The People's Court - General Discussion

[SRTouch]

seems we have another 3 case day - could just be me, but seems these recent 3 case episodes we have 1 long first case and 2 quick ones...... today's case # 3 is dog attack  -  must have been bad as P wants almost $1700 for vet bills SKIPPED

couple fight over wedding ring after annulment: P says a month after wedding bride called it quits - now he wants cost of ring, $6743.28........ D bride says P wanted to be boss of the house, and she wasn't being a submissive wife - says ring is hers and she's keeping it - she wants $250 for legal fees......... ok, countersuit first - going nowhere - unless she can prove her legal fees came from frivolous/bad faith lawsuits on P's part - main case, I don't see D being ordered to return the ring - especially don't see D being ordered to pay P whatever he paid for ring - granted an annulment erases the wedding, but it DID take place, and I THINK that's enough to make ring the bride's......... testimony Begins with P kissing up to MM, and then his camera and earphones fall off...... seems loving couple met through P's late wife hof 38-39 years as D was one of those who helped support wife during her battle with cancer - they knew each other for some time, but only dated 8 or 9 months before he propsed......... anyway, a month after getting married bride announces marriage a mistake, but it was over a year before annulment takes place....... ok, over to D who claims issues arose over fact that D was sole caregiver to her mother for past 16 years and has dogs, she says before marriage P said mom and her furry family would be welcome in the home once they married, but then once they marry first he doesn't want dogs because they're not trained, then mom not welcome........ uh, yeah, I'd want out of the marriage, too........ P denies he changed his mind - and MM actually says she's not playing Dr Phil and is going to concentrate on the wedding band........ ok, MM is saying they divorced P disagrees and says they got an annulment, but what MM is getting at is that wedding was legally settled and it was 5-6 months before P decided to ask for 6 grand for wedding band - he says at time D claimed she no longer had ring....... oh, and seems there is some issue with who asked for an annulment, with D claiming P wanted wedding annulled rather than getting a divorce so that he could go back to getting deceased wife's social security benefits.......... hmmmmmmm seems D no longer has the ring, she sold it back to store that sold it to them before wedding and got $711 - MM has hard time believing D accepted 700 bucks, but says that doesn't really matter to case, then she brings out the annulment decree that tells her P can't go after D for anything not listed in the annulment aggreement/decree........ case over, but MM takes time to argue his theory that the ring was given in contemplation of marriage, and an annulment erases the marriage so that in eyes of law wedding never took place - ah, I've heard this argument before, but, as I understand it courts have already decided and established the precedent that once ceremony takes place ring goes to person wearing ring........ ok, looks like he doesn't accept what MM is saying, they yakkety yak about it for awhile while I zip ahead - case dismissed - hmph, I zipped through MM's reasoning, but D does get her $250 legal fee counterclaim - maybe because the annulment was clear that he could not sue, but he did anyway, and she consulted with a lawyer because he sued despite the signed agreement - Which is explained by Judge John during after the verdict chat

tenant wants deposit: story from P is that Landlord said she'd return the $970 deposit, but not until she found a new tenant - well, not how that's supposed to work, and actually could end in double/triple deposit refund depending on jurisdiction........ defendant not surprising D has different story, saying deposit used to cover late rent as well as rent for period he over stayed tenancy - hmmmm but if i heard right this late rent was a long time ago, so unless she has periodic reminders he owes not sure she can go back and collect without some sort of acknowledgement he owes the money........ ok, have to wait and see, I doubt P has any evidence that his story if true, but have to see if landlady can prove missed/late rent and an overstay....... well, as we go to commercial before start of testimony sounds like MM is getting on D for spending the deposit, so things may be going P way........ yep, as indicated by preview, it takes Landlady 6 months to return any of the deposit, which earns a spanking from the judge........ ok, and this missed rent that she collected  $825 was for a month a LONG time ago, and there's question if that was even missed rent - seems back in November 2018 there was a plumbing issue that tenant paid to get fixed and he withheld a portion of the rent to recoup what he paid plumber - now, after all this time, landlady is saying he overpaid the plumber - sort of what I thought, she accepted his withholding rent at time and never disputed price, but now suddenly she's wants that money - funny thing here is best evidence for tenant is that landlady present into evidence his check which shows he didn't pay full rent (what she wants MM to see) but also says on memo line that he's deducting money paid on the repair - then D has nothing showing she ever disputed repair bill until she withholds it from security 2+ years later........ so, P going to get that money back - the rest is for a water bill he admits he owes........ instead of $970 P gets $850 and we leave landlady wanted to say something as MM walks away........ 

Dog attack Through fence......... skipped

Edited December 4, 2020 by SRTouch

[CrazyInAlabama]

My understanding is that a military survivor's pension, or social security stops paying when you legally remarry, but resumes after the second marriage ends due to annulment, divorce or being widowed, so annulment or divorce is the same thing to the people who send you the pension. 

The dog case was ridiculous.    There are two dogs, plaintiff's is blamed for digging under the common fence.   Her dog's paw and leg get chewed.  However, the only witness to this was the plaintiff, who certainly has every reason to lie about seeing it, and which dog was on what side of the fence.   Defendant says plaintiff's dog is the one who digs under the common fence, and he's had to resort to putting cinder blocks on his side of the fence base.    So Judge Marilyn believes the plaintiff's testimony, and gives her vet bills.    My guess is no one saw the dog attack, and I bet plaintiff's dog dug under.   

