The People's Court - General Discussion

[SRTouch]

drat! New episodes this week and me with medical stuff everyday except Friday (Friday's appointment is not medical - whole other story worthy of a court tv case.... long story short, friend gave debit card to state supplied aide to pay some bills (he's disabled and state pays someone to come 1 afternoon a week to help clean house and run errands) - aide decided to add her own $40 phone bill to list, which made debit card bounce transactions for insufficient funds - turns out there is more in bank fees than the $40 phone bill - aide lost state job, and Friday I'm taking friend to DA for meeting about whether or not to file charges)

1. tenant suing Landlord: this is one CRAZYINALABAMA mentions above. Couple of nutcases, but I guess pretty much par for court tv........ another example of why I would never want to be a landlord - landlord took tenant to housing court to get them to leave, and judge grants tenant a year to find new place? at least that's what intro clown just said....... one thing intro clown said that I can agree with - landlord accused of being a lousy landlord - uh, yeah, from Crazy's recap sounds like she did nothing for 13 years except collect rent (section 8 paying most of rent), then when she wants to sell property takes tenant to housing court instead of telling her to leave (says she hates confrontation) then fails to follow law on withholding deposit......... other strange thing, despite being section 8 housing, this was a month to month rather than year lease - MM asks landlord how that happened, and landlord admits she has no clue, doesn't know how section 8 is supposed to work - uh, if section 8 is paying you a grand a month for years on end, maybe you ought to learn how it's supposed to work...... could it be that housing court let tenant stay so long because judge there was frustrated with clueless landlord?...... anyway, what it amounts to is month to month tenant ended up taking 15 months to move out after the first court date!....... oh, and even though housing judge granted tenant all this time to look for new place, she was still there past the court ordered move out date, was granted additional time by clueless landlord, and it took marshals to eventually get her out........ ok, backstory of case may be a head scratcher,  but case itself pretty much slam dunk - landlord withheld deposit based on damages, but failed to follow law in providing notice.......... MM still goes through landlord's pix of damages looking at damages, but they're fighting over $15-1600 deposit after a 13 year tenancy........ these pix are not of normal wear and tear, but place looks like a dump in need of big time renovation over and above the tenant's damage - tenant says place hasn't been painted since she moved in (and it looks it), so I'm thinking nothing else has been done except emergency repairs (if any)....... ok, not liking any of tenant's answers of how the damages over and above normal wear happened, landlord would have been righteous keeping deposit if she had just followed the rules, but in the end landlord is going to lose no matter what since she didn't follow the landlord rules.........  yep, P gets back $1522 deposit
2. cell phone repair shop case: p took phone to have cracked screen replaced, but is dissatisfied when she picks phone up - seems screen doesn't fit right - wants $239 refund........ D says screen doesn't fit because case is bent - says he offered to get new case, but it would add to cost of repair - customer didn't want to spend money for case, so he offered refund minus normal restocking fee........ case could go either way depending on whether shop notified customer of restock fee prior to work...... ok, first thing is repair cost was $140, which somehow grew into a $239 lawsuit....... uh, I understood from intro that D offered a refund minus the restocking fee and P was suing because she didn't want to pay the fee - hmmmmm must be quite the percentage of fee to end up costing $100 more than the repair........ ok - more confusing than it should be because MM doesn't wait for answers - is it just me, or did anyone else think she was wrong to assume shop should have seen frame was bent before replacing screen? I guess she does have a point when she points out that they should have told the customer they were unable to do the repair without additional charges, and then collecting money for half-a$$ed repair before showing customer the improperly fitting screen........ I'm sort of leaning towards repair shop dude's version, but he's having trouble stating his case with all the interruptions coming from MM - poor guy can only get a half sentence out before being interrupted........ wondering if she's pushing his buttons because she knows he exploded on customer........ ahhhhhh turns out when P picked up phone he didn't tell her about the screen not fitting flush - she paid, received the phone, went home thinking it had been repaired, and had to return the next day to be told the frame had been bent........ ok, I thought he was being reasonable when he said he would replace frame for cost without an additional labor charge, but turns out technician knew screen was not sitting right and left it to customer to discover problem......... I'm giving up on the numbers since they aren't adding up........ some back and forth (including fact that P eventually got replacement phone through her insurance - yes, lady had insurance but didn't want to wait for replacement phone because her model was temporarily out of stock)...... after listening to back and forth, MM decides shop should return the full amount because they weren't upfront with customer about the bent frame........ ah, explanation for the extra hundred bucks P wants - she not only wants full refund, she also wants the $99 insurance deductible for the replacement phone - nah, not today....... 
3. dog case skipped - P holding friend's dog in arms when D's dog attacked - case actually for P's injuries and lost wages not for the friend's dog....... I skipped everything between intro and hallterview, but gather pit bull was chained up - but unattended - and broke free to attack the P - Ds in denial mode, claiming P was not injured, while he claims he was bitten........ P awarded about half want he asked for........ something different losing male D asks Doug for a minute, Doug refuses at first, but D pulls out jewelers box, goes to 1 knee and proposes to co-defendant, female D covers face then says yes - ok, that explains why dude had strange look as decision was announced - he was anticipating the hallterview proposal 

Edited March 10, 2020 by SRTouch

[CrazyInAlabama]

I find it amazing that the tenant lived in the same apartment for 13 years.    I was also amazed that the landlady didn't just give tenant written notice to vacate, in whatever the time amount is in that state.      From what litigants said, the landlady went right to Housing Court, and it still took over a year to get the tenant out.    

That house looked like it was falling apart.   However, it didn't look like the movers took the doors off the hinges to move out, it looks like the door hinges were ripped out, and one frame also.    What did the tenant do, have Rugby matches in her apartment?    

I wonder if the landlady's late husband was the one who managed the tenants, and property.    Landlady not liking confrontations certainly bit her in the fanny.    However, if landlady was so clueless about tenant's rights, security deposit, and do any work to a rental property, then I'm hoping that she sold all of the rentals.    

Edited March 10, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

tenant suing Landlord:

That was no normal wear and tear, even after 13 years. Broken toilet, smashed tiles, doors ripped off the hinges - "It just needed a screw". I need to use that sometime. I loved it. My deck collapsed a few days ago. It just needs a screw, I guess.  Anyway, it looked as though wild animals had been housed there. Do no landlords ever watch this show, just enough to learn the bare basics of tenant/landlord law? Saying, "I don't know anything about that" doesn't wash. Plaintiff has already received more than 156,000$ from the taxpayers - to date, and more in the offing -  and because def didn't bother finding out how to proceed to get her out, P gets more money.

