides he's out, and new landlord removes his name from lease...... now, he's suing for half the deposit plus the $100, and she wants P to pay half of first month rent (D did move in to house and plans to stay the year)...... MM breaks news to P that D could have sued for a couple months rent if she could prove she was looking for a new roommate - decision has P getting half deposit, but he'll have to wait until D moves out (if D damages place and doesn't get back full deposit he can still sue for half - in a year) - D gets to keep the hundred bucks p loaned her for 1st month rent, but rest of his share of 1st month rent comes from his half of deposit...... so nobody gets anything today, but in a year can sue for half the deposit ($550) questionable auto shop charges: p says when she went to pick up car she was charged twice the estimate and her car had been damaged - both litigants are short on evidence, and sounds like MM unhappy with both - she doesn't buy that car damaged at shop, and is not happy with shop charging $700 when estimate was $350...... case pretty much a dud - only question I had - was P wearing a mop head or wig? ........ P gets nothing for questionable damage but Auto shop only gets to keep what they quoted as estimate Edited February 10, 2020 by SRTouch 4 Link to comment
AngelaHunter February 10, 2020 Share February 10, 2020 (edited) 5 hours ago, SRTouch said: As-Is new/old boat: Two Clowns and a Boat: I will never stop being amazed at how people can reach their mid-sixties and still be as clueless as a newborn. Oh, and dumb. Really dumb. Sixty-five year old plaintiff, with an enlongated Dudley Moore hairdo, needs something to fool around with, so decides to buy an old 30-foot boat, even though he's never had a boat and doesn't know much about them. The trailer was included in the price, says P. No, it wasn't, says D. Why would P have a mechanic look at it before he bought it? Why would either of them think of putting anything in writing? They didn't need no contract and there wasn't nothing that needed to be done to the boat. I do love when JM reads these texes verbatim and leaves the terrible grammar in. P says the mechanic told him it needed thousands of dollars of work. Does he have the mechanic's estimate? No, of course not. The mechanic got really scared, you see. He thought it was all a scam on D's part. Everyone got scared. D is obviously some diabolical criminal mastermind, just waiting and looking for a 65-year old dumbass to buy his wrecked boat. Well, he found just the right dumbass. Neither of them have any proof or evidence of what they're saying, but a the final moment, P produces a text. Sadly for him, it reinforces D's claim that the trailer was not included. Too bad, so sad. Sorry, P. The hulk is yours. 5 hours ago, SRTouch said: Break up drama: I warn you - do NOT drink every time the P says "basically". I tried to do that and saw I may have ended up with alcohol poisoning, so quit. I remember Judge Judy forbidding a defendant from using the word "like" in his testimony and he was rendered mute. I feel the same may have happened here if JM had asked P to tell his story without "basically". There is basically endless trouble during the relationship, basically caused by D basically keeping in contact with some old boyfriend, basically. That basically doesn't stop P from wanting to move in with her again in the new house. I do congratulate this pair for having the good sense to not start breeding right away. Very unusual on this show. Basically. 5 hours ago, SRTouch said: questionable auto shop charges: I thought it was funny when JM asked P if her car had ever been rear-ended and P said it had not. JM asked in another way and it turns out it had been rear-ended, but before she bought it, so it doesn't count. Def seemed like a bit of a crook, but I'm not sure. P feels she should get the brake job - which was done - for free because of the terrible "trauma" she suffered. Does anyone on this show not try to find out what constitutes "trauma" before appearing here? It doesn't mean what they think it means. If the mechanic had barged into her house, tied her up and threatened to keep her prisoner until she paid, that might be seen as traumatic. A garage overcharges you? That is not trauma, you want-something-for-nothing idiot. 5 hours ago, SRTouch said: was that a mop head or wig on P? It made me think of a massive amount of those braided drapery tie-backs used on velvet drapes in days of yore. Edited February 11, 2020 by AngelaHunter Mixed up "P" and "D" 4 2 Link to comment
AngelaHunter February 11, 2020 Share February 11, 2020 5 hours ago, SRTouch said: D could have sued for a couple months rent if she could prove she was looking for a new roommate - I didn't quite get MM saying that. She never intended to live with a roommate, but a romantic partner. So for her to have to look for a roommate wouldn't quite make sense to me. I'm sure she wouldn't have moved into the big house if she knew she'd need some CL nutcase/deadbeat to live with her. IMO he should have had to pay 1/2 the rent for a few months, since he's the one who bailed. Oh, well. I'm probably dead wrong. 2 Link to comment
SRTouch February 11, 2020 Share February 11, 2020 4 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: I didn't quite get MM saying that. She never intended to live with a roommate, but a romantic partner. So for her to have to look for a roommate wouldn't quite make sense to me. I'm sure she wouldn't have moved into the big house if she knew she'd need some CL nutcase/deadbeat to live with her. IMO he should have had to pay 1/2 the rent for a few months, since he's the one who bailed. Oh, well. I'm probably dead wrong. MM didn't say that, I think what she said was that most people would have asked for more than 1 month rent. I sort of took that and said that that she could have sued and received more had she showed she tried to mitigate her damages by looking for a roommate........ you're right about the whacko she might have gotten off CL - if I were in her situation I'd look into cost of breaking the lease before inviting a stranger into the house 1 Link to comment
AngelaHunter February 11, 2020 Share February 11, 2020 6 hours ago, SRTouch said: MM didn't say that, I think what she said was that most people would have asked for more than 1 month rent. I sort of took that and said that that she could have sued and received more had she showed she tried to mitigate her damages by looking for a roommate Oh, okay. Thanks. My memory is so bad it often automatically deletes on exit from whatever I watched. Or heard. Or read. 😄 3 Link to comment
SRTouch February 11, 2020 Share February 11, 2020 wrong bed delivered: P says she bought granny new bed & mattress, but turned out the store delivered wrong mattress - says, at first, store promised to correct the goof and deliver correct mattress, but then started ignoring attempts to contact them - now they want $750, purchase price of bed & mattress........ I actually could have run into the same thing when I bought my bedroom furniture - I have a small closet in 2 bedrooms, so wanted a matching free standing closet/armoire - ended up ordering out of Pulaski catalog at the store, so didn't actually see where my money was going til delivered, but unlike this guy, my saleswoman was great, went into everything, all the options, not a hardsell but actually trying to understand what was best for what I wanted - which is why I ended up with a bedroom suite from the children's portion of catalog 😄 ........ D claims P accepted the delivered bed and signed delivery document saying everything was good - says they got what was ordered, but then decided they wanted a two hundred dollar upgrade - when he said no to free upgrade they went to BBB and sued him........ from preview it appears yet another flapping gums case where MM asks why no one has receipts/contracts/etc - even the receipt D claims P signed when bed was delivered is a copy and not the original..... when case starts I'm suspecting part of cause of the communication breakdown may be language, as Daughter is speaking for mom who actually made purchase for granny - makes me question if delivery receipt was signed by someone who understood what was being signed...... daughter here presenting case for mom as a sort of interpreter, but not really, as it's almost hearsay as she testifies as to what she has been told - course mom is standing right there and can confirm what daughter says....... ok, this is where MM gets miffed about everyone bringing copies - doesn't help defendant's case when MM asks about original purchase documents and he wants to present copy of delivery receipt - dude, you're the professional and one who OUGHT to have a folder of all the paperwork - order, purchase agreement, delivery receipt, etc, while most buyers lose that stuff or toss it, or put in a junk drawer/box somewhere....... D ends up admitting original paperwork was 'misplaced' while being faxed to BBB/Consumer Affairs when P made her BBB complaint..... oh, that doesn't sound at all fishy, nope, not at all........ hmmmmmm also, now P tells use there was a question about that signed receipt document, as she says purchase agreement has two signature blocks - one for when it is ordered and one to be signed when delivered - salesman had her sign both, saying first signature was in wrong place - in effect, P claiming mom signed for receiving bed on day order was placed...... D dancing here, as he tries to say his practice is customer keeps original and he keeps copy - nah, P is way more plausible and D coming across as shady - not helped when he interrupts MM wanting to explain his story as she is trying to look at copies presented by both sides - sometimes MM lets people talk as she multitasks, but this time she shuts him down and says not time for him to talk, yet...... ok, D sounds iffy, and P sounding good - not that everything P says makes total sense, but it has ring of truth - doesn't hurt P's case that MM LUVS! little old grannies, and this is daughter helping mom who bought bed for 80 yo granny....... uh huh, 'nother foot in mouth with D starting to insist customer received exactly what they ordered, and MM is quick to point out that she's seen a text where store says, oops, we goofed and sent wrong mattress...... dude needs to just give up, MM started leaning towards P's side when granny came in, daughter convincing on why this bed/mattress does not meet their wants/needs, and his arguments keep getting shot down as soon as he makes them..... ah, texts between P and one of those mystery employees who wasn't able to come to court - it does not help defense that in one text employee seems to admit mattress was wrong, yet in another says it will cost P $125 to exchange....... huh, doesn't make sense unless what he really meant was P ordered a thicker mattress, but he could swap it out for different one - course this is why mystery employee ought to be here to explain what he wrote - oh, and doesn't help when dude texts P is 'you're being difficult' - sort of texting equivalent of hanging up on someone, and as MM reads texts I'm thinking mystery employee is not best at customer service...... ok, finally MM giving D chance to tell his side - which basically is repeating that P got what she ordered and only way she gets upgrade is to pay more - well, except MM already seems convinced P did NOT GET what was ordered...... problem, as MM stresses to D, is his paperwork - D admits he's the sales rep who waited on P and made the order - says P twin bed and mattress out of catalog and he ordered what she picked out - but when he made out receipt, instead of giving the catalog product number so there would be a way to prove he ordered/delivered what P chose, he simply put 'twin bed and mattress' on receipt....... I expect D to lose this one for several reasons - 1) MM's preference for little old folks and family looking out for family 2) old folk prejudice aside, P side much more likable than D 3)D supposed to be the professional, but sloppy paperwork and admits he lost originals 4) again, D iffy, shady and mystery employee rude to customers 5) along with everything else, MM seems to pick up on D's possible bias against women when he instructs him to look at her when he's talking instead of Douglas........ ahhhhhh just looked at time, and we have more time for D to look bad on national tv - and from preview as we go to commercial MM is enjoying helping him look bad - first his defense has been P got what was ordered, but his sloppy paperwork doesn't prove that, then MM picks up on D's possible gender bias, and now in preview second main defense, that P paid and signed that order was proper and delivered in good shape is brought into question - seems when D delivers, he gets the signature and money before actually unloading stuff off truck - wow, if someone pulled that on me, I'd refuse to sign until it was actually delivered (and set up)........ 'nother thing that MM didn't question, going back to dispute about mom's signature on receipt and P's claim she actually signed that when placing order - mom just said she wasn't home when furniture was delivered - oh, and now, as MM is getting hot, D has stopped addressing answers to Douglas - but still looking everywhere but at judge - oh, and beating around bush and not answering direct questions....... yeppers, as expected, D loses big time and at high volume from da'judge...... ah, new defense while talking to Doug - store just too busy to fill out paperwork correctly - and I'm thinking it's funny how D is turning red on his bald head as he flushes from Doug asking about how MM reamed him in courtroom and telling him he needs to stop with the sloppy/incomplete paperwork needs cut from flea market: P gave neighbor bunch of old stuff to sell on consignment at flea market - when time to settle up neighbor said he only sold a couple things and trashed rest - wants $1880....... D is prince of the Nile denial - dude much younger, waves to P (or maybe cameraman or Douglas) during intro - his story is he only took three old bikes from P, sold 2 and returned 3rd........ my take from intro - P going to have tough time establishing damage - I mean, how do you set amount when every item's price is dickered over at a flea market and that $100 item ends up being sold for 10 bucks - D, well I don't expect to end up liking this smarta$$ after his entrance, first impression is he probably ripped off the old guy (yep, another old guy for MM to gush over)....... ok, seems P haD stuff stored some distance away - D makes a living selling junk at flea markets, so one day they'really talking, D mentions he needs to get more junk to sale, P says I have stuff you can buy and resale - supposedly he showed D pix of his junk and he has the pix to show judge - D denies ever seeing pix, and as he talks I quickly decide he's living down to my first impressions - says he drove P, his dog, and 4 old tires on a 4 hour round trip, and when they got to where stuff was supposed to be stored place practically empty - says reason he was making trip was because P told him he had 3 boxes of old records, which are fast sellers at flea markets, but then, there was actually only 1 box and P decided he wanted to keep them..... hmmmmmm hasn't taken me long to decide this case is boring - only reason I'm watching is to see how P decided how much to sue for..... nothing in writing, but P says he has texts - more yakity yak, then we get MM reading texts which certainly don't support D's claim he only took 3 bikes (P says actually 4 bikes, one a collectible worth $500 on internet) - him, only took 3 bikes but then text message about not being able to fit everything in van..... not liking defendant at all, pretty sure from texts he got way more than he's admitting, but stuck on how P will establish damages........ texts discuss various items we saw in pictures which D denies he ever took, yet when P texts about those items D doesn't deny ever taking them, just that he'll explain later when he gets home (guessing D texted what various items brought at flea market, and P questioning why it wasn't more - at one point item supposedly didn't sell, and P says he wants it back, but only answer was D on road, they'll talk later....... oh my, not often MM just comes out and tells litigant they're lying...... ok, she didn't actually say D is full of 💩, but that's what I'm hearing...... ok, more reading of texts, but they all come down to sounding like D took and sold a lot more than a bike or two....... ok, tired of this one and zipping ahead........ ok, MM ready to address how P came up with value, but comes down to rough justice where she's sure D is a crook and that P is asking for the moon 'cuz he's mad...... some give and take bewteen MM and P with P finally cutting his $1880 down to $5-600.... rough justice - with both sides trying to interject while MM is announcing her decision - since there's no way to determine actual damages, MM says decision will be moral vistory, and awards P a hundred bucks....... eviction expenses: p suing for legal costs coming from eviction of D - wants close to $1700....... D says eviction ended up in housing court, she lost and was ordered to pay back rent and move out - she paid the back rent and left, so case closed...... hmmmm gotta go with D here - P wants money for lawyer he hired to evict D, lawyer should had chance to ask for the legal fees in the housing court proceedings - if anything, P ought to go after lawyer for not asking for his fees to be included in judgement - expect this to be a short case....... ok, sounds like legit eviction as lease had no pet clause and she had Rover - real point, gathered from preview as we go to commercial, in housing court lawyer asked for the back rent plus his fees, and housing judge awarded back rent but denied legal fees..... soooooo ok why are we here? - oh, I know, we're here to hear silly litigants..... most of time spent on why D was evicted, which really has nothing to do with this case....... ok, eviction actually filed because of the dog, and once served with eviction papers D quit paying rent - ahhhhhh P testifying housing court settlement awarded him attorney fees, D denies settlement awarded the fees, so P really suing to enforce the settlement..... easy peasy, MM asks to see settlement - which nobody brought to court..... yep, case MIGHT have been more interesting than simply rehashing already settled point if we were talking about enforcing settlement, but back to 'why are we here?' question and P saying he didn't know he needed to bring settlement which supposedly awarded him the money (course D wouldn't bring the settlement - why should she, if P had won legal fees she loses here if she presents the settlement, while if nobody has settlement she wins)......... about all I get from listening instead of zipping to decision, after losing in housing court, that judge gave her a couple more months to find a new house (course, we're talking disabled mother of three) not really sure, either she got to stay til end of lease and then moved because P refused to give her a new lease, or maybe judge gave her the extra time to look for new place........ uh, yeah, after break we hear lease ended and judge extended lease two months for her to look for new place..... ok, back to this case about the lawyer fees in earlier case - without proof that she owes the money - which settlement papers would have provided - P gets nothing - yep, decision is nothing for P...... (sort of goes back to MM inconsistency, where sometimes she'll recess for litigant to go get evidence, or, like this time, she says litigant had the time and opportunity to get 💩 together, so out of luck...... no hallterview from P, just waves off Doug and heads 'round corner to sign the papers (off topic - after P storms off, I notice gallery while waiting for D - is that an optical illusion, or is that a guy in the back row wearing a blue shirt with a bald head and neck tattoo wit has long red hair on back of his noggin - rewound and from front looks totally bald, but not sure once I see the hallterview - spent more time going frame by frame and deciding guy actually bald than I did watching case 😄😄) 3 Link to comment
AngelaHunter February 11, 2020 Share February 11, 2020 Well, JM certainly was feisty today, not that I blame her considering the flapping gums/no evidence idiots/scammers/liars/con artists she listens to all the time. In the bed case, def was very evasive and defensive and we even got the ol' "I had a receipt but I lost it. I'm too busy for such trivialities!" That excuse won't do from a business owner. So many shady small furniture store people on this show. "Twin bed/twin mattress"? That's it? I bought a new upholstered bed last year from a local, reputable business. My receipt had the model, make, material, colour, size, etc., not "Queen bed" period. That could be anything and how could I argue later if they brought me something other than what I ordered? 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: needs cut from flea market: JM was even crabbier in this case and I see why. Flea Market neckbeard boy, like most other litigants, never dreamed of writing anything down. Considering the difficulty JM was having trying to decipher his texts I guess I can understand that. He was a wrestler! Really? Judging by his looks, he must have gotten some severe beatdowns, hence the new career with Daddy in "High end" flea markets. I've been to a lot of flea markets, but never one I would call "high end". Guess I just don't hang out with the right crowd. But 1800$ for plaintiff's dusty relics and assorted junk? I don't think so. 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: eviction expenses: Oh, the Sainted Single Mother of Three who is disabled certainly deserves to get special consideration, right? It's not her fault she has a bunch of kids. I wish JM would start asking what is the nature of this disability. Once again, neither side thought they might need the very evidence to prove the veracity of their testimony. Why can't the judge just take their word for it? After all, they did swear to tell the truth and we know that anyone who does that is incapable of lying. 😄 When they start their answers with, "To be perfectly honest" shouldn't that be enough? 1 3 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama February 12, 2020 Share February 12, 2020 They had an older rerun this morning. Plaintiff wants his dog back from defendant. Defendant was moving to a no dog place over two years ago, asked the man helping her move (she didn't know him before this) to take the dog 'for a while'. The man took the adorable little mutt, and she moved in with him, and his ailing mother. Then after two years, defendant moves in with her son, a few blocks from plaintiff's. They talked about the dog, and both agreed the plaintiff's mother was too attached to the dog, and mother was ill, so the dog would stay through the life of the mother. When the mother dies, defendant calls plaintiff in the middle of the funeral, and demands her dog back. Another twist, one day the dog got out, was picked up by the pound, and it was discovered that the dog had a microchip, and owner. I'm not sure why the previous owner didn't get the dog back, but plaintiff got the dog out of the pound, because defendant was incarcerated again, for one of her many theft convictions. The right after the mother's funeral, man let dog out to get in his truck, defendant grabbed dog, and refused to return it. So they eneded up in court. Judge Marilyn says that plaintiff gets the dog, will issue and order, and defendant is standing there with her mouth hanging open. Judge M. also says that either the police or the marshal will get the dog back, and advises defendant that with her history, the dog better be present when the police come for the dog. Poor Doug has to cope with defendant whining about ignoring the order, and that Judge M. was so wrong, and she'll sue again to get the dog back. I guess she can't read the binding arbitration clause in the contract she signed to come on the show, and that she can't sue for the same thing again locally either. It's been a while since I wanted to punch a plaintiff repeatedly the way I wanted to punch this one. 1 Link to comment
SRTouch February 12, 2020 Share February 12, 2020 (edited) bad employee: ex boss of nightmare employee - not sure what all he suing about but mentions having to change the locks and her violating her non-disclosure agreement - wants $2131.99..... oh my, doesn't Princess Crystal display lots of 'tude as she sashes into the courtroom - says she took job on the spot even though P said he had gone through a dozen over employees in the last couple months - she's countersuing for missed work at her new and improved job to tune of $800, along with the stress - yep that'll work....... just from entrance I have a feeling Princess truly was a nightmare, but P may need to revamp his hiring practices if he really goes through a dozen employees a month (later in hallterview he says maybe in last 18 konghs, not a month or 2) - or he's as difficult as boss and she is an employee....... ok, testimony starts and right off bat I get a chuckle - intro said p owned an oil company, but turns out we're talking CBS (cannabis) oil not petroleum, and dude owns two stores which sell the legal/non THC containing marijuana products...... good grief, MM just asked Princess how long she worked for P (about 2 months) and Princess makes like a bobble head, bouncing up and down and turning side to side - might get dizzy watching her and hope MM tells to to stop...... according to P, D took frequent unauthorized breaks - instead of staying inside, she would go sit in her car in the parking lot - he blames her for causing friction/drama which caused at least one other employee to quit - one day his manager came to bring D her paycheck, and she's outside instead of minding the shop, manager instructs her to go inside and get to work, and gives her her check, D goes inside, manager drives away heading back to other store, but makes u turn and drives back by this shop and there's Princess back outside in her car (oh, need to add, D was only one working at store) - not good, says MM - but she doesn't get fired that day, no what gets her canned is another day she calls manager a couple hours into her shift and says she needs to go take care of sick kid and is going to lock up the store and split...... ok, emergency with kids happen, but Princess already on thin ice and P has had it...... manager drops what she was doing, hurried over and covered the shop - next day, which turns out was Princess' day off, manager texts her and tells her don't bother coming back as she no longer has job..... MM switches over to get Princess' side of story - not good as Princess proves she has plenty of attitude, thinkd her 💩 don't stink, she's entitled and is smiling real big to look cute - Princess doesn't argue when MM says P had every right to fire her, but I have feeling Princess goes through life using SSM (assumption on my part, there may be a dad, but I kind of doubt it, sick kid was 10 yo daughter, but she mentions kids (plural))...... ok, MM ready to talk about the rather broad NDA - which not only prohibits employees from talking about trade secrets, but says no smack talk about business, even when talking with other employees..... guess that's what he's suing about...... soooooo story is that day after she was fired Princess showed up at old job to turn get last paycheck and starts trashing talking business with employee minding the store - employee finally texts manager complaining about Princess bugging her and interrupting work - text kerfuffle exchange, so MM is going to get to do her text forensic routine (thankfully, camera has avoided showing Princess bobble head routine, but just switched over and she's still going - smirk still in place as she swivels and bounces)...... ok, guess Princess wasn't actually at store, but kept calling and texting.... not sure why Princess wasn't calling/texting manager - she had number as manager was at other store (besides, manager fired her by text)..... apparently employee at store also something of a flake - after awhile of complaining about Princess calling and having to act as go between (and apparently having Princess tell her she was next in line to be fired) the employee texts that she's leaving, and actually locks up store and leaves keys outside on ledge...... while MM reads texts, camera switches to bobble head dancing and smiling...... ok, Princess was terrible employee, but not sure she can be blamed for other employee quitting - if the other wasn't already about to be fired, sounds like she should have been on chopping block - not only does P need to reevaluate his hiring but, I just realized, these wackadoddles are manning the shop alone, handling the money and controlling whatever merchandise is walking out the door...... welllll, really not sure P has a case against Princess - sure, sounds like she violated the no trash talking clause in NDA, but I'm not sure how enforceable it is (maybe because I'm retired Army and bitching is a time honored military tradition) - even if clause is enforceable, how did P come up with such an exact amount for damages ($2131.99) - can't blame her for causing other employee to walk (besides, other employee sounds like should Have been fired)........ lol, if that clause IS enforceable, Princess is violating it big time when MM gives her a change to talk - she's eager to tell us how unprofessional her boss was, and she manages tell the national audience all the dirt on the business owners - including manager's past drug use....... not sure why MM lets her tell as much as she does before asking why Princess is slinging mud........ not sure how MM will manage to fill the alloted time (maybe extra commercials)....... ok, decision time as MM asks Princess if she realised she signed a contract with NDA - MM gets the signed copy of employment contract/NDA (and a chance to ding P when he says "the girl" and MM corrects him with "the WOMAN")..... yep, sure nuff, right there Princess signed a no smack talk clause - and MM says she sure was smack talking, and Princess says nope, she never did...... ok, we sort of get where some of the damage amount came from - apparently when second employee quit, locked up and left, shop ended up closed for 4 days, and P blames Princess for lost profits - well, except employee was a flake and just as likely to walk off the job as the other dozen employees who had recently quit or been fired..... ok, MM says Princess breached the contract, but no way is she going to order D to pay 2 grand - MM is saying she isn't going to order D to pay for changing alarm security codes, etc, P says contract has clause stating employee has to pay if they breach contract - and MM has already announced Princess did breach her signed employment contract....... MM reads the contract, and says - nope, clause says Ex-employee has to pay if keys sre not returned and they were - so clause doesn't apply....... MM says P's business practices are nutty and are reason P lost money when second employee walked off - she decides Princess did Breach agreement but instead of awarding $2131.99 MM awards $1 - oh, and nothing on countersuit...... sort of like yesterday's flea market case - P win moral victory and token award....... oh, and useless nonsensical case runs long - remember how I wondered how MM was going to fill alloted time and fast forwarded through, what I thought, was going to be last 5 minutes - turns out case dragged out an extra 5 minutes....... Princess still laughing when Doug does his thing - I just hope her current and future employers see this basement apartment tenant suing for deposit: P says he did no damage, so wants his $1000 deposit. ....... D says guy nuts, claims all kinds of damage, including holes in wall and ceiling along with cracked tiles....... we may make up the time with this one since it sounds simple........ ok, I fast forwarded to check on time, and what do I find - MM telling us Landlady shows what looks like, at least, $1000 worth of damages - ah, but she failed to follow law regarding itemized notice of why she should keep deposit, so P ends up winning........ didn't go back and watch - these switcheroo cases are only worth watching when they're a surprise - but this WAS a short case and we're back on schedule - expect this was one where everything looked like D was going to win, but then big switcheroo when we learn she didn't follow the rules ended up with her eating cost of repairs. Oh my, and MM really sounds sorry when she announces decision - which changes to being pissed when P thanks her after decision and she snaps back he doesn't deserve return of deposit as he left a disaster, that he is only winning get on a technically baby daddy break in: P says her son's sperm donor busted in through window and stole her phone - wants $1100....... D argues during breakup P broke her own phone and made false domestic violence claims ending in his arrest - says this case just woman scorned and made they're no longer together........ yawn, sounds boring, I may end up zipping through this one, too........ oh no, when case starts it's almost painful listening to P make her case...... hmmmm sounds like these two are talking about wildly different incidents....... P story is she was asleep in living room when she heard someone at door - at this time she and D had already broken up and had their domestic violence incident, and she had a new fiance - anyway, she heard something at door early in morning (at exactly 6:24), so she starts to ignore it, but then decides to phone new bf to come protect her (why not call police, asks MM) - hmmmmm says when she went to sleep phone was right here next to her, but not she can't find it - she gets up to look, goes into other room and find D standing there holding her phone - she happens to live near a Port Authority, so runs out of apartment barefoot - port authority people escort her home, and when they get there her bedroom window and front door are wide open, D and phone are gone...... over to defendant's side - MM asks, and D says he was arrested and charged with burglary and theft - plea bargain ended with D pleading guilty to the burglary charge and theft of phone was dropped (sure, theft much harder to prove, and guilty plea enough to get him on probation) - surprise, this wasn't his first rodeo - he was already on probation on drug sale charge....... ok, maybe DA had good reason not to waste tax money pursuing the theft charges, but civil court has much lower standard with 'more likely than not' vs 'beyond reasonable doubt' (I catch Harvey asking street peanut section if civil judge is bound by prosecutor's decision to drop criminal case, and older guy actually says yes)...... ok, D tries to excuse breaking by saying he was pissed over earlier domestic violence arrest....... D even more painful to listen to than P was, but time almost up so I'll try to persevere....... ok, think what dude is saying is that he bought tickets to take son to wrestle mania event, but needed permission from child protection and his probation officer (probation from earlier arrest not the guilty plea on burglary charge) permission didn't arrive in time because Baby mamma has charged him with domestic violence - so, instead of permission letter to take kid to watch wrestling for son's birthday, dude has ano arrest warrant and gets arrested just before the event....... so, whatever is he to do?!? Why, of course, his answer was to break into baby mamma's apartment - why, asks MM - don't really know, says D, wasn't really thinking....... oh my, just thinking, I wonder who has custody of poor kid - even worse, later on D says reason child protection was involved was that baby mama had case involving abuse of her daughter - so, these two have a son, sounds like she has daughter with some other baby daddy - wonder how many other kids these two have that child services has to watch over....... ok, taken about all I can - time almost up, but now MM is asking about how D originally got probation - don't really care - what I'm thinking is thst, while this guy seems to have lots of experience with the court system (just listen how he address MM - always 'Your Honor' never Miss, Ma'am, or Marilyn 😉)..... thing is, between the two I find the D more credible......... huh? New twist - and I'm not even trying to keep timeline straight - if I heard right, after he breaks in and maybe steals her phone, despite fact she said, I think, she had something new fiance after she charged this D with domestic violence, these two get back together and P says he promised to buy her a new phone...... when reading police report from night of break in, MM finds that from very beginning P claimed he took phone - so, she things odds pretty good he did - she also finds it odd thst when she asks if D promised to pay for phone after two reconciled before breaking up - again - his answer is that they never had a written agreement that he'd pay..... so, more likely than not, MM decides he took phone....... me, I'm getting depressed thinking of kids with little chance........ MM comments that she just can't understand why P reconciled with D with their history, but that passes right over P as she's so happy to be getting money for a new phone...... oh, happy days, when P makes it out to Doug we learn she engaged again - not sure if this is one of her past baby daddys, but she happily announced she's pregnant yet again - Doug congratulates her, but I'm even more depressed - almost went back to listen closer to see if D really said child services had a case open about her abuses a daughter, but thought of listening again making me cringe Edited February 12, 2020 by SRTouch 4 Link to comment
Bazinga February 12, 2020 Share February 12, 2020 (edited) 14 hours ago, SRTouch said: as she's so happy to be getting money for a new phone baby daddy break in: Why, in this case, does plaintiff get money for a NEW phone? The phone's value, from what we were shown, was not even discussed. Since plaintiff got the amount she requested, I assume that was the cost of a new phone to replace the stolen one. Why shouldn't she just get the value of her used phone, not what a new phone would cost or even the original cost? When the item is damaged the plaintiff is supposed to recover the item's current value. That did not seem to be the case here. As always, I don't like when rules are applied differently for no reason. bad employee: Sucked that the bad employee who "lost" gets to act superior and flip her hair at the plaintiff because the recovery was so nominal. Defendant was even allowed/encouraged to badmouth the plaintiff on national TV, with only a slight question if she was intentionally slinging dirt. I understand the damages were not really due to the defendant's behavior but didn't like that defendant lost but really won. She got away with bad behavior and violating the contract. Just unfair. basement apartment tenant suing for deposit: Wish the Judge had interpreted the defendant's trying to give the plaintiff the required letter for the damages and being refused, as enough to satisfy the statute. Plaintiff, as JM said, didn't deserve to recover and had a lot of nerve to sue to recover the security deposit based on all the damage he did. He didn't know he should recover because defendant violated the law, he actually thought he left the place in good condition. Hated that plaintiff thinking he was a victim. Would not have happened in Judge Judy's courtroom. Of course, no reason to even discuss the damages since JM knew the defendant had not complied with the law. Case could have been disposed of in a few minutes instead of going over the damages and the plaintiff denying he did the damage. Edited February 13, 2020 by Bazinga 3 Link to comment
AngelaHunter February 12, 2020 Share February 12, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: bad employee: Quite the cast of characters. We had plaintiff decked out in her tacky Vegas sparkly dress and her (husband?) Elmer Fudd suing def, who is a SS(of course)MO2, who never stopped posing, flouncing, snickering, sticking her tongue out and acting like some Valley Girl auditioning for a teenaged B-movie who thinks "Aren't I just the cutest?" No, you're not. You'd think a SSMO2 would take things a little more seriously. She only agreed to work for the wonky plaintiffs because she was "desperate" for a job and she couldn't even keep this job in this shitty little shop. I'm glad her desperation over three mouths to feed didn't hinder her purchases of beautifying products. The plaintiff's claims were as ridiculous as they were. "I don't know how to change my own code, so I'll charge for that." What do they do, advertise on CL? "Desperate for a job? Got fired from every job? No one else will hire you? We will!" 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: basement apartment tenant suing for deposit: Oh, dear. Plaintiff felt much "uncomfortability" in def's apartment but stayed for three years. Def denies the presence of any "mices" in the apartment. However, P was comfortable enough to turn the place into what looked like a WWII bombed-out bunker. How do tenants even do this shit? I rented for a number of years and never took down walls, make huge holes or destroyed cabinets. Too bad def never bothered to find out what is required of landlords (have we ever seen a landlord on this show that had even the foggiest notion of landlord/tenant laws? I don't think so.) or she could have kept the deposit. I can't remember the last time we saw JM so disgusted at a ruling she was forced to make. 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: baby daddy break in: Um, no. Skipped. Edited February 12, 2020 by AngelaHunter Wine 2 1 Link to comment
Florinaldo February 13, 2020 Share February 13, 2020 18 hours ago, SRTouch said: bad employee: Too bad the complaint was so shaky it had to be dismissed because that worthless employee, who tried to give sass as she entered the room but only managed to look childish, deserved to be tossed out on her ass. I think that this business has some very lax recruitment practices and standards; they need to reform them, but I wonder if their cash flow would allow them to hire a decent HR consultant. 18 hours ago, SRTouch said: basement apartment tenant suing for deposit: Another case where the deserving party lost because they did not follow procedure. Like @Bazinga, I wish MM had found a way to interpret the landlord trying to give former tenant the letter and him refusing it as evidence of compliance. But since the relevant laws usually say it had to be mailed to the last known address (and too bad it the ex-tenant does not have his mail forwarded), she probably felt bound by that provision. 4 Link to comment
SRTouch February 13, 2020 Share February 13, 2020 (edited) crazy dog sale: I usually skip any case about dogs, but started this one when it didn't sound like dogs would be hurt or abused, as I said, this promises to be a crazy case - actually turned into case I enjoyed (until hallterview). P looking to add a second dog to household to keep 1st pup company, so checks CL and finds a 1yo puppy. Before going all in, she arranges for pup to come over for meet and greet with established dog. She gives seller $500 to let puppy stay for 24hr trial period. Ah, but seller doesn't come back, abandons dog, and turns out pup needs extensive medical care (hip replacement surgery). P wants 10 grand - I guess on theory that seller knowingly sold a puppy with medical problems...... D denies she abandoned dog - agrees puppy was there on 24 hour trial, but says trial period ended long before P decided not to keep dog (40 hours) - she has $200 counterclaim for lost income....... intro not promising for P victory - unless she has some proof sale was contingent on a vet wellness check. Even if there was condition that puppy needed to be checked out, I would think her remedy would be return of dog to seller and (maybe) getting back the $500 if it was specified as a refundable. From way puppy is acting and being held by P hubby, I don't see them returning letting puppy - No way would seller be on hook for 10 grand........ hmmmmmm not too happy with D when we hear WHY she wanted to sell pup - her story is her kids (twins) no longer had time for puppy once high school resumed and they got part time jobs..... for me, I'm thinking getting a puppy is a lifetime commitment so if kids were supposed to take care of puppy they should have thought it out before getting pup in first place - ok, also irks me when people start paying big bucks for what to me is a mutt (this time Maltese and poodle mix - personally, give me a mutt anytime, but I understand this mix is often good match for folks with allergies) when there are so many dogs waiting for homes in shelters, so not really happy with Ps, either....... ok, simple case, and MM establishes right away that these folks texted back and forth - should be easy to establish if sale was contingent on wellness check by vet and whether or not $500 is refundable - if any of these people were smart enough to get that in text..... well, at least they made out a receipt/bill of sale that includes that there was to be a 24 hour trial period - MM points out there wasn't a specified start/end time on the trial period - didn't hear anything about wellness check or whether all or part of $500 was refundable....... P says there really didn't appear to be issues with their established dog, but puppy was 'needy' and pee'd in house (geez, new puppy ripped from home, finds herself in strange place with bunch of strangers, I'd give it a pass if it acts 'needy' and has an accident) but ok, P smart enough to ask for a trial period....... real problem was that P says she noticed puppy sometimes had trouble getting around, especially on stairs, and next morning she texted D asking if pup had hip problems....... MM reads text, it is clearly within 24 hour trial period - even if wellness check wasn't part of deal before, surely P brought it up when she noticed potentially expensive problem - nah, instead is reassured when D texts back, no worries, she's a puppy and will grow out of it, and ends text with 'I promise you she has no health issues' ....... hmmm, can that be construed as a warranty, or would JJ call it puffing and no within '4 corners' even though it's written in a text....... ok, at 4pm, still well within the 24 hour period going by P's estimate that receipt was made out at 9pm previous day (timeline backed up with texts) P texts 'sorry, don't want puppy' - followed by multiple texts talking about how pup will be picked up or delivered to D, along with asking about return of money - all these texts unanswered by D....... welllll was D ghosting on P, or busy and not reading texts - obvious from date/time of texts that P decided not to keep pup within the 24 trial period, so D intro claims that they waited until they had pup 40 hours lie (best alternative would be it was 40 hours before she read texts, but not buying that when P questioned health of puppy within 12 hours, D promised all good, then stopped answering).......... ok, P winning case, but not sure of ruling...... if I heard right, P wants to keep puppy and have D pay the medical (have they spent 10 grand on dog or is that an estimate of possible future vet care) - that won't happen - dog and family clearly attached........ MM not happy with D ghosting, and she argues she was at work and couldn't answer phone/texts (finally, when pressed by MM, claims she didn't actually read texts until recently after being sued) - D tries to argue by pointing out in early text that P wrote that they were 'leaning' towards keeping pup, MM tosses that by saying by 4pm, well within trial period, P texted they wanted to return pup - D out of defenses, now she just argues she didn't see the texts - which is no defense..... next, we have series of texts with P getting increasingly pissed that D isn't responding - finally D responds, P wants her to come get dog, D replies she can't til next week - P says she'll bring dog as she wants it gone cuz it's peeing and pooping all over house - things continue downhill from there....... the 'peeing pooping all over house' text makes me question P's claim here reason was health issues, but doesn't matter why P didn't want puppy - 'needy,' not house broken, or health - they both agree deal was a 24 hour trial period - back to whether money was refundable and who will end up with dog - with her possibly humongous vet bills...... ok, MM has now established that D has no defense, so we're ready to decide the money and custody....... oh, and pup no longer peeing and pooping all over house -amazing, all it took was training....... ok, first counterclaim, now that D admits she has no defense, MM gets her to drop her claim....... back to the real question - does P get 10 grand....... nah no way...... if they keep pup I'd say their $500 goes towards the purchase - ah, but listening to P, they did right by puppy and they incurred expenses when D ghosted and left pup with them (and failed to provide promised vet/shot records) - so what happened was P paid for doggy health insurance, and got all the shots (shots may not have been necessary, but no way of knowing when D failed to deliver promised records) - while at vet getting good shots and wellness check, expressed concern about hips, vet took x-rays, found broken femur requiring surgery and referred them to specialist........ hmmmm, no written health guarantee unless you count D promise that pup in good health - and who can say whether or not pup may have broken her femur with seller or on that first night with P before they noticed problem - hearsay evidence from P claiming specialist told her pup would have been in pain/limping for days after injury - ok, hearsay, but I'll buy that, so I'm thinking break occurred with D and she SHOULD have known....... still not thinking 10 grand, but definitely seeing D's claim on the $500 evaporating....... as fan/viewer of all the vet shows, I think I know exactly what we're talking about - Dr Jeff does this surgery all the time and usually comments on how other vets charge through the nose........ decision time - Dog needs surgery, P incurred expenses because D failed to delivered promised vet/shot records, P doesn't want to return dog, D clearly breached 24 hour trial period - but does that mean D would have to pay for future vet bills...... what to do??? ah, D hasn't said much, but objects when MM tells P they can keep dog as D doesn't want it - D interjects that yes, she'll take dog (I'm thinking in hopes she won't be out any money, and dog would never get the needed surgery), MM quickly says, no you don't get dog back....... ok, no on future surgery bills, D ordered to return full purchase price of $500, MM says P keeps dog as punitive damages for D blatant breach - nothing said about P possibly paying for unneeded shots because of failure to provided promised record - I would have included that with the $500...... uh-oh by end of trial in was totally on P side - then in hallterview they mention they may surrender dog to shelter/rescue group rather than come up with money for surgery - after comments in courtroom about how attached they've become, and MM making big deal over P hubby and Pup, wonder what MM thought of that news - hope hubby talked wife into keeping dog....... note: sunny, but chilly, day here, so I have cats sacked out in sunny spots, on both sides & on recliner headrest, and am being treated to kitty snores from 3 directions😄😄😄 oops, ripped out wrong driveway: P thought she'd pop in at home for quick lunch break, and found contractor ripping out driveway - oops - D promised to fix it with new drive, but did lousy job and she now wants someone else to redo his fix - wants $3975....... D is contractor with wrong address - insists there's nothing wrong with his replacement driveway - says old her original driveway needed to be replaced anyway, so she's better off now than when his guys ripped out her drive........ hmmmmmm money grab or does P have point - she'll need to prove the replacement needs to be replaced....... ok, contractor hired by owner of 8 condos to replace driveways along street of 12 condos, and his guys took out one too many - gotta laugh, but been there done that - just not as bad - back in my brush hog mowing days along the county roads, I once spent morning mowing a couple miles of the next county to our south - boss told me to mow in that-a-way til I came to the bridge, he meant a culvert, but I kept going til I came to actual bridge before turning around and mowing back to start point)......... D admits his guys messed up - I'd be more on his side if he had actually gone and met P face to face when he was called by his crew saying P was there and PO'd about the goof - no, instead he says he talked to her on phone, apologized and promised new driveway......... sooooooo, assuming his crew replaced her driveway with same materials and manner as the other 8 drives they were supposed to do, not sure where P gets her damage claim - I almost call it square, but then she did have to put up with drive being torn up........ ah, but P says replacement driveway shorter and narrower than what she had before, and when they finished job incomplete (no expansion joints, forms not removed, etc)....... hmmmmm, she may point about not wanting to trust their concrete job and wanting it ripped out and choosing her own contractor to do job........ contractor's answer to that to admit replacement not same size, but he says it's actually larger now than before (at best this was big goof and an inconvenience to P, so hoping to hear him say he (or at least one of his men) discussed any dimension changes - but, D does have, he says, pix from before and after so should be easy to see if drive smaller, without expansion joint saw cuts, and if forms have been removed....... hmph, would it have been so hard to take these before and after pix from same angle/spot....... but what I do see in before pix is drive wasn't in great shape, but maybe not needing to be replaced - also, in D's after pix, I do see forms still attached and don't see saw cuts..... can't really tell if dimensions have grown or shrunk - his pix looks like replacement may have grown a little - she basing her claim that it's smaller on fact that she had added brick pavers along concrete, and in new pic a couple of those pavers are not along new concrete - my immediate thought is pavers were ripped out with old concrete - I'm not willing to make call from pix - especially when it sounds like there would be 3 more of the old driveways that someone could have actually measured....... ok, MM comes to same conclusion, from different direction - no benefit/cost savings to contractor to shrinking concrete, so doesn't make sense....... on to saw cuts and claim concrete cracked - P says she didn'the drive on driveway for a week so it would set properly - when she did drive on it, cracks started appearing after 5-6 weeks....... ah, another of these cases which might have been avoided if business had better communication - this one worse than usual, as contractor clearly in wrong, but instead of bending over backwards to appease P, he does his apologies over the phone and then ignores her when she first starts complaining of the cracks - on her side, when she doesn't get response from calls she sends letter, also ignored - but first, more argrument on dimension before getting to cracks - P wants to argue screen shot of back up assist like estimate show driveway now narrower - nah, MM isn't buying that no matter how much P wants to argue point....... oops, tv picture starting to pixelate - thought it was TPC as MM was showing pix, but problem continues into commercial - after commercial P isn't liking direction MM seems to be heading, and gets cautioned for talking over MM....... ok, MM heading towards dismissal, as she's pointing out that court's aim is not to give P brand new driveway, but to give her something on par with want she had before old drive was torn out, admittedly by mistake - P has not proven her smaller dimension claim nor that there are any more cracks now hasn't in her old driveway - think we may be skipping over whether forms were pulled because P won't be quiet and MM has eye on clock - this would have been easier thing to prove - MM agrees with D that P has better driveway now than before - probably right, and if not P could give come with better evidence - since all twelve driveways were originally the same, I'm still thinking one of three remaining could have been measured with actual tape measure for length - for width, didn't one pic show county asphalt butting up to old drive - why not take same pic with new drive for comoarison........ cracks - not convinced new isn't an improvement........ case dismissed locked phone purchase: mommy suing seller who sold her 15yo son locked phone - wants $400....... D says he told both mommy and son phone was locked, but they liked low cost and bought it anyway.......... ok, got late start - screen hasn't pixelated for awhile, but this one sounds like as-is sale dud, so I'm ending recap........ oh, but when I zip to end, instead of MM talking about as-is/buyer beware, she's looking at D calling him a thief and awarding $400 - have to revisit this one later........ if nothing else, had a great laugh with D and Doug during hallterview Edited February 13, 2020 by SRTouch 3 Link to comment
AngelaHunter February 13, 2020 Share February 13, 2020 (edited) Skipped the dog case. Then we had a miserable harridan suing Wilford Brimley because his workers accidently tore up her driveway as they did many others. Def was fully agreeable to replacing it, as he should be. The witch cannot be pleased. She got the new driveway - her old one was utterly decrepit - but now she wants def to give her 3900$ because the new one is too short or too narrow and it has cracks etc., etc. She has pictures of her backup thingy from her car that shows the yellow lines are different! She talked over JM incessantly in her gravelly, two-packs-a-day voice, even after being told twice to knock it off. JM despised her and accused her of making the agreement with the def, getting a new driveway and now trying to pocket 3900$. Get out, you witch. Fifteen-year-old Boy Scout works for his grandparents and babysits on summer so he can have a new iPhone. Looks online for a used and finds the revolting def. Well, after a 500$ downpayment, kid finds the phone is locked, because surprise! Disabled def, who says he's on disability but thinks it's smart to buy an expensive phone he has no intention of paying for then pawning it off on some kid, never paid for it so it can't be unlocked. "I"M A MAN OF GOD" he declares as his defense, when he's not rolling his eyes. He says he's bi-polar, but that garners him no sympathy from JM. She hates him and reams him out for ripping off a kid who actually DOES work for his money. I hope the kid learned a good lesson from this - not to trust anonymous dirtbags online who lie like rugs. Doug in the Hall continues the spanking by telling the overfed, scruffy thief who rips off kids that he looked like an idiot in front of the entire country. He counters that Jesus loves him anyway. Okay, then. ETA: Oops, posted right when you did, SRTouch. Sorry for repetition! Edited February 13, 2020 by AngelaHunter 2 Link to comment
SRTouch February 14, 2020 Share February 14, 2020 4 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: ETA: Oops, posted right when you did, SRTouch. Sorry for repetition! Just a heads up - I expect tomorrow will be another late day, as I spend some goodly portion of morning sitting around pharmacy waiting for refills & new script 1 Link to comment
AngelaHunter February 14, 2020 Share February 14, 2020 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: I expect tomorrow will be another late day Okay, I'll wait you for you then. Your recaps are so much better than mine since I forget a lot of what I saw as I travel the distance between my chair and the computer.😄 1 Link to comment
SRTouch February 14, 2020 Share February 14, 2020 (edited) Late start on recap today as I'm late viewing episode, resulting in a quicky recap............ breakup loan case: couple real losers in this case. Loving couple were together 2 1/2 years and lived together 2 years. This time, it's the nutty bf goes through alcoholic gf's phone - big kerfuffle - cops called - everything in bf's name so gf advised to find somewhere to go to cool off - she ends up moving to sister's house - her car titled and insured in his name cuz of her DUIs - she takes car with her - he sends title to her, then changes mind, gets duplicate title since she hadn't completed title/registration change - he goes to repo car - she signs promissory note to get him to drop claim against car - or maybe she really owes him a couple grand - somewhere in all this mess, she finds true love and marries some other dude within a couple months of moving out - just maybe she was already hooking up eith new hubby in yhe shadows & control freak bf had reason to check her phone - nutty ex bf invites new hubby over, provokes argument, puts hands on new hubby and hubby pushes him off, P does Jerry Lewis/ Dick Van Dyke-like pratfall, calls cops and tries to get new hubby arrested...... these two (3 counting hubby) are truly despicable - when MM can't take listening to them anymore she awards each side 2 grand and hurries out of courtroom...... oh my, Doug really let's them have it during hallterview, too....... gotta love him, P asks if he can say hi to family back home and Doug says, nope, no can do, and gives him bums rush with, 'don't know why you're smiling - you lost' screen writer / producer case: nonsense case which ends up being settled with text/emails - lots of time wasted on background stuff, but actually very simple verbal contract case -producer lady in big hurry to get screen play rewritten - she has big time stars ready to film but everybody agrees script is amateurish garbage - P is second writer hired to do a rewrite - to get him to do rewrite D gives him 5 grand to start, promises him big time money ($75,000) and director job, and - what case is about - another 5 grand when he delivers completed script - when producer reads his rewrite she has hissy fit (MM says she read both scripts and likes one written by P) - family film now loaded with off color humor and dirty words, and role of her big star has been written out of script - big kerfuffle results in project being scrapped - been two years and P finally fed up waiting on the 5 grand he was promised when script was delivered - D dances all around trying to deny liability - tries to argue the many paged contract was never agreed upon by lawyers from various sides, but P has a multitude of text/emails - seems partway through his rewrite he was concerned about the promised 5 grand, and sent D an email asking for her personal assurance that he'd be paid when script was delivered - not approved, MM stresses, and D replies, yep, you'll get the 5 grand. ........ ok, nuf for MM to rule they had a valid verbal contract, so P gets his money....... Oops thought this would be late, but, two cases and quicky recap, this isn't late at all Edited February 15, 2020 by SRTouch 2 Link to comment
AngelaHunter February 14, 2020 Share February 14, 2020 (edited) I loved today's cases so much! They were awesome! 3 hours ago, SRTouch said: breakup loan case: I don't even care what kind of loan they were fighting about. Plaintiff is wearing a perma-grin and is proud that he drives around now in a mid-life crisis car to remind def that all this could have been hers, if only she weren't a big ol' drunk. I always find it interesting when we see litigants with old/new paramours here, because everyone really does have a type. I'm not knocking that. I have a type as well and have never deviated from it - well, except once and that still puzzles me. Anyway, def has HER type as well - men of a certain age with big pot bellies, but her new loverboy/hubby suits her much better and in fact she knew within weeks of their fateful meeting that they were truly soulmates forever and ever. I have a feeling that's because the new hubby enjoys indulging in certain 40% proof beverages with his darling bride. Really, his eyes were like two fried eggs on a paper plate. Better ease off on the booze, kiddies. It's doing you no favours. I had an uncomfortable moment when I thought def might be preggo but I put that out of mind and dearly hope it's just a beer belly. She's "only" had one DUI. Good for you. Plaintiff just doesn't want to live without the love of his life and embarks on a campaign of harassment that was kind of impressive, actually. Def's new Sir Lancelot beat him up. Okay, he didn't really beat him up. He just pushed him and plaintiff fell to the ground and couldn't get up. Probably thrashed around like an overturned turtle. Or he was looking for a lawsuit. Lucky lady to have two such determined, passionate suitors willing to battle for her hand! Plaintiff is still smiling like mad in the hall. Plaintiff to Doug: "Can I say hello to my family in Rochester, NY?" Doug: "No." 😂 Then we had this super-goodie: Unfunny younger John Laroquette the script writer vs. Really Bad Plastic Surgery Big Wig, who didn't seem able to stand unassisted and had to semi-lie on the podium. What I enjoyed most about this was seeing JM try a case that didn't include cell phones, wrecked apartments, security deposits, thoughtless breeders, jail time or other dumb, lowlife shit. I loved watching how sharp she is when dealing with people whose IQs are above body temperature levels. I also admire that she spent 5 hours reading plaintiff's script which she labelled "pablum". Hee! She determines that def., who is very uppity and "above all this little people nonsense" is a blowhard ripoff artist who overestimates her own authority and awards plaintiff 5K. In the hall, def. is even more shocking to look at. I highly suggest she stop bargain hunting and find a better surgeon. She informs Doug that she doesn't keep emails from two years ago and that's the only reason she lost. Yes, I believed her when she said she had a bunch of well-known actors who agreed to appear in her little, low-budget story about some kingdom and a dog. Edited February 14, 2020 by AngelaHunter I'm into the wine - hey, it's Friday 5 Link to comment
AngelaHunter February 15, 2020 Share February 15, 2020 5 hours ago, SRTouch said: her car titled and insured in his name Oh, right. Don't you love it when litigants' little schemes and frauds backfire on them? I mean, why would a grown woman have to put her registration and insurance in another person's name? Methinks she was lying about her one DUI. Also, her, "Oh, me, oh, my! He just took over everything when I moved in with him! He kept me chained to the bed and I wasn't allowed to conduct my own business, contact my family or pay my own bills. Poor little me!" Yes, we know how sympathetic JM is to mature women who use the "I wasn't allowed to worry my little head or do anything. He wouldn't let me!" defense. 1 3 Link to comment