Edited December 5, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

6 hours ago, SRTouch said:

couple fight over wedding ring after annulment:

JM, after listening to this tragic tale of love gone wrong and trying to mediate says, "I'm done playing Dr. Phil". Me: "Hallelujah!" P was "smitten" with Def. I think she was way less smitten and saw an opportunity to get help for her mother, her, and her dogs. P apparently had no problem with his new entourage, but then changed his mind. I guess JM didn'y bother asking him for a receipt for the 6K ring because it was all moot. He wasn't entitled to get it back. The depreciation on diamonds is kind of a scam and I actually believe she accepted 700$ for it. Not only that, but he owes her 250$ for a lawyer. Def is in her own home, is countersuing for that 250$ but, well, she just doesn't have it front of her. Give her a couple of minutes and she'll surely have it! I can't believe JM gave her that chance.

6 hours ago, SRTouch said:

tenant wants deposit: story from P is that Landlord said she'd return the $970 deposit

Lnndlord can't give back the deposit because she spent it all. I don't think it's supposed to work that way - that landlords get an interest-free loan for the duration of the tenancy. Only my government gets to do that. I don't know why these people - the landlord in this case - want to continue to argue when they don't have to pay the judgement and in fact get to keep the money they wrongfully withheld.

[CrazyInAlabama]

They have the rerun of the two people where the man bought a house, with plaintiff putting $4,000 down, and he paid her back $2,000.   Then she informally fostered her three nephews (I think three), along with her own kids, and then defendant decided he didn't sign up for this.   My question is that when she was told to move, and did, she rented a one bedroom.  So what happened to all of the kids?    Judge Marilyn says the man owed her the $2k, but he paid everything on the house for a long time, and offered her the motorcycle to sell, and she refused it.    So why does he still owe the money?    

Plaintiff gets $2k, but I think it was because Judge Marilyn respected that she fostered the nephews for a while.   Further updates on posts below, because I apparently wasn't paying attention. 

Edited December 8, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

50 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

They have the rerun of the two people where the man bought a house, with plaintiff putting $4,000 down, and he paid her back $2,000.

I didn't recall this episode, with another Queen of Bad Decisions. She already has one (or two?) kids with some absentee guys. Def, the Big Bump, agrees to buy a house and take on her kids. She has no idea of her own finances and starts to say, "I wasn't allowed..." and is cut off but hearing adults use those words really turns me off.  She says she gave 4K for the downpayment. Then, she wants to bring in 3 of her nephews too - since I assume her sister or brother are "grimy" and can't or won't care for the kids themselves, and BB doesn't agree, which I totally understand. Why should he have to pick up the slack for her whole damned family? So what does P do? Just brings them in without his knowledge - I think the word she used was "sneak". He never signed on to raise a whole bunch of her loser family's kids so gives her the boot.

55 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

 My question is that when she was told to move, and did, she rented a one bedroom.  So what happened to all of the kids? 

She didn't adopt these kids and promptly dumps the two youngest ones into foster care, but keeps the 17-year old who is now separated from his siblings, and I guess kept  her own as well, all in a one-bedroom place. Yeah, that's just great. "How to screw up kids" - yer doin' it right! I'm not sure why JM "respected" that and I don't know why he owed the money either, since he paid for everything, bought her a car and a bike, etc.

Of course I could have missed some pertinent details.

[CrazyInAlabama]

22 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

She didn't adopt these kids and promptly dumps the two youngest ones into foster care, but keeps the 17-year old who is now separated from his siblings, and I guess kept  her own as well, all in a one-bedroom place. Yeah, that's just great. "How to screw up kids" - yer doin' it right! I'm not sure why JM "respected" that and I don't know why he owed the money either, since he paid for everything, bought her a car and a bike, etc.

Of course I could have missed some pertinent details.

I missed a lot!    I bet the youngest ones were family foster, and not even officially in her care.    The 17 year old is plenty old enough to get a job, and I bet the so-called mother wants that too.   Then that leaves one of her biological kids too.  She really missed out, because if the three youngest would have been legit fosters, she would have been paid a lot to care for them.    There is no way official foster kids would have been allowed to stay with her in a one bedroom apartment.     

I wouldn't have given that woman a dime.     The man paid a whole lot more for everything for the woman, so I don't think she was owed anything. 

Edited December 8, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[Florinaldo]

2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

I'm not sure why JM "respected" that and I don't know why he owed the money either, since he paid for everything, bought her a car and a bike, etc.

I did not undertand the "respect" either. She changed the conditions of cohabitation unilaterally and imposed them on him, without bringing in any extra revenue as far as I could make out. He made an effort to live under these new conditions for 10 months (I would have lasted barely 10 hours) and then gave up. She did not deserve any money in my view. Another instance where JM's big bleeding heart rivals with Corriero's.

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

Another instance where JM's big bleeding heart rivals with Corriero's.