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

. ahhhhhh turns out when P picked up phone he didn't tell her about the Doreen not fitting flush

Is your phone doing some funky auto-correct?😄

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

New episodes this week and me with medical stuff everyday except Friday (Friday's appointment is not medical - whole other story worthy of a court tv case.... long story short, friend gave debit card to state supplied aide to pay some bills (he's disabled and state pays someone to come 1 afternoon a week to help clean house and run errands) - aide decided to add her own $40 phone bill to list, which made debit card bounce transactions for insufficient funds - turns out there is more in bank fees than the $40 phone bill - aide lost state job, and Friday I'm taking friend to DA for meeting about whether or not to file charges)

You're a good man, Charlie Brown. Hope all goes well with your appointments!

[SRTouch]

1. Good money after bad:  deadbeat daddy owes big time money in back child support, but idiot ex wife loans him money anyway - wants $1705...... D claims ex wife made up loan story to get back at him when he petitioned court to end child support and won......... from preview we know MM is not happy with deadbeat dad and lame excuse for not paying support (because he was out of country) - thing here is that this case is about an alleged loan, not child support - I'm wondering how much of an expectation ex wife had of repayment when deadbeat was over 20 grand behind in support - also wonder if judge hearing support case zeroed out his arrears or just stopped future payments.......... from intro I wouldn't give P anything unless she has some really compelling proof she had reason to believe he would repay her...... Wellllllll we learn in testimony that he actually paid off the arrears - seems he won big gambling........ still, why loan deadbeat a penny when you know it took him 3 years to pay support and that he's a gambler who could go bust and stiff you?....... oh, and according to ex wife, it's not like deadbeat voluntarily paid the late support - noooooo, the State took the late support money off the top of his winnings (a lottery, maybe) - she says story he told her was that he was trying to start up a business with rest of winnings, hired someone to do some work, but needed a loan to pay the people he hired........ sooooo, deadbeat stiffed ex wife and kid (s) for years, tells her he starting a business on a shoestring and can't pay his workers, and what? she sends him money - it's almost painful how stupid this woman is - I just had a thought, what if there was never a business and deadbeat took her 'loan' and paid his lawyer to get child support ended (apparently judge in that case ended support when kid no longer lived with mommy - not sure I even what to hear why - in hallterview deadbeat says daughter is of age so moved out)....... guess it's time to hit FF and zip ahead........ guess MM heard enough to determine this was a loan and ordered deadbeat to pay P $1520 - when P comes out she says texts proved it was a loan
2. Vacation rental case:  p says renter caused damage setting off fireworks - when presented with bill for damage, D stopped not only refused to pay for damage & repairs, but stopped rental payment - wants $1759.80 - oh, and then posted negative reviews on rental with pix of some other trashy looking property....... D denies causing damage, and says property was not as advertised - shower curtain instead of door on bathroom and only 1 bedroom when 3 were advertised....... ok, need to see the original add and her 'review' to see who is telling the truth - but, did she 'eat the steak?' - if she stayed even part of the rental period she can't just cancel whole rental payment - and of course, landlord will have to prove her fireworks damage claim and what it cost to fix (claim is fireworks landed on PVC pipe in yard and caused leak, resulting in bill from plumber)........ ok, rental is rustic cottage on lake, and was more 'rustic' than D expected - still, was advertisement false? And how long did D stay before deciding it didn't meet her standards?........ MM reads ad, and I'm not hearing anything about 3 bedrooms - instead I hear about early 1900s hunting cabin, 2 double beds, futon, and bunk beds in an alcove - hmmmmmm and bit about the shower curtain - seems there is a half bathroom with a door, but also a toilet and shower with just a shower curtain - and anyone using them will be visible to someone using stairway - D also claims cottage was filthy when they arrived, etc etc...... would be fine with me, but then instead of renting a 'rustic cottage' I would be happy with a tent in the woods - all her complaints mean diddly to me if she ate the steak - so far the ad doesn't sound false, though as MM points out it would be better if it stressed what rustic means to owner........ well, pix sure seem to show mouse droppings all over kitchen, which MM finds 'gross' and D also saw a couple of roaches after being there almost a full week  - oh, the horror! - but it didn't keep D from eating the steak!  No, D stayed there full week as scheduled - I haven't heard anything justifying not paying the rent - though since this rental to D, P has revised her ad a little, adding more pix........ how 'bout that firework damage - P story, pix, and actually brought melted pipe convince me a fire damaged the pipe - but timeline seems to indicate damage happened after D admits to setting off fireworks, and P admits she doesn't know any different........ ok, talking about timeline - turns out D did not stop payment when presented with plumbers bill - instead, she stayed the week, demanded full refund, then posted negative review - soooooo, I guess P gets upset and asks for plumber bill to be paid......... I disagree with any refund, but MM decides D should get 1/3rd off (which, since D already reversed rental charges on CC means P gets partial payment), I agree P hasn't proved D caused leak - P gets a grand

Time to get ready for Dr appointment, so no 3rd case recap

Edited March 11, 2020 by SRTouch

[patty1h]

As @SRTouch is busy, here's a quick synopsis of Case #3

22 year old Michael Rodriguez buys a used car he found on the Offer Up website and it has issues the next day.   The seller advertised the condition as 'good' but Michael thinks he should get his money back because when he took the car to a mechanic after the sale, he is told that the car needs a lot of work:  the check engine light is on, transmission is slipping, catalytic converter is bad.  Plaintiff also tried the "he sold me a car that won't pass inspection" defense, but JM reads the mechanic report and it says it won't pass inspection unless the owner gets the various issues fixed.  JM warns the plaintiff that it looks bad for him as the car is an AS IS sale and no warranty was offered - it would have been smarter to have gotten the car checked BEFORE he bought it.

Michael's dad is with him and JM grills dad about letting his son buy a car in this manner - why didn't he give him some advice.  Dad says Michael did all this on his own.  After a little more back and forth with Michael and the defendant, Michael leaves with his dad and a lesson for the future.

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Good money after bad:  deadbeat daddy owes big time money in back child support, but idiot ex wife loans him money anyway

LOL! Deadbeat daddy skedaddles to Trinidad for years, gambling and living it up and pays nothing for the kid he and plaintiff whipped up. But then, 20K in hole he decides, most altruistically, to pay what he owes for the kid he helped bring into the world. Well, no, he didn't. The gov. saw his big winnings and snatched them. His con isn't finished though, as he hits up his baby momma for 1500$. She of course gives it to him. It's a gift! Whatever... For a deadbeat, the daddy has one hell of an attitude, acting very affronted that JM would dare question his impeccable integrity.