Florinaldo February 15, 2020 Share February 15, 2020 7 hours ago, SRTouch said: screen writer / producer case: I thought the defendant looked familiar as if she has been on another court show before, or perhaps she is of a type we see too often: overtight face due to abusing surgery and collagen injections. She struck me as a socialite trying her hand at movie producing as a lark, and not being very good at it (did she mention any previous experience at producing?). She seemed ignorant of some basic legal facts (even in the absence of a signed contract, written exchanges can be seen as a binding agreement) and of standard practices in the business (usually if the work of a script doctor or rewriter is unsatisfactory, they get paid and the company hires someone else). Then again, this did not sound like a very high-flying production; didn't they mention an overall budget of 1,5 million? Her backers may have been dilettantes as well, lured into bankrolling a small-fry fly-by-night endeavour. I am sure the actors who had been approached for this movie (including, if we are to believe her, an Oscar-winning actress, probably in a career slump as sometimes happens) were very grateful that their names were not publicly associated with this sorry spectacle. The whole project is most likely brankrupt, which would be why the plaintiff decided to go the TV small claims route, in the hope of recouping at least some of his money. He mentioned that he was also out the 75 k$ directing fee, but since the movie did not get produced, he probably would have been out of luck. She certainly had delusions of her own patrician grandeur with her constant interruptions and haughtily trying to talk over the judge, the other litigant and basic facts. 7 hours ago, SRTouch said: P asks if he can say hi to family back home and Doug says, nope, no can do, He sort of did it anyway simply by his request being part of the broadcast but he appeared disappointed anyway. I reminds of a story of some famous writer who was asked for an autograph and wrote "I never give autographs", and then signed his name. The fan was so outraged by that messsage that he ripped the piece of paper to shreds, thus destroying the signature he had just been given. 2 Link to comment
DoctorK February 15, 2020 Share February 15, 2020 13 minutes ago, Florinaldo said: She struck me as a socialite trying her hand at movie producing as a lark, and not being very good at it (did she mention any previous experience at producing?). I think you nailed it. She didn't seem to have any actual experience and had an inflated view of her capabilities. I would loved to have seen a list of her a-list actors who had signed up, I suspect none of us have ever heard of them. 3 Link to comment
AngelaHunter February 15, 2020 Share February 15, 2020 1 hour ago, Florinaldo said: He sort of did it anyway simply by his request being part of the broadcast but he appeared disappointed anyway. I think he really wanted to give a big wave and say, "Hi Mom and Dad! Look at me on my big day! I'm on TV! Say HI to all the folks at home for me!" Why he would want to do that after looking like a total moron during the case I have no idea. One would think after such a shellacking he'd just put his head down and scuttle away. Link to comment
Broderbits February 16, 2020 Share February 16, 2020 21 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: One would think after such a shellacking he'd just put his head down and scuttle away. If the ability to feel shame was a prerequisite for appearing on this show, the run time would be cut to 5 minutes. On the plus side, it would also mean no Levin! 4 Link to comment
AngelaHunter February 16, 2020 Share February 16, 2020 13 hours ago, Broderbits said: On the plus side, it would also mean no Levin! Imagine, a world without Levin. 🎶"What a wonderful world it would be!"🎵 1 3 Link to comment
VartanFan February 16, 2020 Share February 16, 2020 On 2/14/2020 at 7:25 PM, AngelaHunter said: Yes, we know how sympathetic JM is to mature women who use the "I wasn't allowed to worry my little head or do anything. He wouldn't let me!" defense. I wish she had been a little harder on the creepy P. He admitted to grabbing her phone, trying to break into it, and then not giving it back to her. And then his whole BS about being over her once she got the DUI....no, he was still begging for her back. Gross. 4 Link to comment
SRTouch February 17, 2020 Share February 17, 2020 (edited) bride suing cake baker: oh my, this isn't complaint about decorating, flavor, or something, no, P in says cake lady was a no show - so, when time to do the whole cake cutting ceremony there was no cake to cut - wants 5 grand pain and suffering - yeah, right, wonder what her medical records say to justify 5 grand of pain and suffering.....D says P is VERY unorganized person...... D wants $3200+ "for all she's out" according to intro clown......... ok, big fiasco, and gotta say sounds like wedding party planner was, as D Claims, pretty disorganized - OTOH, gotta wonder about D's customer service/business practices - did she ghost on wedding when she wasn't paid as expected without making every effort to contact whoever was planning things - I think it takes some special kind of person to deal with customers who want everything just right on for a special occasion, be it wedding, big anniversary bash, or even a funeral - and this woman doesn't fit the bill (otoh, she's been doing this awhile, so maybe it's all on this customer)........ this was 3rd time bride hired this baker for special occasion cakes (the wedding fiasco, bridal shower cake a week before wedding, and an engagement party (to some other dude) six years ago - according to D there was still money owed from the cake baked 6 years ago ($120 for cake plus bounced check fees), so this time around she wanted to be paid up front....... ok, very different versions of their discussion when P approached her this time around, both agree money owed from 6 years ago came up, but P says when D brought it up she (P) assured D money had been paid, and D dropped it, but texts show D admitting she owed and that bill was being added to new bill, while according to D denies debt was ever paid, says 6 years ago she tried for months to collect after check bounced before just giving up and dropping it - oh, and get this, seems D is one of those folks who actually keeps records, and she assures MM she has the records to prove she chased after P for months after that $120 - and yes she does have the texts........ ok, bridal shower cake arrives and P couldn't be happier - morning of wedding, bride says she called to make sure everything was good, and says at 8am D assured her cake would be there at 8:30 (wedding/reception not til 6 or 8pm) says at first, on morning of wedding, baker assured her she was on the way, but when meeting time came and went suddenly D no longer answering...... over to D - no surprise totally different story - instead of P calling at 8am, she says first call came at 8:51, says bride told her she was almost dressed and would call back in 5 minutes with directions to where reception was being held - no explanation I heard about why she didn't call bride instead of waiting for bride to call again - says she eventually went too work without ever hearing from bride again - says, to this day, she still doesn't know where reception was held....... well, with two such widely different stories, it'll be up to P to prove something (probably with texts as I can't see either of these two asking for a contract)...... first P tells MM she has proof in her phone of her 8 oclock call, but no, once MM has phone in hand there is no proof - MM gets both phones from the litigants to dig into looking to see if she can disprove testimony from either side...... hmmmmmm ok, texts from P which disprove her testimony that she had paid in full before day of wedding - buuuutttt not good that we hear several texts where P is asking where D is with cake, and no answering texts...... D's answer is that she was responding via phone calls, but sure doesn't sound that way from the texts - she has 6yo texts but nothing from wedding day....... I'm wondering where this all took place, and if their jurisdiction allows recording phone calls without consent - I have a free app that records all calls - because of my delivery job, & my terrible short term memory - couldn't tell you how many times I've called a customer for address correction or motel room number and then played back the recording, so easy to do hands-free with blue tooth while driving......... ok, D doesn't have good answers, but what she's saying makes her sound as disorganized as she accuses the bride of being - how could it be the day before, then day of, the wedding reception and she doesn't know where she's delivering a cake worth hundreds of dollars - also, she tells MM she was too busy at other job the day before the wedding to respond to bride's frantic calls/texts, - didn't get home til 11pm and doesn't call customers that late - so she ghosts the day before after, according to her, she told bride she needed to be paid $270 before delivery....... her answer that she isn't allowed to use her cell at work is sounding mighty lame, and has me wondering if maybe she's vindictive enough to purposely screw up bride's reception over the money - kind of doubt it, I don't think either if these litigants can think that far ahead....... ok, morning of wedding nobody has any proof (too bad, according to P her daughter was calling/texting baker, but instead of bringing daughter she brought new hubby who has zip to add in way of evidence - later in hallterview she whines to Doug that she has texts/phone records from daughter, but MM refused to look at them ....... ok, right now I doubt everything both sides say, since no one has proof - so far, texts have proven that P lied (or was mistaken) at least once when she said she didn't owe anything on cake - D testifies last communication she received prior to wedding was P telling her she'd call back with location in 5 minutes, then nothing until 8:30 that night when D claims P said she has the money and still wants cake..... hmmm, not sure what happened between two after that call, as cake was NOT delivered to P, but instead D says she used part of cake for something else (hmmmm back to other job where she works til 11pm, maybe?)....... now MM asks about D's claim that she never knew reception location - bride says she has proof D knew....... nope, proof fizzles (again)........ MM announces she can't tell which side is telling the truth (I vote neither side - I think they're both liars) - both sides have widely different stories, but no proof of what they say - P's claim to have proof has fizzled twice in court, but hard to belief D, who is either indifferent to her customer or just vindictive over a debt from 6 years ago and willing to blow off hundreds of dollars for this cake - I'd feel better about D if she had proof cake was actually made and there was any sign she made slightest effort to contact bride about delivery when she claims bride didn't call back in 5 minutes with location...... ok, no proof from either side, plaintiff has burden - seems P amended claim and no longer claims pain and suffering, but now mental anguish and discrimination - yep trying to pull race card - case dismissed...... hmmmmm counterclaim just as wonky - seems until today it was just a couple hundred, but for unknown reasons she tacked on another 3 grand - uh, no, no evidence....... but, wow, D actually gets something - yeah, guess P did sort of admit she owed something from 6 years ago, and D gets credit for saving those 6 year old texts, so P ordered to finished paying $120 for engagement cake (to some other dude) 6 years ago - ok, D said she paid $60 towards old bill, so she gets $85 today......... Grrrrr, rest of recap just got eaten - so switching to quicky recaps - Boat/trailer case: P bought old (circa 1990) boat and trailer that seller advertised As-Is with good title - asking price was $5500, but negotiated price ended up at $4700 - nothing breaking down how much boat and trailer were separatelying - turns out seller bought boat back in '08 and never registered it - they're able to meet at DMV and get boat registered (seller refunds $200 because of title snaffu), but out of luck on trailer - big difference of opinion on value of trailer - P says $2300, while D says only $500 - couple laughs when D gets caught clearly in wrong and MM has some fun pointing out fact to D's 15yo daughter - nobody has evidence of what 30 yo boat trailer is worth, so up to MM rough justice - ah ha, MM jumps on ebay and quickly find trailer able to haul this size boat (and 5 years newer than the trailer boat/sold in this case) for $700 (D's $500 guessimate much closer than P's $2300)........ P awarded $700....... but nothing said about who gets possession of trailer - whoever gets it may be able get something scraping trapper - or with more research and able to register it....... ah, the old "It is what it is" hallterview from loser last case is dog attack....... didn't watch case, but WTH is with D?!? Little bit I heard, D's big unleashed dog attacked P's little dog injuring it, and P only asking $200...... geez, why would D not settle as soon as presented with vet bill....... I zipped ahead to decision - didn't bother to listen, as when I stopped MM announcing decision over idiot D who is yammering away while MM is talking - not sure if MM ever comes down on idiot, just more zipping - oh, but I do stop when MM awards P the measley $200 she's asking for, and as MM gets up to walk out idiot is smiling big saying have a nice day........ didn't even listen to Doug, but do hear that reason D didn't settle is that P never asked, just filed lawsuit......... Edited February 17, 2020 by SRTouch 3 Link to comment
Guest February 17, 2020 Share February 17, 2020 Cake Baker seemed “off” And was it just me (or our office television) but did anyone else notice Cake Bakers voice became lower and lower. Honest to pete by the time she was interviewed by Doug I could barely hear a word she said. I stood up and was going to walk closer but then lost all motivation Also....discrimination. WTH? Plaintiff should have lost just on those grounds alone. Absolutely nothing surfaced to suggest discrimination. And in my book, if I actually thought my case was based on racism I’d present those facts to the judge at the start of my testimony rather than after tussling talk about cake plates, cell phones and three tiered stands. Rubbish! Link to comment
AngelaHunter February 17, 2020 Share February 17, 2020 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: bride suing cake baker: Both of them seemed incapable of telling the truth and we get two very different versions of what happened. Like JM, I was wondering why def would do more work for plaintiff who already stiffed her once with a rubber check. Impossible to know the truth except from a few texts. Def says she told P she still owed her 270$ which she wanted before delivering this new cake. P says she can't afford that, although she could afford an engagement party and a wedding with that entails - dress, food, venue, etc, and whatever she had on her head. Maybe she thought she'd get another cake and stiff the D again. Who knows? P want 5K for her emotional distress, pain and suffering and discrimination. Yes, D who already made her cakes before is discriminating againt P because she wanted to get paid. I'm glad JM insisted on an explanation for that accusation. Of course neither side has any proof of what they're saying. Was P's new hubby wearing some sort of bouquet on his shirt or jacket? Doug-in-the-Hall harangues P for her idiotic 5K case. Then we get another nitwit, who is way too old to be so naive, buying some old boat with a trailer from defendant. He can't register the trailer because D who sold him both never bothered to register it, although she claimed in her ad she did have it. She thought P should just go do some title search himself or track down the previous owner and try to figure it out. D lost all that stuff during her divorce, so tuff. I thought it was kind of sad that she wanted her 15-year old daughter here to listen to Mom being called on her dishonesty. Poor kid. She's not getting the right kind of guidance from Mom. P says trailer is worth 2300$ because they're 5K brand new. In your dreams! He gets 700$ which is what JM found them to be selling for on eBay or some site like that. On, and Levin? "Case of trailer trash"? Go text and drive and run into a pole, you pond scum. Saw pics of dogs. Skipped. 1 Link to comment
