AngelaHunter February 20, 2020 Share February 20, 2020 Those lilies sell for about 15$ for 3 of them. I have gorgeous, double-headed Stargazer lilies (for which I paid 10$/pot) that Japanese beetles just love to destroy. Asiatic lilies are very tough. The only things tougher are daylilies, and all are nearly impossible to kill without using dynamite. They come from bulbs underground and plaintiff should know that since she's so into flowers that she took pictures of her friend planting the bulbs - that the bulbs weren't destroyed. Mine keep coming up every year after being turned into black slime by the beetles. Of course the grass cutter shouldn't have cut them down, even though P just rents and planted them on someone else's property. However, that doesn't give the beastly plaintiff leave to touch the guy, throw anything at him, curse or act like a lunatic, which, judging by her affect here I totally believe she did. I'd be frightened if I saw her charging at me like an angry water buffalo. The worst part is her trying to fill her pockets by scamming 5K for a few flowers. How did def harass her or defame her? "Uhh...". She babbles over JM and continues ranting in the hall seeming to think that God will punish the defendant for his wanton murder of her prized 26$ worth of flowers. I just lament the fact we have no video showing her confronting the Weed Whacker Kid. 1 3 Link to comment
SRTouch February 20, 2020 Share February 20, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, Broderbits said: 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. Years back I worked landscaping - before I went out on my own I worked with a handicaped kid with extreme attention deficit. You'd never know just talking to him. He wasn't stupid, and in fact very knowledgeable about his collection of of collectible toys. Also knew all about different makes/models of cars. One of the factory complexes we worked was an hours drive west. Even though he never had a license to drive, I learned never to challenge him on his recognition of cars. He recognized cars WAY before I did on the drive. Problem is that when he started a job his mind would wander. I worked with him two days a week on a couple big jobs every summer for a couple years. Our boss was friends with his family. Every week, even though he was assigned same tasks each week, you would need to go to area he was going to mow and point out boundaries of his area. Boss would sometimes unload the riding mower he was going to be using, tell kid to meet him up at field he was assigning the kid. Then boss would go mow a circle around the area he wanted mowed and tell him to mow the grass inside the circle...... Also, you had to check up on him every so often. If he had a problem - like an equipment break down or running out of gas - he wouldn't always come looking for help. Instead, he'd wait until the boss or I came to check on his progress. I blame other workers he had worked with in the past for that. Some people would go off and berate him, so he was afraid to report problems. He learned I wouldn't, so he would walk past other workers to come ask me for help - even though I might be half a mile away in another area...... I liked him, and still stop and talk to him every so often even though it's probably been over 10 years since I worked with him. Edited February 20, 2020 by SRTouch 7 Link to comment
Broderbits February 20, 2020 Share February 20, 2020 39 minutes ago, SRTouch said: Years back I worked landscaping - before I went out on my own I worked with a handicaped kid with extreme attention deficit. Your former boss sounds like a wonderful person; not everyone would have the patience to hire a kid with those problems. And now I feel bad about saying "stupid" in my previous post, since the landscaper could have had similar problems and just needed a little more supervision. 3 Link to comment
AngelaHunter February 21, 2020 Share February 21, 2020 (edited) 33 minutes ago, Broderbits said: And now I feel bad about saying "stupid" in my previous post, since the landscaper could have had similar problems and just needed a little more supervision. Don't feel bad. There are lots of people who know nothing about plants. I could take my husband, who is not stupid, out to my garden every day. He loves looking at it, but can't tell a petunia from a dandelion no matter how many times I tell him what they are and he would have mowed them down if they had been stuck out in the grass the way it seems plaintiff's flowers were. I think the kid cutting grass does just that - cuts grass and anything in the way just gets zapped. Def probably hired him and gave him directions which didn't include "Watch out for crazy ladies who think what they plant is priceless." When I rented there was patch of yard in back of the building and I planted some spring bulbs there - tulips, hyacinths, etc. Looking at them made me happy. Whoever the landlord hired to cut the grass mowed them down. I was unhappy about it, but it wasn't my property so I just frowned, shrugged and got over it. Edited February 21, 2020 by AngelaHunter 4 Link to comment
SRTouch February 21, 2020 Share February 21, 2020 46 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said: Don't feel bad. There are lots of people who know nothing about plants. I could take my husband, who is not stupid, out to my garden every day. He loves looking at it, but can't tell a petunia from a dandelion no matter how many times I tell him what they are and he would have mowed them down if they had been stuck out in the grass the way it seems plaintiff's flowers were. I think the kid cutting grass does just that - cuts grass and anything in the way just gets zapped. Def probably hired him and gave him directions which didn't include "Watch out for crazy ladies who think what they plant is priceless." Sometimes only thing that makes a weed a weed is location 😉 46 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said: When I rented there was patch of yard in back of the building and I planted some spring bulbs there - tulips, hyacinths, etc. Looking at them made me happy. Whoever the landlord hired to cut the grass mowed them down. I was unhappy about it, but it wasn't my property so I just frowned, shrugged and got over it. Before I bought this trailer I lived in same apartment for 10 years. I got permission to take over one flowerbed and create another small 3 or 4 square foot area between my patio and the sidewalk into a bed. (I also had contract for landscaping the complex most of the time I lived there.) I ended up with raised beds, planted roses and annuals spring and fall and had a couple tomato plants and strawberries - this was when I learned those two should not really be planted near each other. I have a couple stories about those beds...... once I had good group of strawberries going, and I heard a timid, very soft knock on my door. I opened door to little girl, with neighbor looking on. Seems a granddaughter came to visit my neighbor. She picked all the berries, even though none were ready. She got in trouble once grand mom found out, and grandmom told her to go apologize and give me what she had picked. Couldn't be mad, little girl didn't know any better. Other story not so cute, as it was (different) adult neighbor taking several tomatos over the season. One day I'd have tomato almost ready, then it'd be gone. He may not have known I planted them, but knew I watered/weeded bed and that HE didn't plant them. Way I found out was that bedroom window looked out over bed and I caught him in the act. Other thing that upset me, he lived upstairs and didn't even walk down the sidewalk by those beds to his apartment. Nooooo, he saw them from the stairs and came and helped himself - several times. Hmmmmmm dude would be perfect for court tv with his attitude of entitlement. 1 Link to comment
Florinaldo February 21, 2020 Share February 21, 2020 4 hours ago, SRTouch said: Murderous landscaper attack: Crazy flower lady is really much too invested in her vegetation. Her reaction after the verdict and her demeanor during the hallterview gave credence to the landscaper's employee claim that she got aggressive and pushed him. In some HOAs, the lawn is a common area but individual owners may be given some rights to plant stuff in some sections adjacent to their unit, under conditions set out in the by-laws or in a specific agreement. I do not know if that applied here and if the plaintiff was aware of it. The HOA retains ultimate jurisdiction, of course. 4 Link to comment
SRTouch February 21, 2020 Share February 21, 2020 (edited) Watched 1st two cases from kitchen while making/eating lunch. Neither worth rewinding to do verbose recap. family feud: big bro suing younger bro over 3 grand loan he made a year or two earlier when young bro's wife kicked him to curb. Younger bro says big brother never loaned him any money - says he has good job and if money was ever needed it would be him loaning big bro money - Lil bro says this case is over a car wreck Big bro(P) had in Lil bro (D)'s gf's car..... hmmmmm, not sure when lil bro hooked up with gf - mayhap that was WHY he was kicked out..... seems P had the accident, returned damaged car with other driver's info, and refuses to pay anything toward repair, saying accident not his fault, so lil bro and gf should go after other driver....... . D's gf sued Big bro, and week later lil bro is served with papers for this case....... car case has nothing to do with this case except as possible motive for filing this suit.......both this brothers are highly irritating and macho macho - Lil bro is cautioned a couple times right out the gate for standing to the side gesturing while big bro states his case..... Lil bro dressed for backyard bbq, while big bro ready for church in Sunday best....... P may look like a litigant, but boy, he sure doesn't act the part - he's one of those people I swear must be hard of hearing because of the decibels they've been around all their life - in his case the decibels are coming from his shouting - everything he says today comes out at #9 on the volume control - also, spent almost whole time looking doen looking for something in wallet and papers -so, this case is about 3 grand prize says he loaned D, but D says he never needed or received - P says he has evidence - a mystery witness who couldn't make the trip, but he has a statement - MM not happy with statement, wants to give mystery witness a call, but P doesn't have his number - MM not happy with THAT either - says you were able to track guy down and get a statement but no phone number....... P wants to shout about the car case, reminded again that is for an upcoming hearing, not this one - case dismissed. Employee not paid: P says he left old job where he was making better money to come work for his godfather's brother - couple more guys who make terrible litigants...... if I heard right, claims he was making 2-3000 in old job and went down to $200...... MM catches P lying before he really gets started - he's talking like he left a better paying job to work for almost-family, but actual truth is he was laid off and desperate....... D is godfather's brother and a macho man all about RESPECT - but he's one of those who thinks respect goes one way, he demands respect, but treats others/employees like crap....... P was on job, installing/repairing AC in hot attic - when he discovers he doesn't have needed part - he calls boss man, who begins profane harangue to employee who is already hot and stressed out - also an employee who he knows is a vet whose PTSD is triggered by stress (D also a vet, but he makes comment suggesting he looks down on anyone with P's diagnosis)...... so, P doesn't have part to complete job, and gets yelled out when he reports to boss hoping they can spend someone with part - so he calls it a day and heads back to office....... hey, it was payday and his electric had already been shut off because of $150 past due bill....... ah, but when he gets to office boss says he is waiting on a checks from clients and can't make payroll - boss knew employee's lights had been shut off, but by gosh and golly, P had disrespected him by hanging up on him and leaving jobsite, so P can't just wait til Monday to get paid - this was Friday afteroon, so I'm thinking P hoped to get paycheck and get lights turned back on before weekend - MM suggests a GOOD boss would have, at least, given P enough to get lights on, but no, P had been DISRESPECTFUL - besides he already knew P's family had a place to stay with power - so no biggy, it'll teach P a lesson of who'da'boss, P goes home to no power, and scrambles around to raise money over the weekend - come Monday he calls in on strike (not what he calls it) - not coming back til he's paid - he's also checked around with other employees, and apparently others were paid Friday, just not dude who has past due bills with no electricity - a couple more things about D's campaign demanding respect - seems when he learned office manager had talked about others who were she was fired - also he heard P in his brother's (not godfather brother) office complaining about not being paid, so D goes over and throws 'nother straw throw on the back - P quits and wants to be paid for work he's done........ oh my, just when I thought D was an a$$hole, he proves to be an even bigger one........ seems he knows he has to pay P, but claiming he talked to someone at labor board, and he retroactively cuts P pay rate from AC installer to gofer/minimum wage (?)......... uh, no, MM is not buying someone at labor board told him that........ anybody catch where these people are? I ask because this type of situation is where a union could shine. I'll agree with those who say some unions have gotten TOO powerful and sometimes hurt instead of members in the long haul, but, like I said, this type situation is why unions came about........ ok, time to talk damages....... P definitely deserves to be paid, but he really piled stuff onto his claim - like he wants to be paid for the Monday even though he admits he called/texted and took the day off - he also wants to be paid for bills being paid late and being threatened with eviction - I MIGHT have been more sympathetic to some of that except we know, at very least, his electric was past due before payday - ok, P owed $200 from late/reduced paycheck, but with all the add ons he now wants 2 grand -no surprise, that doesn't happen......... P awarded $204.96........ not TOO sorry he didn't get more, sure D was an A$$, but not only did P start case with a lie and try for more than he should have, he contributed quite a bit to his money woes....... course, D goes off a bit on Doug of the Hallway - he claims MM wouldn't listen to his evidence, says only got to say, maybe 20 words, just check the tape, he says - the law doesn't matter on TPC etc.... auto shop repair fail: silly case which, from intro, sounds like we won't be hearing any interesting legal question from any of the cases today. Little old lady took her hoopty to D - engine shot - been over a year ..... his intro says to find a replacement - intro doesn't say if he ever fixed her truck - wants full 5 grand max...... if intro clown intro is right - I know, what are the chances of that?...... his defense consists of 3 parts: 1) he couldn't find an affordable rebuilt or motor he could take parts from that would work; 2) he gave her a loaner; and 3) p has such a potty mouth and harrassed him so much his blood pressure went up and he ended up in hospital for a week - sooooooo, problem with his defense is --- uh, still waiting to hear his defense......... oh, problem with P's case is her damage claim - haven't heard make/model/year yet, but, if it's the usual hoopty who can register to vote (or even buy booze), she can buy 5 comparable hooptys if awarded her asked for 5 grand - yes, given that we KNOW she brought him a body and worthless engine, I'm being pretty generous and a comparable vehicle would be sent straight to junkyard as scrap - but P is a little old lady, which is almost always good for something on TPC....... oh my, preview going to commercial we learn granny met mechanic in Auto Zone parking lot - she says he has no shop, but he says he does - any bets on whether shop is shed behind house or that big shade tree in the front yard....... ok, truck quit running Nov 2018, and she got quote from mechanic of 2 grand - no way could she afford that, so shopped around for alley mechanic, neighbor recommended D, and his quote was $900........ hmmmmmm sounds like he made his estimate over phone - never good idea, whether reno-ing a building or repairing hoopty - you never know what else could need repairs - sure he may not be able to tell everything that might needs repair, but he cross some things off the list by checking brakes, suspension etc (heck, even just looking at wear pattern of tires can tell a mechanic quite alot)...... ok, 2nd case in a row where first thing litigant tells MM turns out wrong - she asks D if he had a shop - yes, he says, P says no he didn't, and after some digging we find out he did NOT have a shop for another couple months........ uh, foolish P paid full amount, $900, upfront right there at 1st meeting at Auto Zone - uh, here's a thought, much smaller amount upfront, make sure he has money to get engine when he finds it, and rest of money when he completes work........ uhhhhh, and P gave him full amount and promptly heads to California for daughter's wedding, after being promised engine would be installed when she returned in two weeks....... oops, guess I was wrong - shop neither the shed nor the front yard - their city won't let people work on junkers in the yard, so he took it 'out in the forest' somewhere according to P, but he just says 'in the country'........ ok, these two both pretty dim - MM asks P what city they're from - P isn't sure, hasn't lived there long - maybe, uhhh, Arkansas??....... turning to D and he can at least pin it down to Little Rock - he also gets around to telling up this isn't an ancient hoopty by TPC hoopty standards, why this thing is practically new, a '06 - country bumpkin then goes through all the trials and tribulations he suffered through trying to explain why he has had her vehicle a year and has yet to replace engine........ oh, yeah, that loaner car he provided - well he did provide a loaner, but as P was driving home she realized she had no paperwork proving it was legal to drive - she says she took it right back, changes that to maybe a week and a half, and D says probably more like 3 weeks - but, dude, that still means you did NOT provide her a loaner for almost a year........... D has yet to provide a defense, and his three attempt at a defense have been trashed (his bit about her cussing him out had MM saying, well, yeah, after a year and a half she is no closer to having her vehicle running, and she paid in full upfront expecting it back in 2 weeks - don't know if she really cussed him out, but if she did it was understandable........ Ok, never any real questioned P going to win, but don't think she'll be that happy - way I see it, she gets back her non-running junker and her $900 - hoping MM finds a way to award a little extra cuz D really did her wrong....... ok, seems California daughter found out about mess about 9 months in, she tried to call and kick start process, but D only took her call once before he blocked her....... also, seems after his blood pressure scare, D hasn't worked last 4 months........ MM ready to talk damages - P another of those who hang onto paperwork - she has original purchase papers from when she bought truck, along with pics of what it looks like today - seems while he had it parked in the woods, some other bumpkin(s) found it and started using it for parts......... Wellllllll so truck only needed an engine when he took procession and now it's been used for parts and cannibalized - dude needs to give her kbb for truck, plus $900 he took for replacing engine, and hopefully a grand or two for kerning her around....... heck, make him pay for daughter's plane ticket from California..... can ya tell I don't like this guy - this guy gives country bumpkins everywhere a bad name...... awwwwww, another time MM does the probably legal thing instead of going with gut emotions - she decides non-running vehicle only worth $1200 - returns the $900 - and gives nothing for hassle of of dealing with bumpkin for a year........ total award $2100 SIDE NOTE: I come from families who migrated to California during the depression and after WWII. I have family who were originally in Oklahoma, Texas, Missouri and Arkansas, and they all had family that didn't make the move west. Some of my grandfather's generation, and my older aunts/uncles returned to those States after retiring because of cheaper cost of living....... sort of long-winded, but looking and listening to P on last case really had me thinking of my olds folks......... would not be at all surprised if P has a cedar chest full of quilts she's made - she really had me remembering one of my favorites, Great Aunt Minnie - for most of my life she quioted, and as children moved out one new room became dedicated to quilting bees. Edited February 21, 2020 by SRTouch 4 Link to comment
AngelaHunter February 21, 2020 Share February 21, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: family feud: Good lord. I really wish JM would put the brakes on these long-winded, autobiographical orations. The worst part about this one is it was delivered at max volume and he continued that way. I was wishing JM would tell him to turn down the volume. Stupid case where plaintiff had zero proof, except for some lined notebook paper full of hearsay from someone he can't even get in touch with. Def brother, who has "the Kimberly" seems to have a bit of a temper problem and lacks self-control, so bad JM had to threaten to throw him out if he didn't knock off the bad behavior. I wonder how the Kimberly deals with that. 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: Employee not paid: We get a Christian who is suffering PSTD which is "triggered" by anxiety, stress and a bunch of other things, but luckily not by appearing on national TV on The People's Court. Since he's a Christian - who lied under oath about why he went to work for D's company (is it okay for devout Christians to lie after swearing on a bible?) - he doesn't care about the money he earns, even though he has two little girls and can't pay his 158$ light bill. The money means nothing to him, although he's here suing for a bunch of it. Do grown up people really talk about their "godparents"? I don't know since I never had any. So, since plaintiff cares not for filthy lucre - I guess Christians don't worry about their bills and who cares about 3K/week? - it seems to all comes down to respect and lack of such. This mature man, war vet and father of two was highly offended and upset at his godfather's brother using bad words, which I'm sure P has never heard or used before, when talking to him. Maybe bad words trigger him or just really hurt his feelings, which seem to be more important than putting food in the mouths of those two kids. 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: auto shop repair fail: I enjoyed this. Mr. Woodall is a real, genuine Arkansas hillbilly! There "ain't nuthin' he could do!" His pressure was real high and he had to take medicine and such so he couldn't fix the car in a whole year, and then the plaintiff "done stole the car parts"! Awesome. JM was wrong to call him an "alley mechanic". He's a "backwoods mechanic" who had to haul p's car off into the deep woods for reasons unspecified although he claimed that's where his shop is located. It seems plaintiff has not lived that long in the area and may be unfamilar with backwoods mechanics but it's always a little suspicious when someone offers to do a job at less than half the cost of anyone else. "Whut"? he asks JM, after she asks a simple question about where the hell is the car?? Hey, it's only been a year he's had it. Give him time. He got the wrong engine which cost him 500$ but that is somehow the P's responsibility to absorb. DId we ever find out where this poor car ended up? Mr. Woodall, you made my day. ETA: Oh, wait. I think the car ended up in some field or something and P took pictures of its sad, sad condition? Edited February 21, 2020 by AngelaHunter 2 Link to comment
Florinaldo February 22, 2020 Share February 22, 2020 6 hours ago, SRTouch said: Employee not paid: How many times did the plaintiff mention he's a Christian? A "quality" which seems to motivate every decision in his life, including quitting a well-paying job under some absurd pretext. Someone should be hired to smack him on the head every time he says "because I am a Christian"; however he could get a severe concussion rather quickly. 4 Link to comment
SRTouch February 24, 2020 Share February 24, 2020 (edited) Changing up on my normal recap/viewing practice - watched, and wrote LONG recap, on dog case. - no dogs injured, just custody fight between neighbors........ after the long recap, no recap of other cases (an IPad repair case and AS-IS car purchase) - while I'm on subject of no recaps - I'll be making monthly trip to spend day at doctors on the 26th - so no recap Wednesday lost/found/stolen puppers: P says her dog got out & was found by D, who refuses to return dog - wants 5 grand..... D says she works for an animal rescue, found dog roaming the streets & took dog to rescue and eventually legally adopted dog......... oh my, if D story is true, must really be high kill shelter - her story is dog was going to be euthanized as it wasn't chipped and they had no records of shots - good grief, how many dogs who escape and go on walkabout think to take their shot records - 'nother point, P says she posted 'Lost Dog' flyers around the neighborhood, while D says there were NO flyers....... pet peeve: I've found a few strays over the years. Always try to find the owner, check for chip, post found dog/cat flyers, etc. I've never taken one to a shelter, though I have put up Found flyers at shelter, argrument can be made that a family looking for their pet will check the shelters....... never fails to amaze me, when I tell someone I found a pet, there are so many people who tell me to 'the dog/cat chose you, just keep it.' ........ anyway, in this case, P lost dog, D found and legally adopted dog, D now refusing to return dog........ oh, and funny right out the gate - when asked what happened, P opens with 'Good morning, Miss Judge'........ ok, P's brother left door open as he was moving stuff into house & let dog out - it happens, though in this case, apparently, brother knew dog was out but waited awhile before starting to look for him, and waited a couple more hours before calling sis to tell her dog couldn't be found - sis left job, scoured neighborhood but couldn't find dog, made flyers, etc - time passes and dog couldn't be found - finally, guy who her cuts her grass asks about her dog, saying his neighbor has dog........ what the heck, P needs some help establishing a timeline - MM asks how long passed between time dog was lost and time grass cutting dude spoke up, and P counts off 4 months and says 3-4 weeks - huh? Weeks or months, asks MM...... P- well, I started process is October.... what process? .... ok, 2 months after dog got out, P found out where dog was, and 'process' she's talking about was trying to get dog back....... ah, P's witness is actually a witness with something to testify about - witness is P's mom, after gardener spoke up Mom and pops went to D's place to try to get dog - mom adds details of search - not only flyers, but mom says they checked with 2 area shelters....... P doing good up til now, but when asked about evidence they actually visited shelters she has nothing doen though she says she signed in at shelters....... not sure about where they are, but here, our shelter permits lost&found posters to be put up...... ok, next MM asks when mom knocked on D's door - no never knocked - then mom needs to rewind and wants to start testimony from square 1 - no no no, says MM, don't need to start from when gardener said D had dog, what happened when you went to house....... good grief, she never knocked on door because she rang doorbell - geez - and MM getting loud/frustrated with mom...... no one answered door first day, so went back next day and finally talked with D - must have been some talk, as D called cops to report 'crazy lady is here'....... time to talk to D (D much easier on the ears grammar-wise) and immediately get feeling she testifies in court a lot regarding her rescue picking up animals....... says she found dog 1st week of Sept - first saw dog loose on street when she was talking to police about a different dog....... finally learn we're talking pit mix (well she says Staffordshire mix), also sounds like she may be sort of neighborhood activist who gets in middle of animal disputes - seems when Mom showed up looking for lost/found pup she was on phone about different neighborhood dispute about different dog....... D comes armed with copy of local ordinances which state that hold period only 3 days (sounds awfully short, but gotta remind myself that's how it is with overcrowded shelters - also, in some places, pit mixes are illegal and not returned to owner or adopted out)...... in this case, D says dog was at shelter from 5th to 12th (while D is saying this camera shows D standing with arms crossed shaking her head) - well, we already know P has nothing from shelter showing any visit, and when asked D ready to hand Douglas copies of shelter records - yep, D has proof, and P just flapping gums about her visit to shelter (also, didn't mom said they went to 2 shelters, P just said 2) - along with just having flapping gums, now P says D is known for stealing dogs in past....... geez is it couldn't find my beloved dog and there was a known dognapper in the neighborhood, you can bet it wouldn't be months before I knocked rang 'napper's bell....... ok, P has nada but flapping gums and inconsistencies in her story - instead DO believe she lost her dog, and her dog looks like one D rescued off street (I may have been typing, I know D provided pix, but did P?) - ok, assuming it's same dog, would D have to return it after she's shown dog was at shelter twice the required holding period? and that she followed legal procedures to adopt the animal? I think dog legally D's...... though if it were me I'd return it if I believed it was P's - side note: I went through something similar with a stray cat that I found starving with multiple medical issues after several vet visit, cat was healthy - months later previous owner turned up wanting HIS cat - ok, cat obviously recognized him, though legally his, I thought of her as MY cat - told dude he could have cat as soon as he reimbursed me for vet bills - then called vet, who I was on good terms with, and told him someone may be calling, and I'd appreciate it if he'd not mention sizeable discount he gave me when bringing in cats from feral colony - I cared for the ferals, but tried to pull out any strays before they got too wild - anyway, that cat is Spotty, still mine, and guessing about 1yo at time, now 19yo....... back to case: like I was thinking, D something of a neighborhood do-gooder, not officially part of shelter - has incident report on other dog P says D tried to steal...... thing is, she apparently knows local ordinances by heart, and does everything going by the book - she found this other dog, posted it on FB and Pawboost - owner was found and returned, but she wasn't happy with that owner's response and she reported owner to sheriff's office....... hmmmmmm, as she's telling this story, she says something which had me wondering how hard she looked for owner of P's dog - up til now I thought she was doing everything by book, but now she holds up statement from some other neighbor saying P's dog was always running loose........ ah, but times about up, and question comes back to D having proof Dog was at shelter for a week, even though hold only 3 days, before D legally adopted him - even if P put up flyers and D ignored them, P lost her ownership when she didn't reclaim her dog after 3 days - dog belongs to D....... while making her decision we learn a little more about the local ordinances - actually, it's NOT a hard 3 days - it's actually 3 days if animal is not chipped, and 5 days if chipped - P more than a tad dense - she thinks the hold period began as soon as D picked up dog, thinking D hidden the dog for a week, turned it in when hold period ran out, then turned dog in and adopted him...... oh, and MM finally gives me a better feel for timeline - dog ran streets first week after escape, picked up by D and taken to shelter, in shelter 1 week before being adopted by D, little over a month later Grade nervous tells P where dog is....... MM tries to explain, hold period starts when Dog is processed into shelter, if dog is missing for a week, clock on hold doesn't run out until a week+3 (or 5) days - pretty simple, but P doesn't understand - P has 'no comment' in hallterview, but Big Momma obviously doesn't agreed....... last case about AS-IS sale actually has couple possible switcheroo thrown in - worth the watch as not sure what decision will be til end Edited February 24, 2020 by SRTouch 3 Link to comment
AngelaHunter February 24, 2020 Share February 24, 2020 Mother and daughter and the kid's iPad - I was confused about who was mother and who daughter, especially after we learned that daughter is 13(did I hear that correctly?) and looks about 30. Anyway, parents who give 6 - 8year old kids expensive electronics to play with have to expect them to get broken. From this show we know there are mature adults who treat property like garbage if they didn't have to work to pay for it, so naturally a little kid isn't going to be really careful. It's hard to know what happened since no one has anything in writing. Def who runs the shop has no receipts because - get this - he had a "bathroom emergency" and someone stole his phone with the info on while he was taking care of that emergency.😄 Momma wants full price of a brand-new iPad which of course she doens't get since the one her kid had was cracked once or twice and the On button broken by the kid or something. She gets back 80$ for the last amount she paid def and is lucky to get that since neither side has proof about anything at all. Used car kerfuffle: Plaintiff is a man of mature years, apparently a business owner, who buys an 18-year old Pontiac Grand Prix for 900$ from def. and just trusts that it's in A1 condition. No, he absolutely didn't test drive it or get it inspected before purchase. Of course not. He illegally puts plates on it belonging to the employee of his he said he was buying the car for and finally takes it to his mechanic who tells him it will never pass inspection so he wants his money back. Just the usual as-is idiocy until we hear he's in Mass. where a failed inspection entitles him to give the car back and get a refund. He can't be bothered doing that, so it's his car. He takes it and dumps it on def's lawn with the keys locked inside. Def has more keys, so P's little revenge scheme fails. Def seemed to either be heavily medicated or just has great difficulty formulating any words to respond to questions. Plaintiff, go pick up your heap. 3 Link to comment
Florinaldo February 25, 2020 Share February 25, 2020 (edited) 16 hours ago, SRTouch said: ost/found/stolen puppers: Defendant appears to be of of those self-righteous self-appointed vigilantes for pets, but she did everything according to the law and regulations, even if that dog was an awful looking pitbull. Plaintiffs were neglectful and they would probably have let the animal escape or run loose until something really bad happened to someone else 16 hours ago, SRTouch said: IPad repair case JM was probably blinded by the cuteness of the boys, because the plaintiffs should not have recovered anything. She also admired the girl's spunkiness, but I think she was lying throughout her testimony and her so-called confidence is her ticket to getting into trouble later in life or becoming a successful scammer. Edited February 25, 2020 by Florinaldo 3 Link to comment
AngelaHunter February 25, 2020 Share February 25, 2020 20 minutes ago, Florinaldo said: She alo admired the girl's spunkiness, I don't know why she was permitted to mouth off like that. It was hardly her place to do so but JM is so biased when it comes to anyone under the age of 21 or over the age of 75, no matter how badly they behave. 5 Link to comment
Silver Raven February 25, 2020 Share February 25, 2020 4 hours ago, Florinaldo said: JM was probably blinded by the cuteness of the boys, because the plaintiffs shpud not have recovered anything. She couldn't give the repair guy anything when he had zero evidence to prove anything he said! He also looked more like a boxer than an electronics repair man. 1 Link to comment
Florinaldo February 25, 2020 Share February 25, 2020 6 hours ago, Silver Raven said: She couldn't give the repair guy anything when he had zero evidence to prove anything he said! Plaintiffs did not have any sufficient evidence either, other than the lying girl's flapping gums. 3 Link to comment
SRTouch February 25, 2020 Share February 25, 2020 hairy case: hair salon case, with P wanting special doo for birthday party, but claim hairdresser must be lieing about her years of experience, cuz her special doo looked hideous - says she ended hiding her hair under a scarf for weeks - wants $500, cost of hairdo and pain/suffering....... D says P proved to be very difficult, says she worked on P for 4 hours - claims P wanted certain style/look & D told her that her hair just couldn't achieve desired look....... I don't much like these type cases, guess because I just don't get people spending time & money at salon or dress maker/tailor trying to achieve a certain look they saw on tv or in fashion magazine - often ending up disappointed when the dream doesn't become reality - for this case P came into court with several manila evelopes of, I'm guessing, pictures of what she wanted vs what she got......... ok, from intro I sort of expected maybe BD girl might be going to D for first time, but no, she has used her before, must have been happy as she even referred her mom....... when MM asks is she has the pics she showed D of what she wanted, she says yes, but instead of opening one of her envelopes, she says they're on her phone (my, what big claws she has!) - ok, MM has already seen those pix, but seems pix are of different styles, so had P decided on a style BEFORE going to D, or was D given multiple choice - maybe reason P was being worked on for 4 hours was because she couldn't make up her mind - nah, didn't D call her "very decisive"......... anyway, case not very promising to me since intro, and I'm yawning and thinking about taking a nap........ ok, P explains the pix, main pic was style she was after, with couple other pix of side and back of how she wanted those to look..... YAWN, zipping ahead....... yep, easy to see why D called P difficult, as MM is having trouble with her - as with so many of our litigants, she has forgotten what was in her statement and is giving a different version today - then argues with MM about the inconsistencies....... we hear from D - of the two, I'm thinking D more believable, but truth is I'm making frequent use of fast forward so no telling what I'm missing...... actually zip through until street gallery is done yapping, and MM getting all loud with P - seems MM agrees that D told P what she wanted couldn't be done with her hair, MM asks uif P went to someone else who DID accomplish the style - P says yes, and gestures towards her head, this is want she wanted - to which MM says that is nothing like pix of what you say you wanted....... more yada yada that I zip over....... P tries to interrupt MM making ruling, trying to show her whatever P has in plastic bag, but MM has stuck fork in case and declared it done - both litigants want more screen time, but MM ignores them and leaves........ case dismissed not paid for stucco job: p says she was hired, did the work, but still owed 2 grand...... D says she wasn't satisfied with work, gave P chance to fix problem, P refused, D ended up hiring someone else to finish work - as long as she's in court, she's decided to countersuit for 3 grand....... intro sounds like P actually does the stucco work - not saying she COULDN'T, but I always thought of this as really physically demanding work, and she doesn't look the part....... ok, these two are family of sorts - D married P's nephew - and seems stucco is the family trade and both litigants are in the business - D contracted to do total of 3 houses to do, subbed out this big 2 story house to P and was doing second house...... D paid 10 grand, agreed to pay P 7, but only paid 5 grand........ ok, seems general contractor had problems with house P did, and ended up getting different subject to do third house...... ah, that would explain why D is countersuing for more than she agreed to pay P, she must be counting lost profit on house #3 with whatever it took to address general contractor's concerns with P's work....... soooooo, it wasn't D who arbitrarily count P's pay, it was general contractor who had problem when P's work failed inspection - oh, and D actually has pix of the subpar work - subpar work may be obvious to D, but I have no idea if she's making sense - guess MM thinks same way, and she asks for proof general contractor really had problems with work...... if I'm understanding correctly, main problem had to do with thickness of stucco - according to some quicky Google research, thickness varies according to whathe material is UNDER the stucco, & I'm guessing more thickness would increase insulation values, anyway industry standards had thickness varying between 3/8" and 5/8" - to get the thicker layer to stick, a metal lathe is applied, while the thinner does not require the lathe - my, TPC and Google are again educating me....... ok, seems GC was NOT HAPPY, and D says he wouldn't even provide her with copy of failed inspection. ...... couple things - when I heard this, I started doubting GC - was there really a failed inspection - I thought I heard D say GC cut what he paid D 1 thought I heard he only paid 5 grand, all of which was pair to P, so not only is D out her expected 3 grand cut of original 10 grand, but she's out of pocket for materials........ not saying P doesn't have case against D, but maybe D has case against the GC - hmmmmmm don't suppose any of these folks believe in getting signed contracts......... ah ha, when MM does her text forensic routine, D isj'the looking all that good - first she has nothing proving stucco failed any inspection, but then we hear repeated texts sent by P asking for payment, and D repeatedly promising to pay - nothing about subpar work for quite awhile so doubting D ever gave P chance to correct any problems....... looking more and more like D acknowledging debt, but not paying (wonder if she bit off more than she could chew, got caught short of operating money, and family was last on list of subs to be paid, and was out of cash before P actually got anything)....... seems first time D mentions quality of work was after P was frustrated and threatening to sue - even then D is promising the final 2 grand owed..... ah ha! MM just read that final text exchange after P threatened to sue - D replies - for first time - about quality problem - P asks what problem, tell me and I'll send someone to fix it at no charge - to which D says thickness issue, and my guys already fixed it (but apparently, her guys faked it by making it appear thicker by building out stucco around windows, but not really addressing thickness on whole house (going back to thickness requirements - seems on this house stucco supposed to have been 7/8")........ hmmmmmmm, wonder if GC caught that, and THAT'S why D isn't pressing GC for remaining money and that last house he took away and subbed to someone else........ oh, and way back when D promised texts from GC proving subpar work - nope, never happens, best she can show us one text complaining about thickness, but no way to tell if GC was talking about house P did or one D did........ if I was a previous customer of D's, I'd worry if she had faked MY house with her Illusions....... ok, time up, P gets her 2 grand, D gets nada Neighbor feud: old story - P had sentimental attachment to tree, says tree planted in honor of deceased daddy - meany neighbor trespassed and butchered tree when he trimmed it - she wants $500........ D says tree planted on joint property line - tree was overgrown and UGly, so he trimmed it back from his side of line....... like I said, old story we've heard many times - at least P isn't seeking lotto money for pain and suffering - well, question is, is it really on property line, if so, did he tresspass or just cut from his side........ ok, P doesn't actually live on property...... side note: immediately I think of my great Uncle, who, along with some of my other Uncle and grandpa, we're carpenters who went in together and built houses in the boom following WWII - they pooled resources, bought up lots, and as they were paid for carpenter work they would built a house on their lot in spare time. Once one of their houses were built, they'd move in, buy another lot, and start the process over. Eventually, everybody had their own houses, but they kept going - point being, Great Uncle lived in house for a few years, and planted a citrus tree in front yard (this was in Bakersfield California - lots of citrus groves in those days) - being an old farmer boy, Uncle grafted different fruits onto tree, so he was getting different types of oranges, lemons, limes etc from same tree - as a little kid, that tree seemed like magic to me....... eventually, he moved out of house into one recently built, and house with tree was rented out...... wouldn't't you know, one of his renters took it upon themselves to chop down the magic tree back to case ok, from D pix obvious her tree was hanging way over fence, making it difficult to walk down his sidewalk between houses with getting whacked in head - D says he called P telling her of the problem. Actually, he was dealing with her property manager, not her directly. Not liking P much, as he called asking her to pay to trim her trim, and she relies on her property manager telling her that it's actually up to neighbor to pay to trim anything on his side....... yeah, technically correct, but why not call neighbor, explain things, and offer to split cost - that way you remain on good terms and have more say with final trim job....... but no, instead she plays phone tag for awhile, and finally D (pretty big guy) is tired of walking bent over every time he tries to walk on that side of house, grabs his clippers and goes to chopping....... MM points out that according to law P was counting on, D perfectly within his legal rights to chop everything going on his side 'from ground to heaven.'........ ahhhhhh, problem is he didn't restrict the clippers to his side (actually, he hired someone to do the deed) - like intro stated, tree ended up trimmed WAY back on both sides of property line....... his argument isn't so much trying to justify his trespass, but that tree survived severe trim and has grown back nicely - and he has pic taken 2 weeks ago - tree doesn't look bad now....... but P argues the new growth will never been as sturdy as the original....... maybe so, lady, but why yhere heck didn't you or your property manager respond to his messages....... IIRC, D said he only 'talked' to someone once, the rest of the time he had to leave voice messages - P said something about phone tag, but why the heck couldn'the she or property manager hop in a car and actually have a face to face....... D was wrong and went overboard when his agent crossed property line to trim her side, but I'm still on his side - her claim is that tree will never recover, but without an actual tree expert I'm not willing to give her even the smallest amount she's after..... MM points that out, and reason P sounded like she knew what to say about the tree not being as strong came from her fiancé, who she says IS an expert - too bad she brought her gf/sis/whatever? instead of an expert (or even a signed affidavit)....... ah, but we may have a switcheroo which is going to swing my opinion after the commercial as I see still plenty of time ..... just before break we learn D is renovating his house, and on at least once has dumped his yard debris in her front yard (along with trimmings from when he trespassed and trimmed her tree)..... oh yeah, MM not happy with the trespass, especially as we now hear of at least 4 texts where P complained to him which were ignored..... ok, back to damage claim - MM sounds willing to give something to P for the trespass and illegal trimming, but $500 is just wilda$$ guess of replacement cost with nothing to show what replacement would cost........ ah, P can't prove replacement would cost $500, but MM goes ahead and amends P lawsuit, saying if P had been a lawyer she would have know to include damages for the trespass - tree nay not be worth $500, but MM says trespass definitely is......... ok, guess P really is sentimental about the tree - MM pretty much told her she'll be winning and getting her asked for damages - but P wants damages to be for the tree Not the trespass....... ok, MM able to reel P in, and P finally gets she getting what she wanted, even if it's not for Daddy's tree....... hallterview - not sure what loser D is going on about - evidently, like P, he didn't hear MM saying P was getting nothing for value of tree - the $500 is all about the trespass & I don't think there's any questioning that....... 4 Link to comment
AngelaHunter February 25, 2020 Share February 25, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: hairy case: Another boring Weave War. I disliked the perma-grin plaintiff - who tips 20$ for something she hates because she tries "to help people out" - intensely and just skimmed. 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: if I was a previous customer of D's, I'd worry if she had faked MY house with her Illusions I was kind of surprised that for 2K def was willing to have it revealed that she agrees with covering up a bad job not by fixing it, but with "illusion." I'm sure potential customers in her area might find that most interesting. 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: Neighbor feud: old story Yeah, an old story. When you have neighbours who reside about 12" from you there are bound to be disagreements. Anyway, def had one hell of a nerve trespassing to hack up p's lovely tree. He said it was blocking a walkway on his property but I find it hard to believe there was much traffic on that foot-wide access route. I could have done without plaintiff's hearsay from her "fiance" (I guess they've been afianced for 20 years) from whom she didn't even even get some professional aborist evidence in writing. He's your boyfriend. I tried to find those dwarf orchid trees for sale, but came up with nothing. They do seem to be indeed rare unless you want to start one from seed. Anyway, I know what she meant by "sucker growth". Suckers are useless and will never amount to anything. Edited February 25, 2020 by AngelaHunter 3 Link to comment
AZChristian February 25, 2020 Share February 25, 2020 13 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said: Yeah, an old story. When you have neighbours who reside about 12" from you there are bound to be disagreements. Anyway, def had one hell of a nerve trespassing to hack up p's lovely tree. He said it was blocking a walkway on his property but I find it hard to believe there was much traffic on that foot-wide access route. If he wanted HIS property look better, he wouldn't have had that ugly blue tarp stapled to the outside wall. 3 Link to comment
Cobalt Stargazer February 25, 2020 Share February 25, 2020 "Hairy doughnut! Haaaaaaaiiiiirrry doughnut." Thanks for that, JM. 1 Link to comment
Florinaldo February 26, 2020 Share February 26, 2020 3 hours ago, SRTouch said: Neighbor feud: Defendant was fully within his rights to cut back that tree, which was clearly encroaching on his property. But why didn't he inform himself as to the extent of his latitude in correcting the situation? As happens very often on these court shows, litigants get into trouble for not doing the basic research and then remaining totally impervious to the relevant information when provided to them during the hearing. Plaintiff was not much better, almost claiming national shrine status for that tree. Also, didn't she say her dwarf tree was taller thant the regular orchid trees availble for sale? I am no arborist either, but what does the word "dwarf" then mean in horticulture? As usual in hair care disputes, I found the first case to be totally uninteresting, especially with a dumb as bricks plaintiff like this one. In the construction case, the defendant's arguments crumbled rather quickly, just like cheap (faked?) stucco. 1 Link to comment
VartanFan February 26, 2020 Share February 26, 2020 In today's case of "That Kid Didn't Stand a Chance" - we have two fine specimens - the P, who adopted a nephew and then shipped him off to some other family member at age 4 and just forgot about him. Then the D, who is an aunt and (maybe) helped raise him from age 4, can't even be bothered to wake up fully to come to court, can't even remember WHEN her 16 y.o. nephew got arrested or how long he was in jail. Now the kid is a menace, sexually offending, and in and out of jail at 17...but simply never had a chance at a regular life. Both sure wanted to stay on their high horses....P is suing for a measly few months of child support payments that he ever made over 13 years. Complains about the road the kid is on but never bothered to be a positive influence on a kid he adopted over a decade. Good grief. 1 Link to comment