Mothers with little kids, and the elderly - she so often gives them a  pass and excuses bad behavior. This woman smuggled these kids into the house with no agreement from the person who was actually going to have to feed and care for them when they already have parents. Who is he - Santa Claus? This guy was already supporting the P and HER kids and he should take on yet more of the fruits of some deadbeat's loins, like a sucker? It's all a waste of time anyway because she then dumps them to yet another home. Poor little kids.  I wouldn't do that to my pets. Very admirable, indeed. D should never have agreed he owed her another 2K.  This is one time I'm glad a litigant didn't actually have to pay the judgment. I kind of wish this case had been on JJ where there would have ZERO sympathy for the P.

[AZChristian]

I would have thought that giving her the motorcycle (as he offered to do) instead of the additional $2,000 was a fair compromise.  She could have sold that.  But heaven forbid she actually have to DO anything for herself.

[CrazyInAlabama]

They're showing the rerun of the kitchen fire caused by the girlfriend of the tenant (the boyfriend was the legal tenant, and girlfriend and kid moved in too), leaving either a rice cooker or crockpot on, which caused a fire and destroyed the kitchen.    This is the case where the plaintiff claims she used slides to escape the fire on the third floor.  

I love that the person who wasn't even a tenant, and caused the fire, is suing the landlord for a fire she started.   Notice the boyfriend isn't on camera either.  

So this afternoon's rerun is the one of the couple who have been separated, and divorcing (four years and counting) for endless years.    He let the daughter who was getting married to use a credit card that earned Jet Blue points, and dad would pay for the charges, and daughter and husband could use the points for their honeymoon.   However, after the separation agreement was signed, plaintiff/wife who is a divorce attorney, used his Amazon linked account to buy items on his credit card,.  She also used 93,000+ points for three trips after the separation agreement gave him custody of the points.   

I can't stand either litigant.  

Then it gets worse, the husband reported her to the NY State Bar Ethics Committee, about his 9/11 fund payout, and allege she forged, and mismanaged his payout.   That was disallowed by the Ethics Committee.    In this case, plaintiff/husband received just under $2,000 for the points, and defendant went off on poor Doug in the hall-terview.  

Edited December 11, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

On 12/9/2020 at 4:11 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

I can't stand either litigant. 

That was  one repeat I couldn't watch. Agree that both of them were unlikeable to an amazing degree.

[AZChristian]

27 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

That was  one repeat I couldn't watch. Agree that both of them were unlikeable to an amazing degree.

As soon as I saw the litigants, I switched over to Dr. Phil.

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, AZChristian said:

As soon as I saw the litigants, I switched over to Dr. Phil.

Wow. That's hardcore. 😄 I switched over to "Hot Bench".

[AZChristian]

14 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

Wow. That's hardcore. 😄 I switched over to "Hot Bench".

Hot Bench comes on after PC here.  Dr. Phil is on at the same time as PC.  I record him and then decide afterwards whether to delete without watching (which happens a lot these days).

[AngelaHunter]

I wonder who is deciding to give us repeats of the most annoying litigants this year? We got the ridiculous, neck-beard, little cuck-nerd (he has an ex-wife. I'd like to see the woman who thought this was the man of her dreams)sitting in his fetid lair being suing by the overly-verbose yet grammatically challenged P, who calls JM "Miss Judge", over some stupid gaming chair. Not worth a rewatch.

Then we got that old guy in his cluttered/hoarded house who uses his home as a flophouse and says the idiotic, backward-baseball cap nitwit who likes to drink and fight and who seems to be where he belongs now, back with Mommy, owes him a bunch of money. He has no proof of most things, and can't remember any of the others.

Yeah, I know. It's my fault for rewatching this. In my defense I did a lot of FF.

[SRTouch]

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

I wonder who is deciding to give us repeats of the most annoying litigants this year?

Agreed - spent about 2 minutes watching today (1 minute per case)

[SRTouch]

Reruns

Handyman/painter wants to be paid: case of Willy the painter who has to sue harpy/homeowner to get paid for 14 hours of work...... homeowner deserves to be grouped with the other recent dislikable litigants they are showing us lately - here Willy is a guy she has hired before so she knows he routinely works for $75/hour - her latest project is a kitchen remodel, but when approached Willy is smart enough to turn down the job as it's outside his scope, but he recommends a contractor who takes on the job - now, harpy wants job done cheap and is all up in arms because, as happens so often in a reno, there are hidden costs when they move a wall and cabinets and discover there's no tile where the wall was (duh) - somehow, harpy blames this on poor Willy, since he recommended the contractor - she pays the contractor (later pays someone else to patch her tile where the wall was removed) but refuses to pay Willy for the work he did taping/painting the wall replacement - Willy gets his money, and harpy screeches throughout ruling

next was case of parking lot dinger: litigants both work in same building - P in habit of taking quick nap during in his car during lunch hour - 1 lunch hour he is awakened when he feels something impact his car, and he sits up to see D backing out of adjacent parking spot and driving away - either after lunch that day or next he goes to her office, and she accompanies him to parking lot to see the damage, accepts responsibility, and asks him to get an estimate - obviously not much damage, as estimate just for $100, but now Dinger defendant decides not to pay

Ok, forgot I'm no longer watching the satellite - can't rewind this antenna tv when I come back into the room, so didn't see last of this case or case #3 which dealt with a fender bender between litigants MM says are the type of people you'd pick if you has to get in an accident

[AngelaHunter]

I enjoyed these repeats, just because I find it fascinating when you see someone who starts out seeming so rational and reasonable, like Ms. Schneider, who devolves over the course of the case into a shrieking witch.