patty1h February 17, 2020 Share February 17, 2020 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: last case is dog attack....... didn't watch case, but WTH is with D?!? Little bit I heard, D's big unleashed dog attacked P's little dog injuring it, and P only asking $200...... geez, why would D not settle as soon as presented with vet bill...... Dumbass defendant's argument was that the plaintiff saw his unleashed pitbulls coming toward her dog and she had plenty of time to pick up her dog out of the reach of his animals and if she was slow, that's on her. So, he believes its HER fault. Can you believe that shit! On top of this crap, we learn that his dogs have gotten loose 3-4 times in the past. JM jumped on him. basically saying "so you're so irresponsible that your dogs get out and everyone else is supposed to go on high alert that your dogs are free and take appropriate action to safeguard their own animals?!?" . This kind of moron needs a kick in the balls with a steel toed boot, along with his wizened looking wife/mother/partner. They were stupid in stereo. 3 Link to comment
AZChristian February 17, 2020 Share February 17, 2020 (edited) 6 hours ago, SRTouch said: bride suing cake baker: Boat/trailer case: last case is dog attack....... 1. Most of our TV judges only refund someone for what the product cost. Since our plaintiff hadn't bothered with paying one red cent, she wasn't due ANY refund. I agree with JM on this one, but was surprised she didn't consider statute of limitation on earlier debt. I assume that because plaintiff "restarted" the former indebtedness in her texts, the SoL didn't apply. 2. You can't sell what you don't own. Defendant didn't own the trailer (they never got it registered in their name), so she shouldn't have sold it. Good judgment. 3. I looked these litigants up because I'm originally from the East Coast and wanted to see to what part of the EC those accents belonged. Looks like they're from the Niagara Falls area of NY. BTW, the multiple arrests of the defendant were listed via Google, as were his mug shots. He's lost some weight, but the tat on his neck was a giveaway. Edited February 18, 2020 by AZChristian 4 Link to comment
Katy M February 18, 2020 Share February 18, 2020 1 hour ago, AZChristian said: 1. Most of our TV judges only refund someone for what the product cost. Since our plaintiff hadn't bothered with paying one red cent, she wasn't due ANY refund. I agree with JM on this one, but was surprised she didn't consider statute of limitation on earlier debt. I assume that because plaintiff "restarted" the former indebtedness in her texts, the SoL didn't apply. Yes, if you admit to a debt and state intention to pay it back, bankruptcy and statute of limitations are void. 2 2 Link to comment
SRTouch February 18, 2020 Share February 18, 2020 7 hours ago, Katy M said: Yes, if you admit to a debt and state intention to pay it back, bankruptcy and statute of limitations are void. And, IIRC she paid $60 towards the old debt 3 Link to comment
SRTouch February 18, 2020 Share February 18, 2020 (edited) Dog park rumble: one dog ended up put to sleep, but apparently had pre-existing condition - pit mix owner learned nothing, in hallterview he insists his 3 dogs still go to park without incident (guess a dog being euthanized is nothing to this guy - not to mention, MM says something about this NOT being first time this guy's 3 rescue pit mixs have been in a kerfuffle at park) - P awarded 3 out of 5 grand she asked for - vet bills but no heartache/pain and suffering........ nothing to do with case - but a standard schnauzer joins Harvey in the street - probably raising the IQ average of the peanut gallery jet ski repair rip off: P says he took his jet ski to D's shop for repairs, but when he heard estimate of 4 grand he decided against the repair - problem is, now D won't give him back his property - wants its estimated value of $4520...... D says P abandoned jet ski, says it sat at his shop close to a year, despite numerous calls and texts asking P to get it out of shop - he ended up scrapping it - says he ought to get credit for storing junky crap, but is smart enough not to file countersuit as there was no storage agreement........ Douglas hasn't even sworn litigants in yet and I'm not liking P's case - unless he can prove the junk ski was worth $4500 awhen it went to shop he would only get the value of the junk, not value if it was fixed - OTOH, if D has texts repeatedly telling p to come get it, I agree ski was abandoned....... ok, when testimony begins it like yesterday's wedding cake litigants - totally different stories has MM asking if they're sure they're both talking about same jet ski - anyway, P says he paid $1500 for thing, and it was working at time - then after 4 hours of use, son flipped it and it quit working shortly thereafter (something D said I had no idea of, when a jet ski is upside down in water you can ruin it by righting it in the wrong direction - you have to turn it over either to right or left depending on make/model)....... so, what's value of $1500 jet ski after it's been flipped and is no longer working - surely NOT $4500....... ok, gotta laugh here - P takes non running jet ski to D - not cuz D is jet ski mechanic, no, he's guy P takes his lawn mower to when it needs work...... yeah, an engine is an engine and I guess anyone can check to see if engine is getting spark and fuel, but I'm thinking it was past time for an actual marine mechanic to check his new purchase........ ok, D not complete novice, says he's worked on jet skis before and actually owns a couple of his own...... uh huh, before taking it to lawn mower mechanic, P got estimate for 2 grand from a dealer, but flapping gums as he doesn't have estimate and can't tell us what dealer said was wrong....... admits he tried going cheap with D, who, without actually taking it apart, guessimated repair at $1000......... over to D and, like we saw in preview clip, totally different story - D does sound like he knows what he's doing, but I have zero experience with these things so he could be full of 💩, he says P brought him the estimate from the dealer, and their quote, according to D, was $3500 - not 2 grand....... anyway, D charged P $100 to check it out, he determined engine was shot, says P found replacement, so he says he charged P $250 to pull engine - P came and took old engine as trade in for rebuilt engine........ ok, back to P, and here's where stories start differing - D's numbers has p paying him $350 at this point, while P says more than double that, and he denies everything about finding replacement and taking away no good engine....... getting tired of this flapping with no evidence - D says he owns 3 shops, so hopefully he keeps records and can produce them once MM asks........ hmmmmph, but actually, it's P who is asked first and produces evidence backing up his numbers - D claims P's evidence showing a money wire transfer totally bogus, says P never wired him anything so any evidence he did is bogus..... this may be enough to settle case - somebody flat out lying, but who....... ah, but too early to settle case now, so MM says put a pen in this and let's look at other elements of case - and yeah, MM says lots of texts from D to P asking what he wants done and eventually come get this pile of crap out of shop....... soooooo, backing up a bit, D explains how, when he tore down the shot engine he told P not worth time and money fixing, let's find rebuilt engine - yada yada P found one, D charged to pull shot one, loaded it on trailer and P took it off....... ah, here I thought maybe this successful shop owner - actually claims 3 shops - would have paperwork, but noooooo, he considered p his pal, so why would he keep business records........ who wants to bet, if he HAD fixed and been paid for repairing this thing, the taxman would have never heard about it....... ok, D says months go by with no word after P took shot engine off to Tampa to trade in on rebuild...... hmmmmmm money as D is talking, he mentions he needs the space to put boats in shop - hey, maybe I had wrong idea and this shop does marine mechanic work and not just small engine (lawnmower)...... finally, D says after almost a year, P came back saying ski dealer was willing to give him something on pile of crap and wanted it, but by that time D says it had been scrapped........ ok, MM asks doesn't the scrap yard need some proof of ownership - hmmmmm, not around here, a few years ago I helped yard 3 or 4 car carcasses someone had abandoned out in the county, and like D said, scrap yard just weighed trailer before and after cars were unloaded and paid based on weight..... MM takes recess to check Florida law to see if D violated law junking P's property (even though texts show months of D trying to get P to come get it) to me ski was abandoned property, but maybe law requires some final warning - like a certified letter -saying come get it NOW or in 30 days it's gone....... after break, MM doesn't start with whether or not D followed laws when he scrapped ski - instead she tears into his ridiculous $4500 claims for the non-operational thing for which he paid $1500 - she actually using words "money grab" to describe P's claim....... switching to D - yep, he's right, there was no requirement to send notice when he decided to scrap ski - seems IF P has owed money to shop and D scrapped it, he WOULD have needed to send notice - but since P was paid up, and then ghosted for months, law considers it abandoned property and D had right to scrap it...... case dismissed........ in hallterview P admits D scrapped it with his permission/knowledge, but he says he expected the money D received at scrap yard, and D kept it - if it's like our scrap yard here in mid sized SW Oklahoma'ville, D got next to nothing - maybe lost money if he paid someone to load it up and deliver to scrapyard Roommate fighting over bills when one moves out: surprise, case not eat it expect from intro ....... from intro it sounded like these hook up at work when they are hired at same time and hit it off...... after becoming friends, D has trouble at home, gets the boot, and moves in with P - I was thinking sort of couch surfing while figuring out what to do, but no, he was actually roommate who agreed to split rent/utilities 50/50 even though P had gf who was there more often than not - good deal for both P & D, as P 2 as having trouble covering bills - GF was out of job at time - and P let D slide on his share of deposit...... lease expires, and both sign the new lease (P's deposit rolls over, so D still skating on deposit) - now D legally bound by lease, so P has right to expect him to abide by terms of lease - oh, and seeing as how P had trouble paying bills, having D sign lease means he stays put instead of hunting for cheating apartment...... ok, seems big part of defense is that D thought he has paid a deposit that P could use towards D's share of rent, but now when asked he admits he was wrong, and now realizes he actually never paid a deposit...... sounds like that admission means he's acknowledging owing something - still, though, if I remember right rent is a grand a month so D's share is $500 plus utilities - so unless utilities are sky high, P is looking to collect 3-4 months (unless he broke lease and is getting charged a penalty) - also, unemployed gf was spending half her time living in apartment and paying nothing - she's still in picture as she came to court with P, is she still unemployed freeloader, or could she start paying a share - in fact, new defense (now that he can't claim deposit should cover his move out) is that P changed their agreement by moving gf in full time, which is why D moved out - P disputes this, saying gf didn't move in full time until D moved out...... huh, so P just admitted gf now there full time - to me she's the answer to finding new roommate and mitigated damages - I'm thinking D only liable for rent until she moves in full time........ in fact, when D says he asked arrangement to change to each paying a third, P sort of contradicts himself when he agrees - sounds like an admission gf was there BEFORE D moved out - P even admits gf got a job and they split rent into thirds for 3 months until she became pregnant and was put on bedrest - at that point, guess P wanted to revert to 50/50 split, but D wasn't having it (don't blame him)....... ok, I was leaning towards D, but he just blew it - seems he promised to keep paying his share, but "changed his mind" and went home to live with parents.......... WTH happened with intro storyline about him deciding to move out and go back to HIS ex....... anyway, seems there were 4 months left on lease, P didn't look for anyone to move into that empty bedroom cuz he figured D was on lease, so why bother - which is how we get to the asked for 2 grand plus - MM wants to talk about D's liability for the months' utilities when he wasn't there flipping light switch or flushing crapper....... ok, coming to decision time - D not even sure when he moved out or when last time he paid rent, but texts back up P (didn't admits in texts he can't handle his money, but promises he'll pay) - problem with P's position, is that now that they're on the outs, he wants to revert to 50/50 split while he's now admitted agreement was modified to thirds....... hmmmmmm MM agrees D owes rent, but a third not half - also, she decides D owes half the utilities....... not sure why half utilities for time he wasn't there, but think she's spanking D for his lack money handling abilities and repeated promises to pay then changing mind....... P awarded $1586.40 Edited February 18, 2020 by SRTouch 2 Link to comment
AngelaHunter February 18, 2020 Share February 18, 2020 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: jet ski repair rip off: Oh, no - we don't need no receipts or no bills or no estimates or anything at all! We've been friends for an eternity, well, maybe three years but the trust we've built up is phenomenal. Guess not. Diametrically opposed stories about timelines and payments and claim of thousands of dollars for a non-working hunk of junk with no engine after Sonny-boy wrecked the thing after a day or so. Maybe D fixed and sold it. Who knows and who cares? Trying to get any kind of coherent story out of plaintiff was an exercise in futility. He doesn't know anything except that he wants a lot of money. 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: Roommate fighting over bills when one moves out: Dorky plaintiff has a lot of mouths to feed. His girlfriend didn't work, so sponged most of the time but I'm sure he was happy with that. Well, she did help out now and then when she worked for a few weeks or whatever, whenever she was able to help out. The dork invites the stupid-looking idiotic def., who he'd known for a couple of months to come bunk in with him too. I guess it never occured to him to ask why def. was getting the boot from wherever he lived. Maybe for non-payment of rent? But like so many other litigants who put their credit on the line for friends/family who can't get utilities or phones or cars in their own names because they stiff everyone, P never thought his good buddy would stiff HIM. Surprise! G/f conveniently "found out" she was preggo and needs complete bed rest because "can't work" sounds better than "won't work". It does sound like the perfect situation to reproduce. Sadly, def has better things to spend all his money on than rent and all that other boring stuff, so he doesn't pay and goes back to bunk in with mommy and daddy. I do wonder where all his money went. Certainly not on clothes, living expenses or a car. It's a mystery. 2 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama February 19, 2020 Share February 19, 2020 (edited) What I hated about the plaintiff girlfriend in the knocked up and can't work case, was that from the second she waltzed into the courtroom, she was smirking, and mouthing off to the boyfriend. Both plaintiffs really thought they were the most adorable couple ever. Today's case about a woman who bought a non-running car, for $700, and then thought the defendant would give her money back certainly had a leg up on most litigants. Her case was a loser, but her hot pink hair and sweater matched, so she gets points for accessorizing. I did get a kick out of the repeatedly convicted idiot who thought he could stiff the criminal attorney that plea bargained him down to no jail time. The criminal attorney was a fool for not getting the money up front, and a signed retainer agreement. The harridan who hired a 19 year old kid to do her deck and fire pit was revolting. And if she thought wearing her Pinto World winning jacket from Tulsa was going to get her points with the judge, or publicity, she was wrong. Also, anyone who has gone to a world show like that, can either win a jacket, or order one. It was awful when the defendant walked in with 1/3 of his face bruised, because he had a seizure coming into the court area. I'm glad the defendant won, and the awful plaintiff lost. Today's rerun of the woman with the 30+ year fence that wants $17,000 (of course will only get $5,000) to replace her rotten fence is a psycho. The fact that she is still whining about the 39 year old defendant's daughter doing tumbling, and getting on her lawn, over 30 years later shows me all I need to know about plaintiff. The defendant says plaintiff called the police at 6 a.m. when her patio umbrella went over the fence. The plaintiff's house looks like Sing Sing during an escape, with flood lights all over the place 24/7, video surveillance, and constant police reports. No Trespassing signs all over the house and yard. Plaintiff even accused the defendant's husband of stealing golf clubs from her yard. I feel sorry for the defendant, because the only solution to her issue is to move, and who is going to buy something next to a house that looks like there are expecting the Zombie Apocalypse. $100 to plaintiff. All the fence needs is the top wire clips replaced, a big bag of them is $10 bucks at the hardware store, and it takes less than a minute to reattach the top wires (I've done an entire yard for very little money, and very little time). Edited February 19, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama 2 Link to comment