AngelaHunter February 27, 2020 Share February 27, 2020 3 hours ago, VartanFan said: In today's case of "That Kid Didn't Stand a Chance" - we have two fine specimens - the P, who adopted a nephew and then shipped him off to some other family member at age 4 and just forgot about him. Yes, that was heart-warming. The kid is dumped because his sperm donor and incubator are drunks. Plaintiff decides to adopt him, but a couple years later decides he doesn't want him anymore so gets rid of him and ships him to some relative in Carolina. The kid is 18 and has been in and out of jail. The case is about money, of course. To hell with the kid. At least the "You ruined my wedding" people are civilized. The bride and her silent sit-com-nerd looking groom are suing because defs didn't provide limo service when they were supposed to so everything was well over an hour late. It seems the driver was "super backed-up" and well, he just couldn't get there on time. Def business owner has virtually nothing to say and just grins. The office manager has a great excuse for this screw-up: She is the Sainted (don't know if Single or not) mother of FIVE, so who could expect her to do the job for which she was paid? Everyone who pays for this limo service should understand if they're left stranded, right? What is someone's wedding in comparison to FIVE KIDS? I kind of think her fecundity is her problem and not the problem of people who paid good money for the service. Plaintiff gets back the 3K she requested. Hubby smiles and nods. In the case of the old POS Audi: More touching family stories. It's amazing what a convoluted mess people create with their shennanigans. P. niece suing her uncle because she bought some old car in her name for some boyfriend who promised to make the payments, but gee, he didn't. Def. Uncle - the main man in plaintiff's life and a fine example - says he'll take the car, sight unseen, and make the 350$/month payments. He takes it to his friend the mechanic who tells him it needs 1250$ of repairs, so uncle says "Go ahead." Problem is that Uncle knows he doesn't have any money for either payments or repairs, so kind of says to his niece, "It's your problem" and leaves the car at the mechanic's. He rolls his eyes, makes faces and yells at JM as though his utter failures are her fault. Uncle tells mechanic that niece has been mean to him, so he should charge her a bundle for storing the car that uncle left there for months. She is charged for it. She gets back all her money for payments and repairs. Jm tells uncle to go sue the mechanic to get back his 1700$ in storage fees. Levin: "It's the case of Audi Doody." Fuck off and die. 3 Link to comment
Bdrums1971 February 27, 2020 Share February 27, 2020 The husband in the case of the wedding disaster was strangely silent, even in the hallway. I have a feeling that woman wears the pants in the family. Even his demeanor and overall look say that she runs his life. Maybe that is the way he likes it, but I really have to feel sorry for him. I suspect at some point in the future she will get fed up having a floor mat for a husband and cheat on him. The limousine being late was, I think an omen for what may be an unhappy marriage. (Maybe I'm reading too much into this? Maybe....) The defendant in the child support case looked either very bored or half asleep. She honestly didn't seem to care what was going on at all. MM is usually very good at getting a response from litigants to help liven up the show and create some drama, but this defendant didn't take the bait. I enjoy watching TPC, but sometimes MM really gets on my nerves. She seems to have ADD really bad as she jumps from one train of thought to the next so quickly. I should know, I have the same problem myself, and it annoys ME!!! She tends to steamroll litigants and change direction so quickly they tend to get confused and lost. Like yesterday when the tree lady was winning, but didn't realize it because MM was moving ahead so fast. I know it's not real court, but she was a real judge. I sure as hell would never in a million years go on any of these tv court shows if I wanted to be taken seriously and get real justice. That being said, I am glad that so many stupid and frivolous cases that we see on TPC don't end up clogging up our local court system that is already so overloaded, in part due to the idiots like the ones that end up on TPC. 2 Link to comment
AngelaHunter February 27, 2020 Share February 27, 2020 9 hours ago, Bdrums1971 said: . Even his demeanor and overall look say that she runs his life. Maybe that is the way he likes it, but I really have to feel sorry for him She does appear to run a very tight ship and I bet he toes the line. I guess it suits them! I figured out who he reminded me of: An adult "Alfafa" from the Little Rascals. Slap a pair of glasses on him and voila: Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama February 27, 2020 Share February 27, 2020 For once the ruined wedding case with the limo not showing was legit. I bet the groom was so quiet because the bride's parents paid for the reception, including the limo. The bride did do a good job of outlining the issues, and I found the limo company woman to be a total jerk. I wonder how many other customers the limo company bailed on? 2 Link to comment
SRTouch February 27, 2020 Share February 27, 2020 Unpaid for grow box: took a minute to Google 'grow box.' Basically, indoor hydroponic-gardening system, with pricing from hundreds to thousands of dollars. Course, most ads mentioned growing veggies, but MM obvious thinking more maryjane..... P says he sold his grow box to D for $1200 - once D received grow box he reversed the CC charges - P wants his money....... D says after he placed order he received alert from bank that P was trying to get his private banking info - says he canceled order and told P to stuff it, he no longer wanted to buy, & and come get your box...... ok, #1, can D prove P tried to break in & steals his info - if so, may be something to report to FBI - if not, then no, if merchandise was already shipped, D bought himself a box - assuming there was no satisfaction guarantee with return shipping, even if P agreed to unwind deal it would be on D to pay to return it...... testimony begins and we learn box cost less than a grand when P bought it new, and D paid $700....... hmmmm, guess hassle P has gone through makes him think he should tack on extra $500 - or maybe it's lost wages/travel/pain&suffering....... regarding shipping costs - according to P, he actually delivered box to D when D didn't want to pay for shipping (2 hour drive), so yeah, I might be talked into paying him time and expense for his round trip...... also, (surprise) I heard wrong during intro, turns out no CC involved, transaction to be cash on delivery....... not smart, points out MM....... ah, actually D paid for box through bank, but was to pay cash for delivery, so P loads up and heads out on 2 hours trip, only to be told by D he doesn't have cash, can he pretty please do a bank transfer....... box was to be $700 and delivery added $200...... ok, only on second coffee and getting lost here, maybe MM is in same boat as she turns to D to see if his story makes any sense - nah, D just adds to my confusion, but thankfully P mentioned texts - we even have what may be easy to determine fact - P saying D requested he deliver, while D says delivery was P's idea........ MM catches D changing whole defense from written answer, D really sounding like a scammer - a pretty stupid scammer, which doesn't say much for P - not only is D sounding like a bad scammer, but he's trying to talk over MM....... uh huh, as I expected as soon as I heard magic word "text," MM has both sides scrambling to find the texts to prove their story........ I'm really not that interested, so leave recording running while I go get another cup of wake-up juice....... texts supports P's version - D tries to explain that away by claiming he 'missed' reading portions in the text exchange....... oh, and JM still not saying anything about D yammering away trying to talk over her - we would have heard JJ's 'turn off the mic' routine 5 minutes ago....... soon as I get back with what will be my third cup of coffee, we go to commercial - I leave FF on, and go straight to decision...... apparantly, I skipped over MM reading aloud many texts which support P's position, texts which she says couldn't have been more polite - now D tries to claim he's the victim here, says P kept harassing him for payment of delivery, and, woe is me - I'm just a young guy and this was my first ebay transaction, so he reversed all the charges, yada yada........ P gets what he should, the sale price plus the $200 delivery as D agreed to in text (even if we believe D didn't read texts before agreeing) so, P gets $900 - not asked for $1200 - I didn't go back and find out what extra $300 was supposed to be for......... case runs long - not sure if MM ever tried to stop D from talking over her, but when he interrupts and asks to say something else as she's ruling, she finishes decision with 'No, because I don't believe anything coming out of your mouth!' As she stands and exits courtroom, leaving empty chair spinning...... Ex bf crashed car P put in her name for him: whenever I hear this old story, only question I have is who these two were trying to scam? Exactly why couldn't bf register car in his own name - couldn't get loan? uninsurable? No license? Maybe deadbeat daddy with thousands owed in back child support? - anyway, I'm already wondering about 'clean hands' and thinking P has uphill battle to get anything - but, then again, haven't heard anything buy P's intro, yet........ okkkkkkk, D intro has me wanting to retract pretty much everything I just typed - according to him, car was registered and insured in HIS name....... now sounding like she got the loan, which he was paying off, then he wrecked car - insurance paid 10 grand, but loan was upside down and money still owed - his argument is that insurance was in his name, he paid for has paid off most of loan, anything left is on her since she benefited from car as much as he did before wreck....... not much here I'm interested in - intro introduced possible motive for staffing P is because she chested in relationship, and I really don't careven - FF to hear MM amending P's filing, P actually getting a little more than asked for since fees/interest/etc has been accumulating since she filed - P gets $1090 nonpayment for room rental: P rents room and wants $1286.60..... guessing all that is NOT rent....... D argument is that he isn't sure P owns house, place has bedbugs, and he has gone on rent strike to force P to fix problems....... well, Okey dokey, not sure why they're here instead of housing court somewhere, but 3-pronged defense D is trying seems to be a no-good to me 1) P doesn't have to open house to sublet a room - granted there may be reasons P CAN'TELL sublet, but if D doesn't even know if P owns house I doubt he knows what would be in D's lease; 2) may have been best bet if he was arguing about breaking lease, but, if hengine hasn't moved out he needs to be paying rent; 3) continuing on #2 - to have legitimate rent strike, he can't just stop paying - instead he would need to prove his rent payments are being put in escrow/saved for eventual payment to landlord or a judge/mediator rules who is has best claim on money...... hmmmmmm ok, preview hints P stopped mortgage payments back in '16, and bank finally foreclosing - so, depending on where in foreclosure process they'really at, D may owe rent to the bank....... ok, after commercial MM asks P is he owns building, and it takes FOREVER for P to admit bank has filed foreclosure - he MIGHT rev up to speed, but when I paused recording the freeze screen makes me doubt it, as he appears about to fall asleep....... ok, I'll need another cup if I'll going to watch this, but Princess has just fallen asleep and I'm not going to wake a kitty for something I end up zipping through....... yep, zippity zip zip, as expected, MM rules against D - apparently P proved he still owns building, so he gets the back rent - P gets what he asked for..... and oh my, even if P wasn't reason enough to zip through case, tiny bit of D Talking would have been 3 Link to comment
VartanFan February 27, 2020 Share February 27, 2020 48 minutes ago, SRTouch said: 'No, because I don't believe anything coming out of your mouth!' As she stands and exits courtroom, leaving empty chair spinning...... Wow - that D needed a tinfoil hat. 1 1 Link to comment
AngelaHunter February 27, 2020 Share February 27, 2020 2 hours ago, SRTouch said: Unpaid for grow box: These two brilliant negotiators were hard to take, except for comedic value. D was raised in foster care and he's so busy taking care of his grandma (which means she's supporting him, or the taxpayers are) that he can't possibly pay the 200$ for delivery of his weed growing box. Goofy plaintiff was trying to steal his identity! I mean, I understand that. D's identity would take you all sorts of places. You sells on eBay, you takes your chances. 2 hours ago, SRTouch said: Ex bf crashed car P put in her name for him: More comedy, but it gets less funny every time we hear it. P is obviously trying to buy the much sought-after luuurve of the surly D. He might be getting a job at Amazon and needs a car, but he can't get a loan in his own name even though he's a grown-up man. Well, he could maybe if he didn't mind paying 110% interest I guess. Of course, g/f offers to get the loan in her name. For sure that will make him love her more. Oops, it does not. Anyway, boyfriend who has no credit and no car, really needs one that costs 23K. The most expensive car I bought is my latest one and that was 21K and I had a really good trade-in but I guess D has standards which he must meet. Girlfriend agrees he needs and deserves that. No used cars for Mr. No Credit. Sadly, D can't drive it without getting drunk and totalling it. Hey, it was his birthday. Don't we all get pissed and drive on our birthdays? Actually it was the day before his birthday but he started celebrating the momentous occasion of his entrance on this earth early. Lucky he only hit a pole in his drunken stupor and not some poor innocent slob on their way home from the night shift. Def was giving JM a gorgon stare that said, "If looks could kill." P never drove the car because b/f says she don't have no license. I really dislike these pathetic women getting rewarded for their desperation and stupidity. How will they ever learn anything that way? I bet she'll try and buy another loser. 2 hours ago, SRTouch said: nonpayment for room rental: This was so excruciating I had to bail after hearing P's flophouse has been in the process of being foreclosed for the last 9 years because it seems he knows all the ways around of getting out of paying for his own house. 4 Link to comment