Same with the parking lot dinger, who had "a baby growing in her" and is now the mother of a toddler, so why should she pay the measly 100$ for the damage she did? She is willing to appear here as  a liar trying to worm her way out of her responsibility. Maybe her bag hit the car? Since she's the mother of a toddler, that should be excused as well. JM was way too nice to her, but I hope she improves her morals before her kid is old enough to be influenced by her and her, "Just lie and say you didn't do it". She's flabbergasted when ordered to pay the princely sum of the 100$.

 

[CrazyInAlabama]

This morning's rerun was the revolting man who not only stiffed former friends for rent on their vacation cabin, but claimed he had bed bugs that took three weeks to show up (a total lie), and stole their bear statue in retaliation.    The plaintiffs received everything that they asked for, including the visit from pest control, and the pest technician said there were no bed bugs.  

[SRTouch]

Rerun

silly woman loans bf money: old story of woman loaning deadbeat bf $2500 for his custody battle - obvious from beginning, despite intro saying he was using the 'gift' defense, that this was an open ended loan......... woman thought relationship more serious than dude who insists they were in a casual relationship (another problem is it was a long distance relationship where they hooked up on weekends when she came to his town) - on one of her visits he was whining about needed money for family court - he's not denying it was a loan, but insists he didn't ask for any money, she offered to him loan money...... not sure why people thinks that makes a difference......... uhhhhhh - forgot to mention, this was a new relationship, which ends 2 weeks after she hands him the money....... ok, like I said, this was an open ended thing when she made the loan, but 13 months have gone by without dude making any attempt to pay a penny

suing movers: P and gf decide to find new joint apartment and hire D to move them from their seperate abodes into the new joint crib - after move they claim movers caused bunch of damage, not only to their belongings but to physical apartments (walls, door frames, etc) - D admits to some damage, but deny the big ticket damage (besides, P still owes a grand on the move) - P coming across as a scammer trying to gouge the mover for admitted damage - and DON'T like what appears to be manufactured evidence - ......... rough justice has MM awarding fraction of the $4200 P claims for damages - D wins on countersuit for additional charges - turns out P awarded $900 for damages and movers over a grand for balance on move - D walks away with almost a couple hundred bucks

Edited December 16, 2020 by SRTouch

[Florinaldo]

3 hours ago, SRTouch said:

suing movers: 

I remembered that case as "slimeball couple vs. handsome and well-mannered movers".

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, Florinaldo said:

I remembered that case as "slimeball couple vs. handsome and well-mannered movers".

Oh, yes. Now I recall - especially the handsome movers -  and would add just a couple of words: "slimeball (shameless, lowlife, petty scammer) couple."  Water really does find its own level.  I couldn't rewatch this since my PVR has decided, after about five years, not to record TPC anymore. I hate my TeeVee.

I watched an old movie the other night and I have a word to add to Levin's repertoire of antediluvian intros he writes for the melodramatic HallClown to parrot. In addition to his "the louse" and "the lying sack of garbage" I propose he start saying,  "the crumb". Go back to your roots, Levin!

Edited December 16, 2020 by AngelaHunter

[CrazyInAlabama]

The best part of the rich people whining about the movers is that the couple moved to Malibu.    I don't know if that place was their apartment that was in the background, but it was huge.   

[SRTouch]

Rerun

log cabin fail: P was hired to put together a log cabin kit - says he was a licensed general contractor at the time (has since retired) and says he was experienced with these kits........ partway through the build he realizes windows don't fit - seems he was an inch off when he put things together - customer paying big bucks (60 grand) and NOT happy when he finds out about the mess up........ customer's fires contractor, then hires an inspector to go through build and inspector finds several things wrong - contractor wants to be paid remaining balance of what he would have earned had he completed job....... at time contractor blamed company that put together the kit, saying they provided wrong windows/doors, but eventually he admits he goofed up the build, didn't follow specs, and was an inch off - customer has proof he paid someone else to get job corrected and completed (claims he paid more than P was due, but no proof)........... P performance in court gives good indication of what happened as he claims the firing came out of blue, but evidence shows it was an ongoing thing where D questioned fit and P just insisted wrong things were shipped and wouldn't consider contacting company, leaving customer to phone kit company to work out the problem...... I zipped through a lot of case and some of the particulars are probably wrong - 1 thing, even though contractor talks of lots of experience, I wonder how much of that actually dealt with logs buildings - from what little I know, this is specialized work and allowances have to be made for the logs to settle/shrink over time - also, makes sense to me when D says company recommends screws instead of the nails P used...... seems evident early on that contractor should have never sued for remaining balance - only question I see is whether customer is owed anything - he paid second contractor more than the balance, but, oops, he lost some of the inspector's report showing contractor's goof ups and is asking MM to take his word for some of this - though he can prove what he paid second guy, some of that may not be P's fault........ case dismissed - defendant refunded some of what he paid P, but amount yet to be determined because MM is allowing him time to find his evidence...... after it's over P wants to rehash whole case with Doug