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Vacation rental case: 

Ah, these young'uns. They want a 100-year old "rustic" cabin on a lake, but expect the amenities of a 4-star hotel. If you're in the woods in an ancient dwelling, a mouse or two should not be so utterly shocking. Wash the damned frying pan out! Okay, the owner could at least get those fairly new (at least, I think they're new but what do I know?) super-long shower curtains and maybe put a door on the john, but even so the plaintiff, her daughter, her boyfriend, another couple and their daughter stayed for the whole seven days and cry like babies and don't want to pay since they didn't really like the accomodations. Oh, no! They saw two cockroaches! Geeze, my husband and I went to a villa in Barbados and saw cockroaches the size of rats, yet didn't think that entitled us to a free stay or even a discount. We get it: You want cool "rustic" but don't really want rustic.

1 hour ago, patty1h said:

22 year old Michael Rodriguez buys a used car he found on the Offer Up website and it has issues the next day. 

Another useless "as-is" case. This one involved the dullest 22-year-old man we've ever seen. JM was just complaining in the first case how silly it is that New York insists child support be paid for 21-year-old adults - "infantilizing" them, yet she feels this plaintiff is a little baby boy and should haven taken his daddy when he went to buy the car, since obviously he is not competent to do it himself. People that age live online. He couldn't have gotten off Twitter and FB and Instagram long enough to look up one of about a million articles about buying used cars? He's 22 years old, not 16!

 

[SRTouch]

A mix of two of my favorite things on the Internet - court tv and cats

[Guest]

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

LOL! Deadbeat daddy skedaddles to Trinidad for years, gambling and living it up and pays nothing for the kid he and plaintiff whipped up. 

I'm sitting here trying to figure out if it's the way AngelaHunter arranged her sentence or my gin and tonic that's making me giggle.

Quote

Ah, these young'uns. They want a 100-year old "rustic" cabin on a lake, but expect the amenities of a 4-star hotel. 

Didn't you just love how defendant was so indignant that someone else was walking on "her lake".  The absolute nerve!!  She was promised it was private - except for the people who are occupying the lake house.  Ceptin' dummy didn't ask lake walker if she's staying in the lake house until after she grilled her.

Quote

Another useless "as-is" case. This one involved the dullest 22-year-old man we've ever seen. JM was just complaining in the first case how silly it is that New York insists child support be paid for 21-year-old adults - "infantilizing" them, yet she feels this plaintiff is a little baby boy and should haven taken his daddy when he went to buy the car, since obviously he is not competent to do it himself. 

 

I'm just appreciative that the subject didn't shift to her daughters and that we didn't have to hear a story about JM's super beautiful, intelligent, funny, compassionate, loving-towards-her-sisters, sassy daughters.

If I wanted to hear all that I'd watch the ID channel.  Every victim of murder is described using the same adjectives.  Nauseating.  No one is perfect.  Except Smudge.  That gorgeous cat most certainly is.  

 

 

 

 

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, PsychoKlown said:

I'm just appreciative that the subject didn't shift to her daughters and that we didn't have to hear a story about JM's super beautiful, intelligent, funny, compassionate, loving-towards-her-sisters, sassy daughters.

Don't forget they're also "social justice warriors", these pampered little girls.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

Don't forget they're also "social justice warriors", these pampered little girls.

It WAS the gin and tonic.   Had to be since I forgot that gem. 
Social justice warriors my fanny. 

[CrazyInAlabama]

This morning's rerun is the ridiculous non-disclosure violation case of the people who own the CBD stores, fired over 12 employees, (or they quit), and were suing an ex-employee for garbage.   The plaintiff store owners were awarded $1.   

The bizarre case of the man who was living in the basement apartment, and moved out because "he got bad vibes" from the apartment.   Plaintiff/ex-tenant wants his $1,000 security back.    The photos of damages, and things man did to 'improve' the property are really odd.  He ripped a hole out of the wall next to a window, added a ceiling support for a display case, took down a wall, and put a huge wooden crate (maybe his idea of a closet?).      Plaintiff has obvious issues.    Another landlord who didn't send the written explanation to the former tenant saying why she's keeping the security deposit.   So tenant gets his $1,000 back. 

Edited March 11, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

Baby momma suing baby daddy for some old car she paid into when they were playing house is expecting community property laws to apply when they never bothered to get married. P says her former paramour, the jug-headed, slow-thinking yokel, Gronte, didn't communicate, was violent, was unable to have a bank account (what a catch) so she only stayed with him for five years and only had one child with him. Gronke refers to his son as "the kid" and it seems obvious he doesn't support him since his former girlfriend won't let him see "the kid", not that he's gone to court to get visitation. I guess he's afraid he might get saddled with child support payments. Neither of them could figure out that as litigants they both needed to stand at the podiums and both sat down until instructed to stand up. I'm kind of sorry JM awarded P 1100$ for part of the money she spent on the car. She was fine with cohabiting and breeding with Gronke until he threw a water bottle at her. Maybe he did something else, but I don't really care. I just feel sorry for "the kid" having them as parents.

Then we get a plaintiff, who a few months after his wife of 35 years passes away, hooks up with def. . I get it. Men of his generation who got married young and have never been alone are eager to replace what they lost. Then he moves her in to his apartment and gives her an engagement ring. She, who says they had "lots of fun" while she was fighting for disability payments, says she doesn't think this 1ct stone was really an engagement ring since there was no "engagement party" which we all know is necessary to claim to be engaged. I kind of think anyone might feel an engagement party about 6 months after the death of P's wife might be a wee bit in bad taste. Anyway, P has the person from whom he got the engagement ring. "Get up!" plaintiff orders. The witness is 93 years old and a very spry 93! JM loves him and comes down from the bench to talk to him. He confirms the ring cost 3400$, although no one has any receipts or proof of any value. However, P told D to keep the ring which she did for a couple years then sold it for 800$, she says, because the diamond was cracked. Doesn't matter since dull P told her to keep it so he gets nothing.

Nervy(or just stupid?) woman suing def. for crashing into her car. U-turns are allowed in her area, so she starts to make one but there isn't enough room so naturally she drives right on the pedestrian crosswalk. Lucky there were  no pedestrians crossing! D. who is pullling up to the stop sign can't avoid hitting her since who expects a car to appear horizontally in a crosswalk? Def's daddy - who looks the same age as his boy - confirms his son, who was driving the truck, had no insurance, but the boy who appeared to be over 30 didn't know that. Of course. It's all academic, since cars aren't supposed to be in crosswalks and u-turns are allowed only if safe to do so, so P loses. We get the usual "W-o-o-w-w-w" from her since she still can't get it through her thick skull that the accident was her fault. Fix your own car, you fool.