SRTouch February 19, 2020 Share February 19, 2020 (edited) Just quick note - no recap as I'm dealing with busted furnace and power has been off a couple times while it's being worked on. So DVR didn't record all of the episode UPDATE: repairman replaced some blower relay and seems to be working fine........ he showed me the old relay - contacts were so rusted and corroded I'm surprised it worked as long as it did..... oh well, $90 fix and $15 tip, but cats and I should be warm tonight Edited February 19, 2020 by SRTouch 4 Link to comment
TresGatos February 19, 2020 Share February 19, 2020 "Guess I just don't hang out with the right crowd. But 1800$ for plaintiff's dusty relics and assorted junk? I don't think so. " But his wife won the moth eaten (rat eaten?) Santa on the Wheel of Fortune! (When did Wheel of Fortune stop stocking actual prizes? 30 years ago? - 40 years ago?). 1 Link to comment
AngelaHunter February 19, 2020 Share February 19, 2020 7 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said: Today's case about a woman who bought a non-running car, for $700 A whole bunch of unsavory characters and here we go again, but this was even worse than most "I bought this old POS for peanuts, as-is, but I don't like it so I want my money back." Of course she never test drove it because it was under repair and not running - dead battery, "check engine" light on, serpantine belt(?) being fixed when she showed up late at night. What's not to love? I"ll take it! She couldn't test drive it because she simply had to have it that very night, and it was late and it was dark, blah blah and most of all, she totally trusted the def even though she'd never met her before. Personally I'd be a little leery of a 2007 car selling for 700$ but I guess our plaintiff figured she'd made a killing. Oops. The only aspect that differentiated this from a million other whiny as-is idiots is that plaintiff claims she "donated" the car but not to any charitable organization. No, she donated it to a mechanic. She can't give the car back to def but just wants her money so def will be without money and without car. Oh, she never thought about that. She wouldn't have gotten the money back anyway, but this just ramps up the stupidity. And then when she realized she was losing she brought racism into it as a last resort, in case that might work. It doesn't. This is why I always trade my car in at a dealer. I may get less money, but I know no one is going to start psycho-calling me and threatening to beat me up because my thirteen-year-old car isn't show-room condition. Then, we have a lawyer as plaintiff. I love seeing lawyers on this show! You know they are always going to be good for a laugh. He's been practicing criminal law for 40 years, but doesn't think it's necessary to get a signed retainer from def. I guess he's a lawyer who deals with his criminal clients on the honour system. Even JM laughed at that, trusting someone like the def who couldn't even get through his period of probation without committing another crime. Just the kind of person an experienced lawyer would trust on his word. Def swears he never hired the plaintiff, who just "showed up" at his court appearances and got him off the hook for his latest violent assault. He just did that because it's fun for him or he's "looking for money" (What money?) or he needed something to get him out of the house that day. JM cannot believe lawyer just "trusted" the def to honour his obligations and she doesn't know how he's survived this long. 😂 Come on! Def is forced to admit, as he gazes off into the distance, that there was a retainer and a sum of 2500$ was mentioned somehow but he never signed the retainer and never axed the plaintiff to represent him. NEVER! His admission cost him 2500$ because, well, criminals aren't really very bright. He's so upset at this he just storms out (probably heading to court again) and won't even talk to Doug-in-the-Hall. Doug asks lawyer if he learned anything from this, like maybe how to get a signed contract before representing amoral criminals? Maybe. Maybe not. 8 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said: The harridan who hired a 19 year old kid to do her deck and fire pit was revolting. HATED her with passion. Def "contractor" is a boy who has an enormous lump and scrapes on his forehead and the beginning of a black eye. JM is concerned and wants to know what happened to him. Seems he fell on the way to the show. I really think he should have gone to an emergency room, but oh well. Horrid, shaved-headed, goony-eyed plaintiff wanted massive work done - ground dug up, a ton of gravel, sand and pavers laid to make a patio, firepit built, fencing installed, planters put in and maybe something else. She said she'd gotten estimates but they were "out of the ballpark." I've had exterior work done and I'm thinking maybe she was quoted 5 - 7K minimum. I was quoted 7K just to put in a new, elevated flagstone walkway. She finds the boy on FB and he comes over and quotes her 1500$. Good deal! She expects the boy, who is a very slight 19-year-old and looks 12, (according to JM), to give the same level of knowledge, skill and professionalism for that price as a landscaping contractor would. She's gone all the time to "dog events" and such, and bitches that the kid spent the 600$ she gave him for supplies on his own bills, even though he bought materials and did dump some gravel and fence posts at her place. JM tells her what he spends it on is none of her business as long as he supplies what he should. Plaintiff starts going all wicked stepmother/dominatrix on the kid, bossing him around and telling him how to do the job. Then she fires him because she says he wasn't doing things in the right order, left a mess, blah blah blah. Gee, I hated her a lot. She hires some child who can't walk without falling and cracking his dome, pays him a pittance and expects miracles. JM asks the kid if he has the receipts for the supplies he bought and he doesn't, so she wants to know how he's going to do his taxes without those. I assume she was kidding. You get what you pay for and I think plaintiff felt she was going to rip the kid off on the price because he's a child who lacks experience and knowledge. She wants 2900$ and gets ZERO. Good. In the hall the kids says he quit that line of work. I hope his mom takes him to the doctor to get that head injury checked out. It looked really bad and you never know with those kinds of things. 4 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama February 20, 2020 Share February 20, 2020 I think the plaintiff in the landscaper case said he had a seizure, and that's either why he fell, or had a seizure after he fell. I hope they had medics check him out. I don't know if it's true or not, but I've been told that trading in through a dealer makes any issues with the vehicle the dealer's problem, not yours. 1 Link to comment
AngelaHunter February 20, 2020 Share February 20, 2020 2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said: I think the plaintiff in the landscaper case said he had a seizure, and that's either why he fell, or had a seizure after he fell. Did he? Whatever happened you know that massive lump had to be throbbing with pain. I found it painful just to look at and hope he didn't fracture his skull. That definitely needed to be checked out. 2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said: I don't know if it's true or not, but I've been told that trading in through a dealer makes any issues with the vehicle the dealer's problem, not yours. Absolutely. Once the dealer takes the car, you're free of it. A couple cars ago, I traded in a car because it was giving me problems starting it. I had it thoroughly checked out - all in writing from a garage - but no problem was found. It worked fine on the trade-in day and I bid it a not-so-fond good riddance. If it gave the new owner problems that was between them and the dealer. Dealer owned it, warrantied it and sold it, not I. 2 Link to comment
Silver Raven February 20, 2020 Share February 20, 2020 3 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: Seems he fell on the way to the show. I really think he should have gone to an emergency room, but oh well. He said he had had a seizure on the way to the show! He really did need to go to a hospital. 1 Link to comment
DoctorK February 20, 2020 Share February 20, 2020 56 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said: Once the dealer takes the car, you're free of it. I think the presumption is that the dealer has on site mechanics who will check the car out in detail so they take full responsibility for any problems and include those in the price they pay for the car. However, if you trade in a car to a dealer, get the final price of the new car you are buying in writing before negotiating your trade in, the standard scam is to give you a great price on your trade-in but then jack up the price of the new car. It really is psychological warfare. 1 Link to comment
Florinaldo February 20, 2020 Share February 20, 2020 The two bald vultures must have pegged the kid they hired to build their patio and fire pit as an easy mark. They figured they could get him to do it for very cheap, with him losing money in the process, and then they could sue him to get back the money and make him pay for someone else finishing the job, benefiting from the work he had already done. She also had a horrid fashion sense. I think the defendant may be used to bruising himself when having seizures, which is why he did not appear too worried. He should get that bump checked anyway. The lawyer was dumb for trusting his client to "eventually" sign the retainer agreement and pay him. On the other hand, the defendant was obviously too knowledgeable of how courts work for his act as a stupid nincompoop who does not grasp things to come across as believable. Once in a while we get an "as-is" case that does not turn out predictably and can surprise. This was not one of them. Not only did the idiot defendant not understand how these sales work, she also got rid of the car (how can you "donate" to a mechanic?), thus voiding the possibility of nullifying the transaction should JM inexplicably find for her. JM told defendant "you are allowed to make a profit, you don't have to apologise for it". Too bad JJ does not listen to other people's advice; she could learn from this statement because she is inconsistent, sometimes letting a profit pass, but at other times even calling it "unconscionable" to make money when reselling something. 4 Link to comment
AngelaHunter February 20, 2020 Share February 20, 2020 11 hours ago, DoctorK said: It really is psychological warfare. Oh definitely. You also get low-balled on the trade-in. Of course, dealers have to make money and they have to get the car in great condition to sell. I know I was paid less for my cars than they were worth. If I wanted the full book value, then I can put an ad on CL, have all kinds of people show up, or not show up, offer me an even lower price than the dealer did. They might crash it while test-driving, try to buy it in payments, or pay in full and then call and text me with threats or show up at my door if they need to do a repair two months down the road, and then sue me. The extra money to be had by selling privately is, to me, so not worth it. There's a cost to everything. At the dealer, I hand over the keys and it's fini. They get the licence/license plate/insurance/registration changed over and I do nothing except drive away in my new car. Watching this show is partly why I choose never to sell or buy privately. Or be a landlord. Or invite strangers to move into one of my bedrooms. Or hook up with some guy passed out on the steps. Or reproduce with someone who has warrants or a criminal record as long as my arm and/or a bunch of kids he doesn't support. This show really has been educational for me. 12 hours ago, Silver Raven said: He said he had had a seizure on the way to the show! He really did need to go to a hospital. People have died later on from injuries like that, even if they seemed to be suffering no immediate ill effects. I hope he's okay. 4 Link to comment
SRTouch February 20, 2020 Share February 20, 2020 (edited) 2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: Watching this show is partly why I choose never to sell or buy privately. Or be a landlord. Or invite strangers to move into one of my bedrooms. Or hook up with some guy passed out on the steps. Or reproduce with someone who has warrants or a criminal record as long as my arm and/or a bunch of kids he doesn't support. Wellllllll, ok....... but you'll still put me on your phone plan, right? Oh, and how 'bout buying a car/paying rent/etc for someone you met on an online dating site a week after first face to face. Edited February 20, 2020 by SRTouch 4 Link to comment
AngelaHunter February 20, 2020 Share February 20, 2020 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: Wellllllll, ok....... but you'll still put me on your phone plan, right? Sure. After all, you've fallen on hard times, lost your job and are getting evicted but you desperately need the latest 1,000$ iPhone and I have big heart and want to help you out. It's just the kind of nice person I am. I trust you to pay the bill every month. 3 Link to comment
patty1h February 20, 2020 Share February 20, 2020 (edited) That woman suing over the exotic flowers needs a hobby that doesn't include gardening. She's almost like one of those wackos who fall in love with a bridge or the Eiffel tower and act like it's sentient. I'm sure that I'd be upset if someone cut my flowers but she put a lot of angst and drama into the situation. She could have had a strongly worded discussion with the landscaper to make sure he knows for next time, put a little sign or one of those little border fence things around those flowers (and this is on property that she didn't even own/she was a renter and this was the common area). She could have discussed having the worker/his company paying for replacements, but she took it up to a drama queen level - her flowers were special and this worker killed them and it's worth $5K! She even got God involved twice, saying that he will judge those flower killers. She must be fun to hang out with. Not. Edited February 20, 2020 by patty1h 4 2 Link to comment
Broderbits February 20, 2020 Share February 20, 2020 Those lilies are not "extremely rare"; you can order from lots of bulb growers or even from Amazon. However that doesn't excuse a landscaper who's stupid enough to weed-whack what are obviously flowers. If he wasn't sure about them, he should have asked. 4 Link to comment