neighbor feud: wackadoo P walks around corner of house and sees her fence partially burned - really doesn't know when it happened or who did it, but decides it HAD to be her neighbor (D) who trespassed on her property to extinguish the fire - wants almost 3 grand for damage and punitive damages.......... D says she has no idea what P is yakking about - says she came home from vacation to find numerous notes on door accusing her of starting then putting out fire - possible that roofers may have started fire, but that's just speculation as they deny it and damage wasn't discovered for some time........ P has no case, she just insists it HAD to be D since no one else would have noticed fire and trespassed to put it out - no matter what MM said, P would not admit someone else might have done it...... case dismissed.......... again, zipped through case and just watched enough to refresh memory

Edited December 17, 2020 by SRTouch

[CrazyInAlabama]

They cut the answer off on Harvey's audience question, but Rusty Burrell the bailiff worked on the Patty Hearst, some of the Manson family, Caryl Chessman, and other high profile trials.     The local channel I watch this on cuts off the end of the last answer by Harvey every day.   

Harvey, loathed by even the local guy who sets up the local commercials at the end of TPC.  

Edited December 22, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

2 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

They cut the answer off on Harvey's audience question, but Rusty Burrell the bailiff worked on the Patty Hearst, some of the Manson family, and other high profile trails.

He did! I can only imagine what he thought about that little pissant, gossip monger, Levin, standing on his little box at the end.

[NYGirl]

Watched the rerun today and if it's possible I hated the guy that sold the treadmill more the second time around.  What a dick.

[AngelaHunter]

13 hours ago, NYGirl said:

Watched the rerun today and if it's possible I hated the guy that sold the treadmill more the second time around.  What a dick.

I too despised that pin-headed, ridiculous dork with his pathetic excuses and dumb lies. In addition to his lingering illness, I'm surprised he didn't say his uncle died, since that's a popular lie on this show.

It's amazing how these people often seem so much worse on repeat viewing, showing how low they'll go for something like a used treadmill.

[AZChristian]

20 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

I too despised that pin-headed, ridiculous dork with his pathetic excuses and dumb lies. In addition to his lingering illness, I'm surprised he didn't say his uncle died, since that's a popular lie on this show.

It's amazing how these people often seem so much worse on repeat viewing, showing how low they'll go for something like a used treadmill.

Am I the only person on earth who HASN'T lost a phone or broken it, thereby losing all evidence of pictures and "textses"?

[SRTouch]

1 hour ago, AZChristian said:

Am I the only person on earth who HASN'T lost a phone or broken it, thereby losing all evidence of pictures and "textses"?

Hmmmmmm, thinking back I've had a grand total of 4 cell phones. And, yes, my first (back when they were the size of a brick) was damaged when it took a bath after falling into a hole full of water while I was working on an irrigation system. I bought my current phone, a bare bones smart phone, when my previous phone needed a battery and I was told it would take up to a week to come in. I ended up ordering the battery (came in 3 days, not a week) so now I have 2 working phones even though 1 is boxed up as a backup if I ever need it......... 

Not sure how true, but I've heard that a micro memory card is much more likely to survive a bath than a phone. I have all my pix automatically saved to a card because my bare bones phone doesn't have a lot of memory, but I could probably retrieve them even if phone is destroyed. (Quick Google check comes back with this talking about cards.) 

[SRTouch]

Roomies fighting over rent: as I recall, this was one of our earliest covid cases....... couple college girls rooming together and working part time in service type jobs to make rent - one goes home for visit, covid hits and service industy in Florida shuts down - both lose their incomes - the 1 girl (D) went home to visit, and decides to just move back home, which of course leaves other girl stuck with the joint lease and no job - the girl stuck with lease suing D for her portion of rent - D comes up with lots of excuses trying to escape her responsibility, but MM isn't buying them......... after the verdict we hear about how shutdown affect the Judges' family, how they had to quarantine, didn't miss the kids that much but went to retrieve their dog while waiting for their test results

neighbor trying to buy love after breakup: I skipped most of this one - often told story of woman throwing money at some guy, then wanting repayment when she wakes up to realization that he isn't looking for snuggle bunny (even though she is insisting she wasn't looking good for snuggly relationship) - proof that there's someone for everyone, as appearance of these two does not make me think about snuggly affairs - and sounds like fugly dude has other women looking to snuggle......... kind of distasteful case, but evidence shows dude viewed some of her generosity as loans since he (and his mommy - really, dude has gray hair in his beard but mommy helping pay off women who are chasing him for repayment of loans) repaid some of the bills - oh, and apparently some of the money P gave to broke-ass dude was to pay for a dog the guy bought on time - also we hear indications at least part of why D was short was that social security suspected fraudulent disability payments......... P gets about half what she says is owed

Edited December 23, 2020 by SRTouch

[AngelaHunter]

3 hours ago, AZChristian said:

Am I the only person on earth who HASN'T lost a phone or broken it, thereby losing all evidence of pictures and "textses"?