[arejay]

Oh, Your Honor, it's not "elucidate me". It's "elucidate FOR or TO me".

[AZChristian]

Can someone tell us how today's first case ended up? It was the one with the tenant in the basement apartment whose stuff was put out on the curb by the defendant. We had our daily coronavirus update before the verdict was given, and I'm just curious how it ended up. Thanks.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, AZChristian said:

Can someone tell us how today's first case ended up? It was the one with the tenant in the basement apartment whose stuff was put out on the curb by the defendant. We had our daily coronavirus update before the verdict was given, and I'm just curious how it ended up. Thanks.

I can half help.  Defendant got nothing.  
 

Why was Charlton Heston mentioned?

I didn’t get the rest because my tv has been nonstop Tom Brady news. All morning and afternoon.  He’s saying goodbye to New England. A team that he described as having  good morals and ethics. 

You can’t make this stuff up folks. 
 

Edited March 18, 2020 by PsychoKlown

[AZChristian]

29 minutes ago, PsychoKlown said:

Why was Charlton Heston mentioned?

 

Hubby and I were wondering the same thing.  We think she meant to reference Clint Eastwood , not Charlton Heston. 

[SRTouch]

1 hour ago, AZChristian said:

Hubby and I were wondering the same thing.  We think she meant to reference Clint Eastwood , not Charlton Heston. 

Nah, think it was a reference to the Bronson vigilante movies... I thought MM said Bronson, then Doug said Heston......

Back to how case ended....plaintiff got nothing..... However, when she filed this case she voided the settlement agreement. This resulted in landlord getting back rent which he didn't get in the settlement.

[AZChristian]

1 minute ago, SRTouch said:

Nah, think it was a reference to the Bronson vigilante movies... I thought MM said Bronson, then Doug said Heston......

Back to how case ended....plaintiff got nothing..... However, when she filed this case she voided the settlement agreement. This resulted in landlord getting back rent which he didn't get in the settlement.

Three cheers for the landlord.  Young lady THOUGHT she knew how to work the system (JM even alluded to that).  She just got schooled.

I still think it was Clint Eastwood . . . because he spoke those immortal words, "GET OFF MY LAWN!!!"  She wasn't having that plaintiff back in her house, no matter what.

[Florinaldo]

10 hours ago, PsychoKlown said:

Why was Charlton Heston mentioned?

I thought MM might have had in mind the "From my cold dead hands" CH said while President of the NRA, meaning how resolute and stubborn the landlord was.

I am not sure I would like to deal with that defendant in real life, but I was glad the plaintiff got served up a taste of her own medecine when her knowledge of the system fell just short enough to have it bite her back where it hurts.

[AngelaHunter]

17 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Back to how case ended....plaintiff got nothing.....

I got that case yesterday. I did enjoy the way JM asked her why she didn't move on the date the court ordered her to: "Because..." plaintiff begins. "You know how to work the system?" JM fills in for her. Candid answer: "Yes." Obviously not quite as well as she thought.

Today we got a case I don't remember. Plaintiff couple - like so many others  here - seem to think that if everything in your rental property is not perfect and if the landlord gives you notice to leave you no longer need to pay rent. Bonus if you're "disabled." They were month-to-month tenants and landlord def. gives them a one month notice to clear out on March 1. They don't pay their rent for Feb., claiming the landlord said he didn't want it. Yeah, sure. He's running a charity. Not only do they not pay that month, but don't actually leave until March 4, because it wasn't convenient for them to leave on the day they were supposed to. What do these people think  - that landlords are all wealthy, don't have bills to pay and can afford to let squatters use their premises for free? They would have gotten away with stiffing def. had they not decided to sue for their security deposit. Not only do they not get one cent (JM is amazed at their gall) but they have to pay the landlord over 1,000$ for unpaid rent. Where do all these tenants get off thinking rent payments are optional? Disabled plaintiff tells Doug in the hall that landlord "got over" as though he was scamming. How? He's renting this place and they didn't pay rent. Simple.

Woman suing car dealer def because her car had something wrong with it: I remember this one and thought then as now - how does someone who seemingly can't lift or turn her head drive a car? Seems really dangerous. Best part was Rick the Mechanic on the phone. Quite the character and I agree with JM. If his shop was near me I would go to him too!

[SRTouch]

 

Caught tail end of first case - seems Night Court's  Bull (or maybe Addams Family's Lurch) has a couple dogs which terrorize the neighborhood. Even Bull calls these dogs 'bad dogs'. They bit D & he filed report with Animal Control, but didn't pursue anything after AC quarrentined dogs for 2 weeks - guy was unemployed and had visible wound  (not much, scratch, but skin broken according to police report)...... D could have gone for lotto money, but not even z countersuit....... so, a year after his dog bit D, Bull is here trying to get triple the cost he had to pay for the quarantine (or maybe it was triple the cost of a fine he admits he didn't pay - didn't quite understand the triple damage claim - something to do with elder abuse?....... actually, calling this guy Bull is a disservice to Richard Moll's character - Bull may have been mentally challenged, but he always had a good heart - P not so much..... P struck me as hulking bully type - somehow he blames D for causing attack by walking on same sidewalk as he was with his dogs - relies on no one reporting the dogs bad acts, but admits to AC that his dogs are 'bad,' - at first I wondered at D not just dropping it, but then realized he may have wanted the attack on record to try to rein in the dogs - supposedly several other incidents have occurred, but none reported - also, wouldn't be surprised to learn Bull was less then forthcoming with info on shots

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

Today we got a case I don't remember. Plaintiff couple - like so many others  here - seem to think that if everything in your rental property is not perfect and if the landlord gives you notice to leave you no longer need to pay rent. Bonus if you're "disabled." They were month-to-month tenants and landlord def. gives them a one month notice to clear out on March 1. They don't pay their rent for Feb., claiming the landlord said he didn't want it. Yeah, sure. He's running a charity. Not only do they not pay that month, but don't actually leave until March 4, because it wasn't convenient for them to leave on the day they were supposed to. What do these people think  - that landlords are all wealthy, don't have bills to pay and can afford to let squatters use their premises for free? They would have gotten away with stiffing def. had they not decided to sue for their security deposit. Not only do they not get one cent (JM is amazed at their gall) but they have to pay the landlord over 1,000$ for unpaid rent. Where do all these tenants get off thinking rent payments are optional? Disabled plaintiff tells Doug in the hall that landlord "got over" as though he was scamming. How? He's renting this place and they didn't pay rent. Simple.