SRTouch February 20, 2020 Share February 20, 2020 (edited) Ah, this is how it's SUPPOSED to be - furnace issue resolved - cold outside but nice and cozy in here where I'm watching TPC, drinking coffee, and have my 19yo Spotty in my lap purring........ while waiting for MM, see Shaq and the General commercial where Shaq tells driver driving without insurance is like having a skunk farm in backyard........ Murderous landscaper attack: oh my, not sure what intro clown clown is yakking about at first as he talks about a murderous landscaper - turns out dude took weedeater to P's prized flowers - WTH, for that P wants 5 grand?!...... D says his worker was doing job when P physically attacked him (should note this sounds like D is boss and worker with first hand knowledge not here to testify..... ok, lots of times in this type work employees are day laborers, but who wants to bet this is a regular employee) - anyway, says lady when nutso, and cops had to calm her down...... ok, some type of lilie's were whacked off, but would that actually kill the plant - uh, no, - OTOH, IIRC lilies only bloom once a year, so lady may have been waiting since last autumn when she put bulbs in ground and been excited to finally have flowers bloom - still, these had better be some ultra rare lilies (or maybe worker salted the ground after whacking her flowers) if she's after 5 grand....... ok, talking asiatic black wizard lilies, so not ultra rare/expensive - according to Google they're the darkest lily, a perennial, a mid summer bloomer, and you get 10-15 flowers from each bulb - P says rare, but not really, as I see sites that sell them ($30 for 2 pack on Amazon - but restricted from being sold in some states, so maybe an invasive plant?) still, maybe rare where she lives - ah, ok, very sentimental about her flowers her friend planted - has little book of pix...... uh huh, now MM asks, so we know these plants were not even planted on P's property - she lives with a home owners association and these were in area owned/maintained by the HOA - D was hired by HOA - when she heard worker outside she says she ran out in her pj's to stop him from whacking her plants (landscapers had been guilty of indiscriminate whacking previous year) - sooooo, she doesn't make it in time to stop him from whacking some plants, so she's yelling at worker telling him to go to library and ask somebody to teach him difference between weeds and flowers...... I sort of get her frustration if this is second year in row landscapers whacked her prize flowers, but, despite fact she's on best behavior in court, obvious to me that she was probably pretty out of control and insulting to landscaper - also, she dances around answering MM when asked about the incident - yeah, sure she was yelling, she says, but worker was holding a running weedeater, ok, yeah maybe she she threw a flower towards dude, but not really at him, and besides she missed and it never touched him - 'sides, he whacked her lilies, but left the weeds (probably cuz he stopped working in area with crazy lady in pajamas while waiting for cops, cops probably told her to go back inside and told worker to go whacking somewhere else)........ ok, her whole case kind of shaky, her plants, but not on her property, HOA employee (or contractor) whacked the flowers previous year, so if stalks really that high, why hadn't she gone out earlier in season to point out the plants and ask (ask, not scream about going to library and researching on how to spot a weed) landscaper to be careful - not liking her a tiny bit, especially as I remember her 5 grand damage claim...... over to D - and yeah, hearsay about what missing employee told him about incident - according to D, employee said first he knew nutty shrew was there was when she pushed him from behind - says he put trimmer down to talk to woman - may or may not have turned it off - which is why it's best to have actual employee here instead of guy who heard about incident later - ok, yeah, according to the hearsay, woman yelling and insulting, along with potty mouth - D does produce text from employee, but of course employee's text doesn't carry same weight as witness standing there who can be questioned over discrepancies with P's testimony..... when D gets employee's text, he calls cops - even has police report, so guess since report is admissible he can repeat what'she on it - well, he says 'we' called police, so either he's royalty or he has a "service" mouse in his pocket)....... ok, not really liking D here, either, but getting feeling employee may be a tad 'slow' or just inexperienced and before end of case hear employee called 'kid by D, P and D's office person ....... after commercial it's back to P, who protests her innocence, insists she doesn't have a potty mouth, never pushed employee, yada yada, not buying it, ready for case to be dismissed as frivolous even though I really haven't heard a defense once I subtract the hearsay testimony - only real evidence, so far, proves employee whacked the lilies, and that P really ought to have considering things more carefully before moving someplace where she doesn't control/own her garden...... ok, maybe some actual first hand testimony from D when he talks of multiple - how many - maybe 4-5 times in short period of time - calls from D, where she gets verbally abusive, threatening to take the weedeater to cut HIM down, etc, before he stopped accepting her calls and called cops...... welllll, then again, maybe more hearsay, as he produces a paper from office manager documenting P's calls to office - I'm really not sure when this guy testifies if it's hearsay, the royal 'we' or first hand testimony - about only thing I AM sure of is P is nutty, but lost her property (lilies) that she had in an area maintained by HOA, everybody agrees employee whacked the lilies, and that she has priced an absurd value on lilies in her damage claim - oh, and also sure I'm ready for next case...... ok, more evidence from D, this time purportedly from office person, but could just as well be something he printed up off his home 'puter before making trip - yep, another employee who apparently had something to testify to who couldn't make trip....... okkkkkk and we just learned that there's yet another person between P and D - she's a renter who pays a landlord who pays an HOA who pays D who pays the 'kid who whacked the lily' - really, can't make this 💩 up - oh, and the lilies were worth 5 grand........ D finally produces some real evidence, his contract with the HOA saying he is to maintain P's flowerbeds...... yakkedy yak yak......... finally, MM ready to ask about damage claim - but P doing more two step and won't answer - MM gets loud - when P finally ready to answer WHY she suing for 5 grand she starts with D trying to ruin her reputation - BY CALLING POLICE when his employee reports she pushed him and is yelling/calling him dumb/stupid, says MM - ok, P wants to go back to beginning of case and start testimony from square one - actually kind of early in case, timewise, but I'm ready for decision (think I said that 5 minutes ago) - breaking down her claim - she wants a grand for the flowers, 2 grand for harrassment........ this is actually funny, as MM asks why P is suing for harrassment and P can't explain what D did to harrass her - MM backs up and starts over - you want $1000 for the flowers, how are they worth a grand - And now P argues with her own claim, no the flowers weren't worth a grand she just.... MM is fed up and cuts her off..... back to ridiculous breakdown of damages and next grand is for defamation - but when asked she's not talking about anything D may said or done, since D called police and pay kid, she figures anything plice put in report that kid said means D is responsible - so what police put in report is what employee told them, but employee lied, and employer therefore nothing but a big liar liar - my math may be off, or maybe MM is frustrated and not going to keep going down P's list of damages (I have $1000 for flowers, 2 grand for harrassment, and 1 grand defamation = 4 grand, but P suing for 5grand (not worth going back and seeing where missing grand comes in...... ok, MM in middle of dismissing case and attempts to toss P a bone by saying P MIGHT be due something if landscaper keep repeating mistake - P interrupts with her plants were whacked 2 years in a row but is told to shut it, lady in black robe in middle of sentence - offer of a bone retracted as MM explains P acted like a whacko because kid with the whacker whacked her lilies...... ok, nuf that, comes down to P has no case against D - she might have - against HOA - but HOA would have to sue D, not her....... hmmmm - more ridiculousness from me - wouldn't she need to sue her landlord, who would need to sue the HOA who would finally sue D - nah, really, that whole bit is flawed, as that only accounts for the lilies and bigger portion of her nonsense claim is harrassment and defamation....... anyway, case dismissed....... and everything MM said went in one ear and out the other, as P turns to D and calls him a liar as they pack up to go meet Doug of the Hallway........ oh, give it up Doug, no sense trying to get this nut to explain her lawsuit, just send her to sign the papers tenant vs landlord: wants money because, she says, plumbing was bad so she had to move - her claim is for deposit, which she says landlord kept because of water damage from plumbing - wants 3 grand........ D says P caused plumbing backup by flushing non-flushable baby wipes - not only that, but P trashed place and left disaster reminiscent of a hurricane - countersuit for $3440...... ok, maybe I shouldn't with hall clown's record of lack of accuracy, but going from intro I going to say Landlord will prevail if he has statement from plumber and proof of cost of additional damages - also, may be another time when tenant should have kissed deposit goodbye instead of suing and giving landlord a change to talk on more when landlord was originally going to just keep deposit....... ok, either this place had serious problems, or landlord was happy to see the last of this tenant - seems she had a year lease, but landlord let her out 3-4 months early (hate it when tenants can't even answer how long hey lived in place..... ok, I might not know off hand, but I would hope I'd figure it out and know the answer if I was a plaintiff asking for 3 grand in a case involving tenancy..... ok, here's a chuckle - seems tenant was part time employee of landlord who cleaned the occasional apartment, so they had prior/ongoing work relationship where P knew exactly how D expected apartment to look both when previous tenant left and after it was prepped for new tenant...... ok, from get go, when she moved in P began having issues with boss/landlord - says right away she notified him of slow draining tub and D sent plumber - next day she cleaned an apartment, but says D stiffed her on cleaning fee....... hmmmm, and she even has pix of job she did cleaning apartment - so does she has pix of HER apartment after she left that dispute landlord's hurricane description......... according to P, not only did plumber visit not fix problem, but she discovered her neighbor was also having similar problems...... if she's on the ball, she has neighbor testimony which would blow D's baby wipes theory out of water - especially if she had those pix...... ah, wishful thinking, as MM quickly asks for an affidavit from neighbor - nope - however, if this case is close it might be time when MM recesses to call one of the two neighbors P claims had plumbing get problems....... over to D - man I hate when a judge asks simple question and litigant wants to roll a story - here MM asks how many times plumber was called and landlord goes on and on instead of giving a number..... ok, breaking it down, first visit was slow drain - non emergency - so plumber for estimate next week - next time is clogged toilet backing up and plumber there same day, but doesn't have what he needs - why didn't he bring what he needed, asks MM - well, we're talking multi story building, so my guess would be snake not long enough....... is this going to another flapping gums case - first P had chance to claim early victory with neighbor testimony, and plumber report could cinch case for landlord........ is MM hanging onto it to take up some time....... ok, D started out right, toilet something of an emergency - problem is half-a$$ed plumbers who, first don't bring what they need one day one, promise to show up first in morning becomes before end of the day, but hey, they got busy and it's Friday, so hey, they'll be there Monday........ dude, I agree with MM time to tell plumber get meet me at building an hour ago or don't come at all, at all and call a different plumber......... at this point, I'd be thinking P is off hook even if baby wipes caused the flood - especially as P sentry pix of sewage backing up into tub and toilet overflowing and P sent these pix to landlord on the Wednesday before the Friday plumber were a no show until after the weekend....... geez, if I'm remembering right, this all happened shortly after P moved here - I'd be wanting of of lease as apparently - especially as she has a toddler...... ok, I'm ready to say Landlord was asleep at the wheel as tenant, with her pix, is making pretty good case, but there could still be a partial switcheroo if D comes up with proof of baby wipes in a different timeline - nah, if P notified D Wednesday and sent those pixs of a tub filled to brim with sewage and water flowing out of toilet, then it's not til Monday that plumbers clear drain in wouldn't give him anything for water damage no matter who caused plug - dude needs way more non-flood related damage as he wants deposit plus additional $3400........ ok, seems early, but MM already asking to figure out how P decided on damage amount (wants security plus 1 month rent, but some question of whether month rent she paid was for 1st or last month) - ok, looking at clock, guess it IS time, even though D hasn't seemed to say much - P also wants $1300 for living (with kid) in crap filled apartment - $50 for towels she used to try to stem flood (MM points out she COULD have washed them, but, yeah, I'd probably toss them, too - and as landlord I wouldn't quibble over paying her for new towels - especially as she was trying to limit spread of sewage flood though out rest of apartment)........ now MM is asking if P actually lived there in crap-ville, or did she hurry and find new accommodations - P says she tried to stay, but smell was making her sick - hmmm she ended up moving in with next door neighbor, so neighbor flooding not nearly as serious - and now MM finally asks about something from plumber - hmmmmmm plumber says baby wipes from P'says toilet - is there a big switcheroo coming? If it DOES turn out that P caused flood, how much liability is shared by slow response from plumber and Landlord not kicking plumber in a$$ to get there 5 days earlier.......... now D points out that in P'says own pic you see baby wipes package on toilet, she says yeah she uses them in bathroom but never ever puts them in toilet - MM asks what she does with them and P says they go in diaper and into trash - ok I buy that, but also she has 1yo toddler and toddlers have been known to flush all manner of things....... does it matter, though? I'm still thinking major cause of flood was long wait for plumber to clear drain - guess it DOES, as cause may reduce amount I'd award P - still thinking nada to D for an hour flood damage, but she may need to pay plumber bill........ ah ha, I had same question MM just asked - even though cause stated in plumber report is 'large number of wipes,' how do we know wipes came from P's apartment as there are 3 others - certainly sounds like P was last apartment before main drain from building, as she had need flood when anyone in building flushed......... that's the real question of her liability for anything - D answer is she's only one in building with a baby - P says, no, upstairs neighbor has baby - but hey, I have adult sized wipes in my bathroom (perfect for quick swipe of toilet seat or any accidental missed litter box accident - and, no, I don't flush them, I keep empty airtight plastic tub of litter that comes in that I use for soiled litter and the occasional wipe).......... ok, no switcheroo, D can't prove defense that P caused backup, but P asking for more than she'll receive - ok, P claiming whittle down to $810, nothing for D scooter without title: getting late and went on and on with other cases - so, quicky recap 9n this one: P bought scooter, and either knew it had no title or was promised title at later date, depending on who you believe (and has evidence) - ok, P has the evidence, but doesn't get what he wants - apparently, heaid for scooter at cut rate price, but has since learned it will cost big to get legal title - dude wants tone keep bike and for D to pay to make it legal - totally over 2 grand - nope, says MM P has to return scooter and get back $450 he paid - and D has to arrange to go get scooter as she has already jetted around P missing scheduled meetings to work things out....... (actually only watched intro and and ruling) Edited February 20, 2020 by SRTouch 2 Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.