Of course not. I have to get a new phone every couple of months because I always drop them in the toilet, melt them, throw them against the wall when I'm having a tantrum, or lose them like a child would and I always delete all my texes. Actually I'm on my 2nd phone ever - a 119$ Samsung from Amazon. I'll probably drop it in the bath tonight though.

[AngelaHunter]

3 hours ago, SRTouch said:

neighbor trying to buy love after breakup:

See what these desperate women have created? A complete amoral loser, with bloated face and stupid ponytail, who doesn't work, is scamming SSD (until he got caught and cut off) can't even pay his own utility bills yet buys a designer, puppymill special dog on payments so he can be a big shot, yet he is able to get this pitiful plantiff to fork over a ton of money to him. Hey, if women want to pay him in hopes of buying the pleasure of his highly desirable company, why wouldn't he take it? As if that's not bad enough, his pathetic women make him think he's a primo catch and that P is just jealous of his other women. The worst part is that is probably true. Ladies, have you no pride at all, not even a smidgen? JM did her best to try and ferret out why this ridiculous, sad woman was paying this grifter's bills, but to no avail.

4 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Roomies fighting over rent:

I didn't see this because of some (important, I guess) presidential announcement, but since stupid roommate fights are one of my least favorite kind of cases, I'm fine with missing it.

[CrazyInAlabama]

Yes, I found it amazing that the defendant didn't seem all that upset about being found out a fraud on his Social Security Disability payments, and got cut off.     He better be worried, because I'm sure someone from Social Security caught this one.    I had to laugh at him being broke, and buying a designer dog, that should be on the bingo card for this show. 

Edited December 24, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Yes, I found it amazing that the defendant didn't seem all that upset about being found out a fraud on his Social Security Disability payments, and got cut off.     He better be worried, because I'm sure someone from Social Security caught this one. 

Is he going to have to pay it back? I hope he doesn't get away with this fraud. You just know the P squealed on him, which she never would have done had he agreed to be her lovah-boy. Poor Ms. Sapparelli(?). She should know she can't keep a man like this all to herself. He's probably on the FB meat market even as we write this, looking for another woman smitten with his charm and good looks and who can pay his electric bill.

I'm like JM. Never in my life did I have a neighbour who said, "Give me your household bills and I'll pay them." I don't know what I did wrong.

9 hours ago, SRTouch said:

he (and his mommy - really, dude has gray hair in his beard but mommy helping pay off women who are chasing him for repayment of loans)

I forgot about that part! Yes, he's quite a catch.😆

[Maverick]

I saw a repeat today with a guy who has 9 children (5 living with him full time, 3 more on the weekends) by 4 different women.  JM inquirers if he's "done pollinating".    While I agree with the sentiment, she doesn't say stuff like that to the women. In fact the other case had a woman suing one of the four baby daddy's of one of her give kids and I didn't notice a crack about her procreating habits.  I don't have a problem pointing out these people's questionable choices but it takes two to tango so what's good for one is good for both. 

 

[CrazyInAlabama]

Afternoon reruns.  "Dental Dilemma", first case two people old enough to know better reconnect, and she borrowed money from plaintiff for attorney's fees, for a conservatorship over her mother.    The conservatorship did not work out, and defendant signed two promissory notes about attorney fees, and were not repaid.    Then plaintiff loans defendant money for dental work, even though he has no note this time, and she never paid him a penny on the previous debt.  

Harvey's comment about false teeth is wrong.   The plaintiff was getting dental implants, and that's like having your own teeth, only better.   Plaintiff says defendant's phrase is "you can't hold anyone to anything they say after 5 p.m.", when one or both is drunk.   No expectation of repayment.    Plaintiff was only going to repay defendant for lawyer fees if she won the conservatorship, and take the money out of her eventual inheritance, or estate before that, sounds shady to me.   As, Judge Marilyn says, the promissory notes were just to get money from the court, and not any other reason. 

Case dismissed, plaintiff had no expectation of repayment.   

Second case, another stupid painter /remodeling case, with the homeowner saying the painter's work sucked, and painter wants more money anyway.   However, homeowner wanted her entire house interior painted in shades of purple/lavender and put in a kitchen back splash, and claims it was all supposed to be done in one day.    Homeowner loses.   

The last case, the defendant's have dogs that dig under the privacy fence, and when plaintiffs complained, the defendant's piled a ton of junk against the fence, so now it's falling down.    The defendants signed an agreement that if plaintiffs paid to take down a palm tree (they did do that), the defendants would help replace the fence.    This was over two years ago, and defendants never touched the fence.   When plaintiff asked when they were going to live up to their agreement, the defendants moved out of state, and told plaintiffs to stick it.    Plaintiffs win, and get over $2k, but now have to negotiate with the new neighbor with the constantly barking dog.  

(On the case with the man with nine kids, I think the issue was that on the weekends, or other times when all of the kids were at defendant's house, then he let them run loose, no supervision, harassing the neighbors, and vandalizing.    He's not a decent supervisor of the kids, let alone being a parent, and I think he said there ages went from 3 to 10.   Also, I bet since he was 50/50 custody on the kids, then he didn't pay child support). 

Edited December 24, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

16 hours ago, Maverick said:

JM inquirers if he's "done pollinating".    While I agree with the sentiment, she doesn't say stuff like that to the women.