Oh my, deja vu all over again - thought I was hearing yesterday's case with different folks. Well, actually, this is a pretty common case. Again, a tenant opened the door to allow landlord to countersuit for back rent he was willing to write off. 

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

Woman suing car dealer def because her car had something wrong with it: I remember this one and thought then as now - how does someone who seemingly can't lift or turn her head drive a car? Seems really dangerous. Best part was Rick the Mechanic on the phone. Quite the character and I agree with JM. If his shop was near me I would go to him too!

This was a funny case - used car salesman actually admits to a verbal warranty on hoopty with 150,000 miles when he could have just denied it - P had no proof. Thing is, he was willing to split cost of installing new transmission past warranty period. @AngelaHunter nailed it - best exchange of day is Rick the Mechanic on the phone...... made even better as he was supposed to be P's witness, yet his testimony was final nail in her coffin.......

actually, all three cases today had litigants introducing evidence which torpedoed their case

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

best exchange of day is Rick the Mechanic on the phone...... made even better as he was supposed to be P's witness, yet his testimony was final nail in her coffin.......

She was so anxious to have JM talk to him and then Rick admits def. did nothing wrong or outside industry standards. I guess P expected the old heap to be serviced for free until it finally croaked for good.

[Mrs Shibbles]

Mona-Lisa Saperstein was on The People’s Court today to talk about her exploding glass shower door.

[AngelaHunter]

3 hours ago, Mrs Shibbles said:

Mona-Lisa Saperstein was on The People’s Court today to talk about her exploding glass shower door.

Thank goodness for TPC. Even in reruns, it helps distract me for an hour. Can you imagine working with Betty Boop and her impeccable pedicure? Her voice! If you need reliable work done to create your wonderful, glorious, pricey new bathroom, trolling CL to find someone cheap might not be the best option. The cheap really does come out expensive! Not saying it's the def's fault since a certain bath fixture company is known for having exploding doors, but if you go with a reputable, insured. licensed company you probably won't have to sue them to get reimbursed for faulty job/product.

 

[Silver Raven]

I had to admire the balls on that plaintiff who showed up to court wearing shorts and a Hawaiian shirt.

[Taeolas]

So anyone else eagerly awaiting next season, when we'll surely get a spat of COVID cases. COVID Check fraud, cancelled stuff due to shut down orders, borrowed money until EI or the COVID check comes in, etc.... ? 

It should certainly make for an interesting season of court shows when they start going through the system. 

[AZChristian]

2 hours ago, Taeolas said:

So anyone else eagerly awaiting next season, when we'll surely get a spat of COVID cases. COVID Check fraud, cancelled stuff due to shut down orders, borrowed money until EI or the COVID check comes in, etc.... ? 

It should certainly make for an interesting season of court shows when they start going through the system. 

The replacement for "Hurricane Irma" claims.

[CrazyInAlabama]

Another factor with the exploding shower doors, is that my subdivision has a lot of master baths with the tiled shower, and glass enclosure.    The shower is right behind the bathroom door, and some didn't bother to put the little hinge/door stop devices on, and there have been a few cases of door knobs hitting the enclosure, and boom the door crumbles.  

[AngelaHunter]

9 hours ago, Taeolas said:

So anyone else eagerly awaiting next season, when we'll surely get a spat of COVID cases. COVID Check fraud, cancelled stuff due to shut down orders, borrowed money until EI or the COVID check comes in, etc.... ? 

Don't forget the snake oil salesman, who promised that THEIR concoctions would absolutely prevent buyers from contracting the virus.

[Broderbits]

10 hours ago, Taeolas said:

So anyone else eagerly awaiting next season, when we'll surely get a spat of COVID cases. COVID Check fraud, cancelled stuff due to shut down orders, borrowed money until EI or the COVID check comes in, etc.... ? 

I look forward to the entertaining mangling of the term "social distancing".

[AZChristian]

35 minutes ago, Broderbits said:

I look forward to the entertaining mangling of the term "social distancing".

I can already hear the "I couldn't make payments because the government said to stay home" defense. 

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, AZChristian said:

I can already hear the "I couldn't make payments because the government said to stay home" defense. 

Oh, absolutely, since our litigants usually have to go the utility companies with a fistful of crumpled bills to make payments - well, when they actually make payments.

[CrazyInAlabama]

I don't know if it was a rerun or not, but they had the truly sad case of a six year old that was attacked by a neighbor's off leash pit bull.     The defendant claims his dog is a Border Collie.   Then a photo is submitted, and it's a yellow and white Pit Bull.   He should have lost right then.     

For some bizarre reason, the plaintiffs are the grandmother, uncle, and witness is older brother of the six year old.      In a real court, no one on the plaintiff's side would have standing to sue the defendant, unless the grandmother is custodial parent to the kids.   

Edited April 1, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[AZChristian]

21 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

For some bizarre reason, the plaintiffs are the grandmother, uncle, and witness is older brother of the six year old.      In a real court, no one on the plaintiff's side would have standing to sue the defendant, unless the grandmother is custodial parent to the kids.   

I'm wondering whether the grandmother paid the hospital bills.  Was mom incarcerated or something?  If grandmother put out the money, but defendant was legally responsible for causing the expense, then g'ma might have standing to sue.  

[AngelaHunter]

15 hours ago, Broderbits said:

I look forward to the entertaining mangling of the term "social distancing".

It will take a bit of practice before those words roll off the lying tongues as easily as "Physical/verbal altercation", "incarcerated", "remanded", "inebriated", "minor in possession" and "drug paraphanalia" do.  They're even pretty good at the rarer "Good Samaritan":  "I gave him back 100$ of the 1500$ he loaned me, err - I mean gifted me because I was trying to be a good Samaritan and help him out."

[AZChristian]

13 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

It will take a bit of practice before those words roll off the lying tongues as easily as "Physical/verbal altercation", "incarcerated", "remanded", "inebriated", "minor in possession" and "drug paraphanalia" do.  They're even pretty good at the rarer "Good Samaritan":  "I gave him back 100$ of the 1500$ he loaned me, err - I mean gifted me because I was trying to be a good Samaritan and help him out."

I loved yesterday when the formerly incarcerated uncle insisted he had been "demanded back into custody."  

Oh well . . . it is what it is.

[Broderbits]

29 minutes ago, AZChristian said:

I loved yesterday when the formerly incarcerated uncle insisted he had been "demanded back into custody." 

It sounds like the entire community got together and demanded he be re-incarcerated!