AZChristian February 28, 2020 Share February 28, 2020 4 hours ago, SRTouch said: Unpaid for grow box: took a minute to Google 'grow box.' Basically, indoor hydroponic-gardening system, with pricing from hundreds to thousands of dollars. Course, most ads mentioned growing veggies, but MM obvious thinking more maryjane..... P says he sold his grow box to D for $1200 - once D received grow box he reversed the CC charges - P wants his money....... D says after he placed order he received alert from bank that P was trying to get his private banking info - says he canceled order and told P to stuff it, he no longer wanted to buy, & and come get your box...... ok, #1, can D prove P tried to break in & steals his info - if so, may be something to report to FBI - if not, then no, if merchandise was already shipped, D bought himself a box - assuming there was no satisfaction guarantee with return shipping, even if P agreed to unwind deal it would be on D to pay to return it...... testimony begins and we learn box cost less than a grand when P bought it new, and D paid $700....... hmmmm, guess hassle P has gone through makes him think he should tack on extra $500 - or maybe it's lost wages/travel/pain&suffering....... regarding shipping costs - according to P, he actually delivered box to D when D didn't want to pay for shipping (2 hour drive), so yeah, I might be talked into paying him time and expense for his round trip...... also, (surprise) I heard wrong during intro, turns out no CC involved, transaction to be cash on delivery....... not smart, points out MM....... ah, actually D paid for box through bank, but was to pay cash for delivery, so P loads up and heads out on 2 hours trip, only to be told by D he doesn't have cash, can he pretty please do a bank transfer....... box was to be $700 and delivery added $200...... ok, only on second coffee and getting lost here, maybe MM is in same boat as she turns to D to see if his story makes any sense - nah, D just adds to my confusion, but thankfully P mentioned texts - we even have what may be easy to determine fact - P saying D requested he deliver, while D says delivery was P's idea........ MM catches D changing whole defense from written answer, D really sounding like a scammer - a pretty stupid scammer, which doesn't say much for P - not only is D sounding like a bad scammer, but he's trying to talk over MM....... uh huh, as I expected as soon as I heard magic word "text," MM has both sides scrambling to find the texts to prove their story........ I'm really not that interested, so leave recording running while I go get another cup of wake-up juice....... texts supports P's version - D tries to explain that away by claiming he 'missed' reading portions in the text exchange....... oh, and JM still not saying anything about D yammering away trying to talk over her - we would have heard JJ's 'turn off the mic' routine 5 minutes ago....... soon as I get back with what will be my third cup of coffee, we go to commercial - I leave FF on, and go straight to decision...... apparantly, I skipped over MM reading aloud many texts which support P's position, texts which she says couldn't have been more polite - now D tries to claim he's the victim here, says P kept harassing him for payment of delivery, and, woe is me - I'm just a young guy and this was my first ebay transaction, so he reversed all the charges, yada yada........ P gets what he should, the sale price plus the $200 delivery as D agreed to in text (even if we believe D didn't read texts before agreeing) so, P gets $900 - not asked for $1200 - I didn't go back and find out what extra $300 was supposed to be for......... case runs long - not sure if MM ever tried to stop D from talking over her, but when he interrupts and asks to say something else as she's ruling, she finishes decision with 'No, because I don't believe anything coming out of your mouth!' As she stands and exits courtroom, leaving empty chair spinning...... I'm kind of confused. I don't ever recall hearing $1,200 at any point during this case. In my memory, P said he had bought it for about $950 a year or more ago, and was selling it for $700 - local pick-up price. D agreed to the price and paid it through eBay, but asked P if he could deliver it. P agreed to do so for $200 (C.O.D. . . . and we all know how well that usually works). For some reason that I could not fully understand due to your aforementioned "talking over," the $200 was supposed to be done on a bank transfer, but the transfer never appeared in P's account. D said he had proof he had made the transfer and showed JM his phone record. JM at first said, "Yep, that's proof that he made the payment." Then she realized she was looking at a screenshot of a payment (which could then have instantly been cancelled). D was unable to show the payment on his actual bank app because "it doesn't show stuff like the payment because I later rescinded it because the P was trying to get my personal banking information, so I didn't want to do business with him anymore." He had also cancelled the payment through eBay, so P had nothing to show for his grow-box or his four hours (round-trip) travel to deliver it. Bottom line I got from the case was that D really wanted the grow-box so he could get marijuana cheaper . . . and he apparently was pretty tanked up on it for months before this case ever happened. Judgment - deservedly - to the P for the full $900 - $700 for the grow-box and $200 for the delivery fee. 1 4 Link to comment
Silver Raven February 28, 2020 Share February 28, 2020 15 minutes ago, AZChristian said: Bottom line I got from the case was that D really wanted the grow-box so he could get marijuana cheaper . . . and he apparently was pretty tanked up on it for months before this case ever happened. He said he wanted it to grow his own food, but I don't believe it. The paranoia is strong in this one, too. 2 2 Link to comment
AngelaHunter February 28, 2020 Share February 28, 2020 1 hour ago, AZChristian said: Bottom line I got from the case was that D really wanted the grow-box so he could get marijuana cheaper No! He wanted it to start a vegetable garden and eat all those home-grown, natural veggies so he could get really healthy!😆 I"m sure his granny appreciated that. I hope someone is checking on Grandma. I really do, and that she's not a prisoner in own home living with this fruitcake. 3 Link to comment
Bdrums1971 February 28, 2020 Share February 28, 2020 That defendant in the first case was an absolute I D I O T!!!! I SO wanted to jump through the screen and slap him as hard as I could. He was making absolutely no sense whatsoever, but thinks he is so smart. It never even crossed my mind that he wanted the grow boxes for mj, but now that you guys mention it, that makes perfect sense! How did he come up with all the BS about the plaintiff "stalking" him and trying to steal his identity? Paranoid much? I mean, he did admit that he and his g-ma (who I think he said he lives with) were paranoid people. Still, after buying something from a total stranger on EBAY and asking them to deliver it to your home address and then not paying the guy, what in the world did you expect? The plaintiff had to have a certain amount of the guy's information just to finish the transaction and deliver the item. I get annoyed very easily and the def's lisp bugged me. It seemed as if it were a physical issue and not an affectation, but... I was trying to tell if he was gay. He did have some feminine mannerisms, so I suspect he is. Either way, a total moron who apparently doesn't realize how stupid he is, even after losing the case. 4 Link to comment
AngelaHunter February 28, 2020 Share February 28, 2020 10 hours ago, Bdrums1971 said: but thinks he is so smart. He did inform JM that he was "too intelligent for (whatever)". She barely controlled her sneer. He's just really lucky plaintiff is such a timid wimp. If he had screwed over one of our other dear litigants, he'd have been given good reason to be paranoid and fearful. 1 Link to comment
TresGatos February 28, 2020 Share February 28, 2020 On 2/27/2020 at 12:13 AM, Bdrums1971 said: The defendant in the child support case looked either very bored or half asleep. I honestly wondered if the woman is a heroin addict and if that's what "nodding out" looks like. Judge Mathis would know! 2 2 Link to comment
SRTouch February 28, 2020 Share February 28, 2020 (edited) getting late start today - seems being surrounded by cats makes napping in a sunny spot contagious. I fell asleep in the recliner while waiting for the coffee to get done....... slept long enough for pot to automatically turn itself off & may have still been asleep if Chewy shipment hadn't arrived and FedEx guy knocked on door....... first case couple of losers, but interesting to see who will out dirty the other.......2nd iffy handyman gives homeowner what she paid for - crappy job...... 3rd car wreck P greedy or fed up D dodging responsibility break up feud: 2 almost married buy a house together, then split up - guy stays in house, eventually actually married someone, then sold house - today P is pushy broad who wants her share of profits from house sale - wants court max of 5 grand......... pushy broad description from her looks and the preview which has D saying she barged into house when he wasn't home - before her intro is over I'm thinking of her as a football lineman (woman) - big broad shoulders, and from her entrance quite the low center of gravity - and him as controlling little man who wants a timid wife he can control - getting that vibe from his shirt and tie and preview showing hearsay evidence of incident with wife and imagining the "little woman" at home instead of here to testify - both of him irritating as they ham it up for the camera during intro......... D intro paints him as poor victim, shortly after buying house together, P cheated on him while on a cruise - he made all the mortgage/maintenance payments, he lived in house until it sold, so P has no claim on profits........ hmmmmmmm, wondering exactly how long relationship lasted after purchase before P moved out, and how much she contributed towards purchase - really, though, how long since the breakup before the sale...... testimony begins with MM asking questions instead of usual way of just letting litigants state case - wonder if she thinks these two need a firm hand to avoid a blow up in doubt with lots of cross aisle yakking. ..... seems they were together about 4 years til the break up, and pretty much lived whole time, except couple months in beginning - MM quickly establishes they couldn't really afford house - downpayment put down by his grandma - and P admits the split came almost immediately - she was only in house 2-3 months before she moves out....... unless there's more to come, math in my head would mean P paid nothing for downpayment and, at most, less than $1600 on mortgage (she says she paid half of $1050 2-3 months)........ even if they HAD been married, doesn't sound like she put much into house....... crossing aisle - D agrees to most of what P said - says money for closing, around $13,500, was his money....... well, after being a couple for 4 years, I might call that THEIR money, but then from her claim of their agreeing to split mortgage payments 50/50, maybe they kept finances separate (as much as you can when living as 'almost married' for 4 years).......ahhhhhh sticking point here is that house bought in both their names - here they spit up 4-5 years ago, she didn't make much of contribution towards purchase & hasn't really had anything to do with house in that time, and silly dufus D has let it slide all this time - even after meeting and marrying someone else - P says she encouraged him to refinance and get her name off the mortgage - wondering if he couldn't get a mortgage without her......... hmmmmm, maybe they didn't get married, but they DID get a 'settlement agreement' when they split - and since P brought it up, she may have better claim than I was thinking - case may be settled as soon as we hear that agreement, but MM has time to fill and maybe juicy gossip, as she wants to talk break up details....... seems it took his getting married, and the new wife wanting old gf permanently/legally out of picture, to convince D to sell house (remember my first impression of dufus being control freak - nah, leaning other way, now, to thinking he let's everything slide til it blows up in his face - now not thinking little woman back home, but now new wife pissed and telling him it's HIS problem - take care of it (or else!)......... most of testimony has been from P, and for most part she has been doing fair job - but not too happy on her wishy washy answers when talking actual figures - not even sure how many months she remained after purchase and contributed towards mortgage - geez, if she has taken this to a lawyer, as she claims, I don't buy her not knowing exactly what D offered her for her share of the equity in house 1 instead it was 10% offffffffff........ and she stares off camera right trying to remember?........ finally, D can't take it, and interrupts - according to him - equity was around $50,000, and his first after NOT 10%, (5 grand) but $6,000 - later he increased offer to $8000 - MM asks, so 8 grand not enough of a return on your $1500 investment? - at least P has enough grace to look a little guilty - but, hey, her name WAS on deed, so why not make D pay up...... ok, nuf that stuff, MM not ready to look at the settlement agreement (agreement not a breakup agreement settlement like I thought, but actually a settlement about who gets what from house entered after she got her lawyer involved)....... ok, once lawyers get involved, things got involved got complicated - seems her share grows from 10% of equity to 35% - but now sounds like D wants to take out the expenses off the top - the money from sake split as per agreement, but bank sent p full refund from escrow account and they get into kerfuffle when she goes to give him his share - sounds like she was sticking with settlement agreement of keeping 35% for herself, but he wanted his portion send through Zelle, amount he would get exceeded daily limit, so she sent the limit with message rest would be coming - D gets all excited, and wants to renegotiate the settlement - seems he paid for all the staging/maintenance to make the sale, and now he wants her to pay a share out of the escrow money........ he has point, she's making out like a bandit with this settlement agreement (all because he let things slide for years after breakup), but hey, I thinking he made the bed, so get gets to sleep in it........ ok, now D gets to talk about the 'barging in' incident (actually, I had forgotten the preview, it been so long)...... ok, as upsetting as incident may have been, not sure how much stock we should put into it - I guess story is he was not home, P came to house since it was finally going to be sold, and insisted wife let her go through house - D considers that harrsssment, and his wife probably WAS upset with long ago gf showing up to go through HER house - but hey, it was legally P's property going up for sale - only question I have would be rather P had to give notice (you know like to a tenant) - besides apparently wife let her in, and D can't really tell us much about the scene and wife isn't here...... not sure where I'm at on whether P should get another 5 grand - want to say she has profited enough (didn't she say she has already received 13 grand on her $1500 investment) - ah, but thing is, what's in the settlement agreement......... ok, real reason for this case may not be P being greedy - seems when P visited house and 'barged' in, it upset wife enough thst harrassment charges were filed - ah, and REALLY hard feeling between wife and P, P upset when she gets served and she is told to appear at hearing to answer request for a restraining order........ oh my, switcheroo coming up - not so much in legal question, but who was most unreasonable in their kerfuffle and whether or not I'm thinking P morally deserves money versus her legally case for more - seems after 'barging' incident D and wife moved 500 miles away (D says move was because of barging incident, but hey, house was being sold, so move was coming anyway) - in my mind, totally as a ploy in their fight over money - protective order based on barging incident and many phone calls/texts/emails - MM asks for best harassing email, reads it and declares not harrassment - D waits until after the move and then files for protective order - P gets served and notified of hearing at 8am next day - she's steaming mad, hops in car and drives 500 miles to make it to hearing - when she makes it to court on time, D drops charges and protective order request........ ok, P may be greedy b*tch, but D petty a$$ abusing court system - when MM gets loud and pointy finger at D accusing HIM of harrassment, D caves and admits it with 'that is correct'........ I've been thinking P had legal victory (amount to be determined by MM's calculator) now I'm not upset greedy b*tch will be getting MORE money..... ok, final arguments and decision time - oops, 'nother layman wants to teach law to judge, telling her 'repairs' are also called 'coming costs'........ my, never a good idea to admit to abusing the court system and then try talk your way out of the hole you just dug be telling the judge we the law - and argue when judge tells you you'remain wrong about your interpretation of law - MM is working herself up, starting to get loud and pointing her fingers again....... uhhhhhh, seems part of P's claim is for pain and suffering stemming from posts from the wife - P agrees FB posts P is describing sound horrible, but that's the wife, and wife is not named in complaint........ oh no, hope P doesn't file against wife once they get home....... 5 grand drops to $1500........ in hallterview we hear D says P's $1500 investment ended up with a 20 grand return - yeah, but I don't think this case would have happened had he not decided to abuse the system....... raggedy staircase: p showed up with new kind of hair do - her story is that she paid for new 2nd story staircase on back of her house - after two weeks she canned D as flimsy affair he was building wouldn't stand up to a stiff breeze - wants $1890....... (ok, snarked at P's hair, so take a look at D's jacket) D says P knew he had never built a 2nd story staircase, but was willing to hire him as he was charging less than half what licensed contractor would - says P happy to pay less knowing his had no experience and that permits/building codes/etc would be ignored........ ok, haven't heard cheap is expensive lately - from intro, I say she got what she paid for - maybe she can get back some of her 2 grand in materials can be salvaged when real contractor does job, but I wouldn't count on it...... not that interesting, got late start, and understanding P, even with CC, next to impossible (terrible grammar coupled with stutter) - I may be zipping through this one pretty quickly........ ok, from P I gathered D just a 'casual' worker who sometimes filled in at her job - but when MM gives up understanding P and turns to D he's a pleasant surprise, as I actually understand him - doesn't sound stupid, but I kind of have a problem with someone who apparently was willing to learn how to build a 2nd story staircase on the job while ignoring code/permits....... sometimes codes go overboard, but people could be hurt when ignored........ ok, we have pix of his steps - granted he wasn't done, but those are some wonky-a$$ed steps - not only do they look too step (which he admits) but just look at those handrails with the floating support that ends a couple feet off the ground - maybe those are temporary/going to be fixed as well - but wow! - looks like a lot of wasted material went into those steps and I'm not sure they're safe even as temporary stairs........ ok, texts back and forth, P happy enough as the illegal structure was going up and D worked a couple weeks, but then he takes a few days off, she has company come over who raise concerns about the way it's being built, and she tells him not to bother coming back......... uh, see unclean hands coming in as P knew ordinances were being broken/ignored, and P deserves to be paid for 2 weeks work..... not sure he deserves whatever it was that he was paid - I think they agreed his estimate was $1400 and she wants just shy of nineteen hundred (haven't heard who paid for the materials, but looks like a lot of it will be wasted....... those unsupported improperly cut stringers are toast - well except that looks to be treated lumber which may not be good for burning)......... turns out, one of her guests (some relative, probably also unlicensed and knows no code) looked at stairs, declared he could do better, so P fires D and plans to have cousin do job, but ends up just tearing everything down before city gets there to inspect accident waiting to kill someone........ yada yada more yakity yak - only interesting thing I hear when MM asks D what made him think he could built a staircase he says he prepared himself by studying - how, asks MM, by watching YouTube - no, says D, that may be a feasible way, but he went and looked at other stairs around town........ that's worth a chuckle, but I'm about ready to call this - P should not get everything back, but then how much does D deserve for what is now a pile of taro covered labor in the yard........ 'nother chuckle, as we go to commercial P says she has estimate upwards of $18,000 for her new steps - oh my, I want to see that estimate in writing........ MM decides P DOES get everything back - not going to argue, as what D did has no value...... still, it bugs me that she knew she was hiring someone without the skills and trying to skirt around the law........ P gets back $1400 - no explanation of why intro had her asking for $1890, but my guess is 14 hundred to D & 500 in materials........ uh oh, when D gets outside, of course he disagrees with full refund, but is insisted he knew what he was doing, had a plan, and could have fixed the unfixable....... yep, when P gets to Doug she demonstrates why I think she should have eaten some of the loss - instead, with decision to return everything she paid D, she has no loss (maybe materials, but I may have missed that) and is celebrating Backing out into traffic: P says she was driving down street when D backed out in traffic - not going after lotto money, but has doubled her $400 in damage for wasted time - wants $800........ not sure what the heck D is doing with his defense - admits P was in street, but says she was stationary and partially blocking his driveway - says he back and and bumped her - in his mind, fact that she may have partially blocked his way means they should share liability 50/50........ uh no, not a defense - and way D is looking over at P while intro clown does his spiel makes me want to bop smirk off his noggin - oops, I was so busy being irritated at his look I almost missed part of his defense - seems when P presented him with $800 bill for damages he paid $400, but now P is shining asking for $800 more....... hmmmmmmm if P has accepted $400, did she accept a settlement deal, or are we going to here he offered $400 and she refused....... ok, her story is she saw him backing out, managed to stop before he hit her, but he kept backing up and still hit her now stationary car...... MM asks why she even stopped, but real question of liability to me rests on fact that D had reposibility to wait til road was clear before backing into street - he didn't - he's liable (but not for wasted time)......... so, did he already pay something - if he paid and she accepted 50%, has she accepted that payment as a settlement and now changed her mind....... ok, estimates ran from $800 to $1200 - maybe D felt she should go with lowest estimate, paid $400, felt they had settled while she thought he was making payments toward full cost........ hmmmmm, we know there are texts because they go back and forth as she gets estimates - case probably to be settled with a text........ ah ha, yep, texts do D in - he agrees to pay the $800, pays $400 and promises to pay other $400, but then comes up with this 50/50 nonsense to get out of paying - no only thst, but now he regrets giving her half, saying it was really nobody's fault, so he shouldn't even have had to pay 50%.......... good grief, where do these people get their license - basic backing out of driveway 101 - wait til street is clear before backing out - doesn't matter if other car was parked, driving by, and just stopped blocking driveway - wouldn't matter if D has humongous blind spot and couldn't possibly see P - if you back out of driveway into street and into someone you're at fault - and according to D he came to his no-fault theory after discussing it with friends........ more yakity yak about his nonsense no fault assertion - we see pic of damage and I agree with MM, that's not a little bump and $800 probably low - ok, of course nada for time, but P does get other $400...... she could have probably gone big with $1200 estimate and gotten it after D's absurd defense......... oh my, another litigant knew he had no case and clogged courts making wronged party file suit knowing he had little chance of winning - has no problem telling Doug verdict what he expected........ really, couldn't we add a fee for frivolous defense when litigant admits reason he fought case was, basically, hoping his victim would drop case instead of demanding payment Edited February 28, 2020 by SRTouch 2 Link to comment
AngelaHunter February 29, 2020 Share February 29, 2020 2 hours ago, SRTouch said: I fell asleep in the recliner while waiting for the coffee to get done You are not alone. I think my recliner has some sort of soporific that sends me to dreamland the minute I sit in it. 😮 2 hours ago, SRTouch said: raggedy staircase: I missed most of this, but what I got is "I'll hire anyone who is cheap then be shocked and outraged when the job he does is crap." I was wondering just how D planned to fix that mess he constructed without tearing it all out and starting again. 2 hours ago, SRTouch said: Backing out into traffic: Def made me sick. He's a grown, mature man who tries to weasel his way out of paying for damages he did. He's the type who just hits the gas and backs out of his driveway and feels that of course anyone driving down the street should know enough to stop, even though they have the right of way, to let him out. She should have stopped or at least honked her horn so it's P's fault. I did find plaintiff's "I shouldn't have to honk my horn..." annoying. No, of course you don't HAVE to. Just get hit instead. Anyway, D uses the fact that he has a big Cuban family and doesn't want any trouble - since plaintiff has been doing his abuela's hair for 30 years - to avoid paying what he owes. Why would him paying what he owes for damages he did cause a family rift? He did pay 400$ of the very cheap 800$ tab P had, but someone in his big Cuban family told him not to pay the rest. It was a 'no fault" accident, even though he backed into someone driving ligitmately down the street, not expecting a mature person to do something so stupid. It seems no one has any shame anymore. What a despicable little worm he is. And no, his mention of his "big Cuban family" got him nowhere with JM. I back out of my driveway all the time and at this time of year the snowbanks are so high I can't see if anyone is coming from either direction. I back out by inches, checking each step of the way to see if someone is coming. I guess plaintiff doesn't feel he needs to do that, what with his big Cuban family and all. 4 Link to comment