True. I recall a recent case where a mature SSMo4 gets knocked up with No.5 (IIRC) with the loser she was here suing. She was not to be admired, but should have been asked if she'd ever heard of birth control. JM had no comment on her indiscriminate breeding with who knows how many sperm donors.

[mtbingmom]

OMG they are showing the rerun of the feces under the trailer case. It was pre-empted here on Thanksgiving Day for football. I think I'd rather see the football. This is horrible.

[SRTouch]

reruns........ this is episode where the judges are joined by their dog during the After Verdict Chat.......... almost skipped third case, but definitely worth the watch

pool liner debacle: D hired to install a new pool liner supplied by P - problem is this isn't really his thing, his real job is remodeling homes, but he has put in a few....... course reason P hired him is that D agreed to do job cheap....... soooo, once D starts it doesn't look right and he decides P bought the wrong sized liner - D gets on phone and is told that the liner is correct and will stretch to fit, but D doesn't believe it and packs up and says go buy correct liner and he'll come back to do the installation..... ah, but without a liner and water putting pressure on the walls, the walls cave in, adding lots more work/expense to job....... P goes back to pool company where he bought liner and hires the experts do install (using same liner D claims doesn't fit)........ P gets greedy when he filed the claim when he tacks on an extra grand - he ended up paying D $300, then an additional $1600 for the expert to do job, part of which entails repairing cave in walls caused by D walking away and not supporting said walls........ soooooo MM scoffs at extra grand, but make D pay the $1600 (he keeps the $300 he was paid)

old Mercedes sale fail: P says She was sold car with promise that neighbor/seller would pay for any needed repairs - sort of open ended deal with no limit on repair bill - she took it to be fixed and was billed over $1291 - when she tries to collect from buyer he is only willing to reimburse a couple hundred...... silly case - we're talking 1997 (?) Car and P expects us to believe seller agreed to pay for any and all repairs when kbb for car was around $3400 and sale price was 3 grand - he says he urged his neighbor to get car checked by a mechanic before purchase as it was an AS IS sale......... D story is he went with buyer to her mechanic, and the car passed mechanic's inspection except for a couple things (alignment and power window motor on 1 window) after hearing mechanic's assessment seller agrees to knock $300 off the 3 grand, so price now $2700......... P agrees to new price and buys car....... then P pulls bone head move when she hands car off and tells mechanic to 'fix it' without getting estimate........ D not exactly great story teller, but I believe his version - when P starts out she says, even though she picked the mechanic, guy knew nada about Mercedes......... really, this woman way to old to be playing the 'I'm just a woman and no nothing about buying cars'........ then after trying to blame mechanic she goes on to deny mechanic found the shimmy suggesting out of alignment or a window motor - but really, even if D made that up, the bill of sale plainly indicates this was an as is sale....... P not only has no case, but MM getting fed up with her testimony........ apparently, after the renegotiation and price adjusted downward to $2700, P buys the buy (like D Said) then she sends a couple emails suggesting another renegotiation after she gets repairs done - and seller never agrees to lowering price AFTER the sale......... ah ha, MM compliments P on the way P worded her complaint and turns out she's a lawyer....... case dismissed....... in hallterview seller says after she got the bill he DID drop price an additional $250, yep, she complained, he wrote her a $250 check, and she rushes out to cash check and STILL files this case - so lawyer lady P ended up paying $2450 plus the repair bills - so a couple hundred more than kbb for this 23yo car 

actually a third case today, a room rental: suing for deposit and slippery landlord declares he acted as a broker when he rented to P - MM NOT HAPPY with this guy and makes quick work of the con when she asks to see his brokers license and copy of lease - slick conman has nothing to show - only copy of lease for MM is provided by tenant and it DOES NOT say what pretend realtor claims it says........ P even has her receipt copies (she was there 2 years)......... oh, and tenant smart/suspicious enough that she typed out a statement that landlord signed promising to return her full $700 deposit (that he is now saying was never a a deposit, but was a non refundable broker fee)........ MM having lots of fun tearing this no-defense defense apart........... hee hee MM revises P's pleading and add punitive damages - so P gets the $700 she asked for PLUS additional $300 After the Verdict has Judge John saying he might have slapped blatant landlord conman with even more in punitive damages

Edited December 26, 2020 by SRTouch

[CrazyInAlabama]

Poor puppy!   Judge Marilyn said that they are filming the After the Verdict at an end of the living room, and that was their dog's favorite place.   So poor dog just wants Mommy and Daddy to move, and give the dog their favorite sleeping place back.   The dog coming up for pats was so adorable.   

[AngelaHunter]

Another day where the litigants are even worse on rewatch. The stupid, giggling lawyer who seems to be utterly helpless and clueless about the law deserved a severe spanking, IMO. The so-called "broker" who doesn't know how to speak using proper grammar and had zero evidence was another. I loved the plaintiff, Ms. Saraveria (?) who has obviously watched this show and learned from it. I just wish JM had awarded her more money - enough to insure the stupid scamming def. got nothing for his appearance here.