[AngelaHunter]

And he signed a detainer from the lawyer!

Oh, that justice system is so cruel. He was demanded back into custody after bailing himself out, for no reason at all!

[AZChristian]

11 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

And he signed a detainer from the lawyer!

Oh, that justice system is so cruel. He was demanded back into custody after bailing himself out, for no reason at all!

Oh THAT was the word I was looking for.  He wasn't "demanded back into custody" (FOR NO REASON).  He had to pay his detainer!!!!

I was concerned that JM was going to roll her eyes so far back that she'd never get them facing front again.  LOL.

[AZChristian]

8 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

For some bizarre reason, the plaintiffs are the grandmother, uncle, and witness is older brother of the six year old.      In a real court, no one on the plaintiff's side would have standing to sue the defendant, unless the grandmother is custodial parent to the kids.   

That case is just playing here now.  The grandmother had power of attorney for the child and the child's mother.

ETA:  JM asked why the child's mother wasn't there.  G'ma said, "She doesn't like to mess with this stuff."

My first thought (because I watch Cops):  Outstanding warrants.

Edited April 1, 2020 by AZChristian

[CrazyInAlabama]

My first thought is bail bond restrictions, or parole restrictions.   Probably outstanding warrants too, or on the No Fly list for bad behavior. 

[AngelaHunter]

I never saw today's episodes.

First one, in which plaintiff is suing his cousin who appeared here in her mass of fried, bleached hair and displayed cleavage, for 2100$ she borrowed from him because her landlord was going to evict her. P recently moved to her state after not being in contact for many years. I have a feeling D has hit up and ripped off all the family in her area and no one would give her any more money. Plaintiff was fresh fish, so she asks him. He takes money out of his retirement fund to lend her, but it's okay since D says she's expecting a 10K tax refund shortly (how do you get that much back?) and will pay him back in a few weeks. Even though she says she has 3 jobs she can't make ends meet. She refuses to pay him back, and endlessly repeats "It's family! Family helps family!" She thought it was a gift, so why did P know how much she was expecting in tax refund? It's not something that usually comes up in any conversation unless you tell someone that to convince them to give you money.

I don't understand why grifting def kept smiling, as though she had done something cute in scamming her cousin who tried to help her. Family helps family! He's family, therefore why shouldn't he rain 2100$ on her? Plaintiff gets back all his money plus interest. Trashy, shameless def is still smiling in the hall. I'm not sure why Doug said he felt sorry for her. I'm sure nobody else did.

Then we had the car auction case. Plaintiff: "I didn't forge anything. I just signed his name". Duh. That's forgery. The scams were flying so fast and thick here I couldn't keep up. However, it seems plaintiff wasn't quite as bad a scammer as the defendant so he gets back the money for the car def bought for him at auction, using someone else's auction ID card. P couldn't register the car at first since it was in some third-party name, but after he forges signs that person's signature he did register it. It crapped out the day after he bought it. 

Def scammer in the hall: "The judge doesn't know anything." Okay. Keep scammin'!

Then we had plaintiff who, at such volume I was wishing JM would tell him to take it down a notch, is suing def's tow truck company for moving his large, 25-year-old mechanic's tool chest and breaking it all to hell in the process. Plaintiff saw d. load it incorrectly on his flatbed, bending the wheels etc but couldn't go to the destination to see how it was unloaded because he had to go to his 5-year-old grandson's ball game. Impartial witnessess at the destination location told police they saw the tool chest crash to the ground after it was unloaded. Def denies everything but the yelling plaintiff wins because JM saw in the pics that a lot of the damage was new.

 

[Florinaldo]

4 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Trashy, shameless def is still smiling in the hall. I'm not sure why Doug said he felt sorry for her.

I think he may have felt sorry for her considering stupid she showed herself to be. She even told him that JM was sympathetic to some aspects of her argument! Either she is as dumb and deluded as she appeared, seemingly believing that there is a "family" escape clause in loan situations, or it is her usual tactic to keep repeating the same dumb mantra until the other party throw up their hands in disgust and give up.

[AngelaHunter]

19 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

She even told him that JM was sympathetic to some aspects of her argument!

I must have missed something because I saw no sympathy, especially after she confirmed she got her whopping 10K tax return and spent it on other stuff. If she used it to pay for that hairdo, she should seek a refund.

She's just a common, low-life grifter and con artist who wheedles money from others because she can. She sized up plaintiff as a mild-mannered geeky sort who wouldn't have what it takes to get his money back. She was wrong. Her attitude was the worst part. She is literally incapable of being shamed.

[Florinaldo]

4 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

I must have missed something because I saw no sympathy,

Indeed, JM did not express any. But that shameless defendant managed to read her comments that way in the sense that JM allegedly agreed that the plaintiff's case was fishy, whereas the only fishiness came from little Miss "family-don't-have-to repay-their-debts-to each-other".

[SRTouch]