Bazinga March 3, 2020 Share March 3, 2020 (edited) Today's rerun show was from September 24, 2018. They went back a year and a half for this boring episode? But I digress. If interested, SR Touch's excellent recap can be found on Page 117. It was one of two comments I saw touching on the episode. I just want to spotlight the tenants suing the landlord for not returning their security deposit. The ridiculous landlord was nickel and diming the plaintiffs and expected the apartment, after 8 years, to be returned in pristine condition "because they promised" and he has no clue about what normal wear and tear means. Among other issues, he complained about a seven year old dishwasher that was not working due to mold; inoperable smoke detectors; a light that was not working and painting done by plaintiff admittedly pealing. The decision was that the plaintiffs got back some of their deposit but not all and the defendant came off looking petty. From SR Touch's recap: "Oh, and after ruling MM points out that not only did D nickel and dime and withhold more than he should have, but he also failed to notify tenants within the time alloted by the statutes. Hmmmm, she says P didn't base their complain on that but that it was a valid point - wonder if, had they focused on his not meeting the statute deadline, they might have received double the WHOLE amount he withheld? Dude still playing word games in hallterview." Recall, a few weeks back, the plaintiff who did A LOT of damage, had the nerve to seek his security deposit back and ended up winning because the landlord handed the letter to him instead of mailing it, as required by statute. JM was annoyed at having to rule in that plaintiff's favor because he didn't deserve it. That plaintiff didn't know to bring up the statute, JM did after wasting time discussing the damages, he just thought he deserved his security deposit back though he literally destroyed the place by putting storage where the stairs were, etc. Now this case, she allows the landlord to keep part of the security deposit, even while noting the letter was sent late but saying she is not going to go into it. Why the difference? Why did she have to follow the statute in one case but not the other? I hate JM's inconsistencies. Edited March 4, 2020 by Bazinga 1 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama March 4, 2020 Share March 4, 2020 (edited) The one rerun case I managed to see today was the classic of the two women who traded vehicles. The best part was the defendant who was wearing a loose, skimpy sundress, with a full bra hanging out around it. The case wasn't great, but the defendant's slutty dress was epic. I was afraid poor Doug wasn't going to make it through interviewing that woman. He looked like he wanted to hurl. Edited March 4, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama 1 Link to comment
AZChristian March 4, 2020 Share March 4, 2020 13 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said: The one rerun case I managed to see today was the classic of the two women who traded vehicles. The best part was the defendant who was wearing a loose, skimpy sundress, with a full bra hanging out around it. The case wasn't great, but the defendant's slutty dress was epic. I don't even remember what the details of the case were - but I'll NEVER forget the defendant's outfit . . . and her HUGE false eyelashes. 1 Link to comment
aemom March 4, 2020 Share March 4, 2020 On 2/18/2020 at 3:52 PM, SRTouch said: 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 I know I'm behind, but this case annoyed me. The D was a complete and utter asshole, and I felt incredibly sorry for the P. The dog sadly died. In the past, we had a dog who died and the P couldn't collect on the vet bills because of that. This time she could. I just don't get it. Why is there inconsistency with this? Does the law vary from state to state? I'm glad she got the money, but I think all of them should whether the dog dies or not. 3 Link to comment
AngelaHunter March 4, 2020 Share March 4, 2020 22 hours ago, Bazinga said: The ridiculous landlord was nickel and diming the plaintiffs and expected the apartment, after 8 years, to be returned in pristine condition "because they promised" and he has no clue about what normal wear and tear means. That was just as incredible as it was the first time. The landlord was beyond outrageous. Oh, he's charging them for a new dishwasher for his new tenants but only because the plaintiff's "didn't inform him of a problem"? If they had, he would have replaced the dishwasher for free. Same for a non-working light. He's charging for some 1.99 switchplates and a broom left behind?? His tiny little money-grubbing was utterly shameless and really despicable. He was also clueless about the timing of sending the letter explaining why he was keeping their money. These eps make me so glad I don't rent. 21 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said: The best part was the defendant who was wearing a loose, skimpy sundress, with a full bra hanging out around it. Too bad JM gave up snarling at trashy clowns like this, who want to display acres of their sagging, droopy cleavage to her, "I'm not interested in your BREASTS! Go in the back and put something on." I guess some people think this is classy. Also liked the way she made sure her wig was properly placed. 1 Link to comment
AZChristian March 5, 2020 Share March 5, 2020 23 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said: The one rerun case I managed to see today was the classic of the two women who traded vehicles. The best part was the defendant who was wearing a loose, skimpy sundress, with a full bra hanging out around it. The case wasn't great, but the defendant's slutty dress was epic. Today, JM yelled at a woman for taking her shoes off in "my courtroom." But she didn't say a word to the bra/sundress combo person???? 1 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama March 5, 2020 Share March 5, 2020 (edited) The shoes yelling was because Judge M was worried that defendant was taking her shoes off to fight the defendant easier. You know it can be a hazard wearing stilettos into combat. There is a case of a dog attack, and the plaintiff is wearing the ugliest dress (I'm guessing a vest added) and vest I've ever seen. Image a navy with white pattern, and a white and light green pattern over it. My question is why do people let their dog sniff butts, or play meet? Especially with some pit bull cross. Edited March 5, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama 2 Link to comment
AngelaHunter March 6, 2020 Share March 6, 2020 On 3/4/2020 at 9:29 PM, CrazyInAlabama said: The shoes yelling was because Judge M was worried that defendant was taking her shoes off to fight the defendant easier. You know it can be a hazard wearing stilettos into combat. I love how JM ordered her to put them back on. Those suckers must have been hurting like hell. Good. With yesterday's lawyer, I was so hopeful we would get to a see an attorney who had it together. My hopes were dashed again. Why no, he doesn't have the evidence he needs to successfully sue the def, Henry. All I can say is that I am eternally grateful that Henry the Nightmare is not my neighbour. 2 Link to comment
AngelaHunter March 6, 2020 Share March 6, 2020 Serial posting here, but I never saw Archie Bunker's obnoxious cousin here, suing a car wash place because a belt broke on his 15-year old cah as the undercarriage was being power washed. Yeah, a belt broke on the beater so he's also suing for pain and suffering AND mental anguish. I wonder who told him about those terms. It's not likely that someone who repeatedly says "brung" and "them things" knew about them. No, he has no proof of any kind that anything defs did caused the problem, but he has a theory. The cah was running perfectly before the washing, yet he says he drove it to the side after the washing and that the cah can run with only one belt. Maybe it broke before he got to the cah wash? Impossible. His ancient vehicle was in perfect condition. Therefore his theory should net him a big payoff. He's on a fixed income, therefore never even took the cah to get it fixed elsewhere. Think of the mental anguish he's suffered. He says defs caused the damage by spraying the undercarriage while the engine was running and hot as he'd driven the cah ALL DAY. Defs say it makes no difference as it's like driving through a large puddle. It didn't look good that the two defs chose not to bring the worker who actually did the spraying. JM told P several times she needs some sort of proof - any proof - but realized there was no point trying to explain anything more to the loud-mouthed, ignorant plaintiff, so ruled for the defs as plaintiff continued to blabber over her. We also got the obligatory "Wowwww!" which we always hear from litigants whose money-grubbing is denied. He waddles out to Doug, still raving about no justice being done and why isn't his unknowledgeable theory good enough. He's wearing a large keychain on his belt which rattles as he's directed to the exit. He continues to rant all the way down the hall. 1 2 Link to comment
aemom March 9, 2020 Share March 9, 2020 (edited) On 2/20/2020 at 10:38 AM, 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. This show really has been educational for me. Yesterday I had to accompany my husband to pick up a rental car for work. We walked around the car with the guy noting all the dings and scratches which he wrote on the paper. Then he handed us the keys and walked away. Then I told my husband: "Now walk around the car very slowly and take a video of the entire car with your phone, verbally indicating anything you see. If they try to accuse you of any bullshit damage later, you'll have your documented proof. I don't watch TPC for nothing you know!" Hee hee. Edited March 9, 2020 by aemom Typo 2 4 Link to comment
Katy M March 9, 2020 Share March 9, 2020 On 2/20/2020 at 10:38 AM, 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. This show really has been educational for me. Shouldn't the last two be self-evident without watching TPC? I'll give you learning the dangers of private sales and landlording. Link to comment
AngelaHunter March 9, 2020 Share March 9, 2020 1 hour ago, aemom said: Then I told my husband: "Now walk around the car very slowly and take a video of the entire car with your phone, verbally indicating anything you see. If they try to accuse you of any bullshit damage later, you'll have your documented proof. I don't watch the TPC for nothing you know!" JM would be so proud of you! 👍 31 minutes ago, Katy M said: Shouldn't the last two be self-evident without watching TPC? They should be to anyone with even a few firing brain cells. Alas, that does not include so many of our litigants. I recall one genius in the hall dispensing these words of wisdom, although his epiphany came too late for him: "You should get to know someone before you start having babies with them." I'm sure some viewers were thinking, "Why?" 3 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama March 9, 2020 Share March 9, 2020 (edited) This morning there was a ridiculous case. Plaintiff got her full security back, because landlady didn't send her a letter outlining damages in the apartment plaintiff rented for 13 years! No, not kidding, 13 years. The landlady ignored the NY state law about notification of security deposit charges in a certain time (I thing 2 weeks). The landlady decided to sell the property after her husband died, and instead of giving written notice to vacate, went directly to Housing Court. So the plaintiff ended up living there for 15 more months until she found something suitable. I really wish the landlady had done her notifications correctly, because there were doors ripped off of the frames, one door had a long, through and through chunk missing. Tiles were broken off the wall, and other severe damage. The door with the frame missing was interesting. From what I could see in the photos, the door frame had been missing for at least a coat or two of paint too. I guess the landlady never did periodic inspections of the property. Edited March 9, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama 4 Link to comment
Katy M March 9, 2020 Share March 9, 2020 51 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said: This morning there was a ridiculous case. Plaintiff got her full security back, because landlady didn't send her a letter outlining damages in the apartment plaintiff rented for 13 years! I'm trying to figure out the bolding of 13 years. When I first started reading I thought it was going to be because the landlord was trying to keep damaged for normal wear and tear. Of course there would be more for 13 years than 1 year. But, then you go on to say how you wished the landlord had done things properly. Then I thought I was reading wrong and that she didn't notify her for 13 years, but no, I was right in the first place rented for 13 years. So, why is this shocking? 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.