Finally new cases - though intro of first case shows nothing new

1. neighbor feud over fence: P claims neighbor's damaged her fence in retaliation after she snitched to zoning board about their plans to create a bike track in their yard (nothing heard in case about this after intro) - wants $3567.95 for a new fence...... D claims fence actually belonged to them, so they had every right to remove it....... 2 things right off bat, does anyone have a survey showing who owned fence - and my guess is there's a REALLY good chance fence in question will turn out to be old and dilapidated and worth about a tenth what P is asking........testimony: not exactly new neighbors, they've been living next to each other since 2016 and never really got along - along about Feb '19, D started redoing/tearing out his landscaping - P went away for a few days, only to receive call from another neighbor that D was tearing down the fence, which caused her problems because her dogs were no longer contained in her yard..... uh, yeah, not exactly nice even if D proves it was their fence they should not have removed it without at least giving plaintiff a heads up so she could work out a way to secure her dog...... over to D to hear her version well, guess it's actually the wives on both sides who want to talk - first off, forget what I said about not giving a heads up - seems D did notify P's hubby, and even delivered a letter outlining the plan to remove fence - problem is, as MM quickly points out, D didn't bother to make sure who owned fence before beginning demo - according to D (now hubby is talking) they tried to be good neighbors when they moved in, but P wasn't having it - MM decides to explore how they tried to be good neighbors, but I'm not really interested - seems they feuded over P parking in front of D's house, P hubby flipping them off when he saw them, D accuses P of tossing dog poop in their yard next to house/garage, on and on - bad enough that D kept notes of when P acted up and when they talked, and brought video clip of doggy poop - ok, seems P hubby was BIG part of conflict, so MM asks why he isn't standing next to wife at the lectern - ah, but he is sitting in the gallery, and MM calls him up & Douglas swears him in - ok, according to D, P hubby told them fence belonged to D - turns out P husband and wife aren't exactly on same page, with P hubby admitting he told D years ago it was D's fence...... ok, kind of funny that P hubby testimony doesn't jive with Wife, but 'finding' old survey stakes after the fact? - heck, even if fence does turn out to be P's, P hubby gave D a green light to tear it down when he told D it was theirs - anyway, D does have a survey, and we see pix of an old chain link fence...... yep, ordinary chain link fence that was at least 7 years old as it was there when P moved in back in '13 - not a long line of fencing, just along one side of the shared property line - so interested in how P came up with the $3500 damage claim...... MM tries to bring reason to the idiots on both sides, but they can't help but interrupt her as she tries to talk to them...... far as the case, appears fence WAS on D's side of property line, and P hubby admits he told D it was theirs 2-3 years ago - so even if it had been on P's property, far as I'm concerned, he gave them the go ahead to do as they wanted with it - sooooo, P has no case, and even if they did I wouldn't award more than a tenth of what they're asking - only $350-400 of the $3600....... MM obviously not getting through to P wifey, as she still wants to argue as MM holds up the survey saying D had every right to tear fence down - more MM counseling but no one is listening ....... but what's this, the feuding neighbor's hug and come out together leaving me wondering just how real the feud is/was
2. non payment for handyman services: p says he was hired to do work, did the work, but D won't pay what she owes - $1870...... D argues estimate was $400, and she never agreed to pay more, he took forever and did crap job - she owes nothing......... ok, may need CC for this one as litigants have Jamaican accents...... first off, P not run of the mill handyman - says he's a licensed contractor - problem may be these two ran into each other at a Jamaican resturant and skipped the whole contract & getting references stuff....... uh huh, according to P when they ran into each other he was dressed in work clothes and she came over and asked if he did construction - ah, what a way to hire a contractor...... anyway, he did a couple jobs for her - at first she was happy and paid for the early jobs - so, he replaces her picket fence, closes in a closet in the basement, some painting, and some misc work - after the first fence job (for which he was paid) he hasn't been paid....... D doesn't deny he did a bunch of work, she just says he didn't finish (ah, but she fired him and told him not to come back) and refuses to pay....... D really doesn't have a defense, but then P is claiming to have done stuff she denies he did - P going to get something, but not what he's asking for unless he can prove he did all this other stuff........ hoboy, don't you love it when litigants pass up their phone claiming texts will prove their case and MM scrolls up and down and finds a bunch of texts contradicting their testimony? D just passed her phone up, after describing how unprofessional P was, MM asks P if what D was saying is true, P says no way, and he has proof, but MM doesn't need his proof as D's phone has texts contradicting her testimony....... oh my, 2nd case in row where wife driving force behind lawsuit and hubby contradicting her testimony - this time P says ask D's hubby, he's standing right there, but he's honest and will tell you the truth - wellllll, hubby doesn't exactly contradict wife, he just looks down and smiles and won't answer when MM asks....... ok, P already going to get some money, how much is the question - hubby says P told him he was owed $700, and I'm inclined to accept that amount - thinking back I think they agree she paid $600 for the fence, she paid for materials, and what she owes is for his labor - MM does rough justice and orders D to pay a grand
3. tenant suing for deposit: whoa, P suing for over 4 grand for a deposit!?! What kind of place was she renting, or is she after double/triple deposit for some reason?........ D says P violated lease by subletting rooms and bringing in pets which were not allowed under lease - also claim she left place a mess when she left....... oh my, deposit actually was that high - over 5 grand - talking about 4 stories with D renting 3 stories with total of 5 bedrooms - P says from beginning it was understood she would be subletting bedrooms - says Landlord and the realtor knew she was planning to move with her 2 previous housemates and even discussed what furniture the housemates might need for their rooms - ok, so D knew of three tenants moving in, and according to them they wanted to increase the rent a couple hundred when they learned an extra 2 tenants were living there....... ok, missing an important person here - both sides were dealing through a realtor, and realtor isn't here - landlord's says they told realtor they wanted to bump rent up $200, but P says she never agreed to increase and D admits they didn't press P for the extra for 8 months....... so, part of the amount D withheld was for rent increase not in contract and never agreed to by tenant, so scratch that - but landlord can prove damages they'll get to with old money for, such as cracked marble tiles (pix before and after, with receipt for repair) before and after pix of broken steps, to which P can only claim she isn't sure how damage occured....... seems to me MM will be administering more rough justice here...... ok, P claiming she cleaned, but almost immediately tries to excuse not cleaning 'everything' because it was a 4 story house and what does some stuff left in a drawer count or the trash behind the fridge....... ah, another thing landlord WON'T get - they left antique furniture in an admittedly unlocked garage for a year and want P to pay $1200 - uh no...... rough justice - P gets 3 grand

Edited April 6, 2020 by SRTouch

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

neighbor feud over fence:

Yay - new cases! These litigants are so ridiculous, but there are people who thrive on strife. I liked how JM had to force plaintiff's wee little chicken goofball hubby to come out of hiding in the very back row, leaving his wife to do all the bitching and whining. I don't care how much hugging they all did. I just bet the feud will go on. You know when someone complains because cars are parked on a public street in front their house, it won't end. There will always be another reason to gripe and nitpick.

Levin outside lectures about how you should all just learn to get along. This, from someone who is universally hated and despised for his lowdown, vile gossiping and spreading of rumours. Practice what you preach, you tiny little dirtbag.

 

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

non payment for handyman services: 

I'm glad I had my CC on, but I really wish JM had told plaintiff to lower the volume. I think def. ripped off the plaintiff, but there is always that risk when you want to cheat with no-tax cash and without a contract. Def's hubby looked like a whipped dog, and I understand why. Def actually has a video of P stealing copper piping, but of course she didn't bring it with her today. She didn't think she needed it, even though it's part of her defense for not paying in full. I guess she thought JM would just take her word for it. Her silent husband can testify that the video exists. 😆 Yeah, right. JM is not interested.

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

tenant suing for deposit: whoa, P suing for over 4 grand for a deposit!?! What kind of place was she renting,

This kind of arrangement always puzzles me. The rather elderly plaintiff moves and drags her entourage of misfit roommates with her wherever she goes. Instead of taking a 3-story, 4-bedroom place and turning it into a rooming house, why wouldn't she get a 1-bedroom place where she could live by herself? That way she wouldn't have to worry about not knowing who the hell broke the tiles, left a bunch of garbage lying around or stole stuff. You'd think someone her age wouldn't want all this hassle. Anyway, the defs seem like money-grubbers. They leave Grandma's valuable antiques (so they say) in an unlocked garage. They could have been taken by any number of the transients they allow to come and go in their house, or by some passerby who saw them there.

[SRTouch]

1. mattress refund: P something of a hard-to-please Goldilocks customer who has been buying furniture from D since 2011. She came into the store and bought stuff, but had her heart set on a pillow top mattress. D told her he'd order one, but when it arrived she decided it wasn't for her. They go back and forth for months, but everything he offers is to thick, thin, has a chemical smell (memory foam), too hard, soft, etc. Months later they think she has finally found one that will work for her, he orders it on Friday, she expects call on Monday about when it will arrive, and guy doesn't call. 'Nuf is 'nuf she demands her money back, he only has $300 in the register - she wants the whole $800 RIGHT FREEKIN' NOW! so she files the lawsuit. Now the line is drawn - her mattress came in, but she no longer wants it - he doesn't want to give back the money - MM orders him to return the money....... these two entertaining to watch, but I'd go crazy if I had to be around either
2. bumper car smash up: P says defendant backed up into her parked car causing $2091.45 in damage - says D accepted liability and promised to pay, but 6 months later still hasn't......... D has decided she really didn't back into P's car - says only witness P has she did is some drunk guy - so she owes nothing........ ah, P actually brought the allegedly drunk witness to testify....... I can sort of see why D might think dude was drunk, I mean he sort of slurs his words, but that may just be cuz he's missing teeth (and I wonder if he might have had a stroke as his face and shoulders aren't exactly even) - anyway, his testimony is he was waiting outside a resturant smoking while P went in to pick up their food order - says D tried to parallel park and backed into P's car - despite intro, P's testimony has D denying she backed into car at the scene - she does apparently give P her info, but that isn't exactly an admission of guilt - ah, but P says D eventually agreed she hit the car, claimed she had insurance but wanted to handle it out of pocket so her insurance wouldn't go up........ I figure lots of folks make that mistake - say let's not report this only to find out pretty much any body damage costs way more than they think it should........ over to D - also heading to resturant (with 2-3 kids in car) to pick up food - part of her defense seems to be her back up camera makes it so she can't back into anything, but I can tell you from personal experience my camera, while a great aid, did NOT keep me from backing into a tree (no damage) - I am not buying D's testimony, not only does she have trouble looking at the judge as she's talking, but her volume just keeps rising - ok, P has pic of damage taken at scene - ah, but switcheroo may be coming as we head to commercial - witness claimed you could see a piece of P's grill on ground at scene, but later retracts that - also, when MM asks if Witness was intoxicated (he actually drove P to rerturant), we get a wishy-washy 'I don't believe he was' response - uhoh, is P running a scam here? - ah, but if it WAS a scam, why did D say she'd pay for the damage (I may have missed that as I did some FF, but MM says D accepted liability and D agrees she did at one point say she'd pay) - and - again - D ups the volume and is now trying to talk over MM and it's going to pass off the judge any moment - yep, now MM is uping HER volume - ok, MM is privy to texts from weeks after the accident where D is saying she'll pay for the damage, just give her time to get money together, etc sooooooo she gets to pay the $2100 estimate,  which MM says looks reasonable...... hallterview, after MM tells D she ain't buying her story - it is what it is
3. crooked bike shop: P says bike shop replaced his new motor with a piece of crapola - wants $282....... shop guy denies all - says P bought a piece of crap motor and it crapped out on him........ talking motorized bicycle, not motorcycle....... should be easy case - assuming P has paperwork on the new motor he claims D stole, seems easy to get a statement from a different shop that what is on the bike isn't what he bought -- but what am I saying, our litigants don't do paperwork or get expert testimony....... ah, he does sort of have a receipt, on his phone as he bought it from eBay - D agrees P brought a new, still in sealed box, off brand motor to his shop to be installed - ok, buying D's story - seems P bought this motor kit from eBay, D installed it and even did some tinkering afterwards which he really didn't have to do, but when carburetor started acting up and D told P he would have to charge something to work on it,  P got upset - hey, unless D gave some sort of warrant why should he keep fixing the bike for free...... anyway, once shop dude refused to fix carb free, P storms off and eventually decides D must have stolen the new motor and swapped in an old one....... okkkkkkk, so it seems these motors doesn't come with serial numbers, and both litigants say are frequently stolen - ) wanted D to put some identifying mark on his new motor - D has a symbol/brand he puts on his stuff that looks sort of like a TO - when P's motor crapped out, he looked and saw what looked like TS, so he assumed D's son must have put in an old motor with his initials on it - problem is D doesn't have a son with those initials (or anyone else in the family, for that matter, no the symbol is just something he came up with, and he even has a tattoo on his finger - not really sure what that proves, but funny sidelights - anyway, P can't prove anything, doesn't have a warranty, and has no case

Edited April 7, 2020 by SRTouch

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

mattress refund:

All I can say is that I'm eternally grateful I never had to deal with the public at any time in my working life. It seems you need the patience of a saint to do so. Goldilocks and her fivehead got on my last nerve, as did the def who felt he needed to talk about everything under the sun  - he's a great guy, he wasn't feeling well, he treats his customers like family and blah blah. JM found them charming, but both of them blabbering at once made me pour an extra glass of wine. What's the big huge deal?

 

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

bumper car smash up: 

That def was so obnoxious, mouthy and a liar trying to weasel her way out of paying for the damage she did.  Plaintiff's boyfriend? Handyman? whatever - I believe he was drunk and what the hell is up with so many litigants appearing here in a state of toothlessness? That grosses me out big time. But yeah, if someone accused me of backing into their car and causing damage, I would agree to pay for it even if I know I didn't do it. Actually I think D thought - as so many litigants feel  - that bodywork on a car should cost about 200$. There is no bodywork that will cost less than 1500$

3 hours ago, SRTouch said:

D ups the volume and is now trying to talk over MM and it's going to pass off the judge any moment -

When did JM start tolerating litigants yelling over her, especially since the yelling is usually nothing but lies to try and avoid paying what they owe? But I guess when JM compliments and gushes over someone's appearance they think they've won.

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

crooked bike shop: 

Kind of boring, but I love litigants who buy some piece of janky, 3rd rate, cheap products on eBay and try to blame someone else when it turns out to be less than they'd hoped for.

 

[Carolina Girl]

Okay, I looked at that tatoo on the guy's finger and frankly, Judge Milian, it looked like a faded fucking swastika to me.  To my eye, it didn't look like the so-called "symbol" he put on the bike.