The stupid, sniggering, dumbass lawyer and her 22-year old Mercedes that she is now claiming the seller def. promised to pay for any and all repairs - watching these cases is what decided me against ever selling a car privately. When I traded in my last car for the one I have now my niece said, "I would have bought it!" I know she would never sue me over it, but I also know if anything went wrong on it I would feel responsible. Go to a dealer. You will get less money, but won't ever have to deal with idiots like this foolish plaintiff who will harass you and sue you because the ancient car (she must be some successful lawyer) wasn't in showroom condition.

[CrazyInAlabama]

The Mercedes case reminded me of when my father sold our car to his brother in law (married to my mother's sister, and BIL was a total fool), for half of Blue Book.   Everything that went wrong with that car was blamed on us (including the bad ride, village fool uncle had filled the tires up twice recommended number of PSI, so it was like riding on solid metal tires), never fixed anything on the car, and actually was riding around with brakes you had to pump repeatedly to stop (this was at least 15 years later).     

I never resell cars myself, and only trade in to the dealer, then anything that goes wrong is not my fault.    Watching the Mercedes case reinforced that policy.      On advice of someone at the dealership, don't leave any repair stuff in the car when you trade it in later, the future owner can get recall/repair information online, so they don't have anything with your address and name on anything in the car.      

Edited December 26, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

22 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

 I never sell to anyone I know, and trade in to the dealer, then anything that goes wrong is not my fault. 

Absolutely, but I wouldn't sell even to anyone I don't know, lest they come and throw a Molotov cocktail through my window if it turns out the car needed even some minor repair.

This show always amazes me with the number of people who put their complete trust in a total stranger who is looking to unload some broken-down old beater. "He told me this 1997 Chevy Malibu with 250,000 miles was in perfect condition!"

[Katy M]

On 12/24/2020 at 7:19 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

The Mercedes case reminded me of when my father sold our car to his brother in law (married to my mother's sister, and BIL was a total fool), for half of Blue Book.   Everything that went wrong with that car was blamed on us (including the bad ride, village fool uncle had filled the tires up twice recommended number of PSI, so it was like riding on solid metal tires), never fixed anything on the car, and actually was riding around with brakes you had to pump repeatedly to stop (this was at least 15 years later).     

I never resell cars myself, and only trade in to the dealer, then anything that goes wrong is not my fault.    Watching the Mercedes case reinforced that policy.      

About 10 years ago I had a car that I had taken to the garage to get the brakes fixed several times. Finally, I took it somewhere else to look at it and they said the brakes weren't worth fixing and the other place was just ripping me off. So, of course, I decided time for a new car.  I was talking to my best friend about how I was going to get a new car and she said she wanted to buy my old one.  I told her the brakes didn't work.  She said you can fix brakes. I said I've "fixed" them at least 5 times.  So, i didn't want to sell to her, but she kept bugging me, so I said $500.  I then went car shopping.  I was just going to look, but they actually had a car with manual windows (I have a fear of driving into a river and not being able to get out), so I decided to snap it up.  They offered me $1,000 for my old car.  I called my friend and she said to go ahead and trade it in and that was a load off my mind because I would have felt bad if she had killed herself because the brakes didn't work.

[SRTouch]

Rental deposit dispute: p claims she put a deposit down on house, but house wasn't ready on promised move in date - landlord gave partial refund, but P here demanding the other $300 for a full refund....... D/landlord says scheduled work would have been completed by move in date, but P changed mind before due date - says she was just being nice when she returned $500 of the $800 deposit because she could have kept it all.......... all going to come down to the timeline - did tenant pull out of lease before move in date? Did landlord really have place ready on move in date?......... ok, sort of a bidding war for the place with two potential renters looking at same time, so whoever came up with deposit first was going to get place - P put deposit down, then had some second thoughts and backed out of deal........ first time viewing I was on P's side most of the case, but this time around I remember that as testimony developed I switch to thinking D really WAS being nicer to to return anything - thing is I have to watch awhile to remember exactly why I changed my mind........ turns out P had put in an application somewhere else, and reason she bailed on this place was that she decided to go to different place which had approved her because it was available right away and would mean she could get her kids registered and in school faster than waiting til scheduled move in date at D's rental........ as MM says, may be excellent reason to back out of lease with D, but doesn't affect whether or not she should get full (any) refund......... this was when I hit FF and skipped to decision....... case dismissed........ after verdict has both judges remarking on how nice and polite both litigants were - but P really had no case and D just being nice to return anything, especially as, by time P backed out of lease the other prospective tenant had gone elsewhere - also, turns out D is a realtor with other properties who knew she could have kept entire deposit

as-is hoopty sale: P wants $1800 from dude who sold her a clunker - says it wasn't just a clunker, but not safe to be on road........ not sure what to think when I see D for first time - dude makes me think of a late night horror show host........ hit FF before testimony starts - as I recall hoopty was sold with a short warranty, and P drove it around past warranty expiration - like first case, this defendant knows law, but unlike nice realtor in that case this guy isn't about to return anything unless law says he has to........ ok, when I stop the FF and start listening again it turns out silly P had every opportunity to back out of deal - sale took place in jurisdiction where a buyer can undo deal if they act within a set time period, and silly P didn't (also sounds like another buyer who didn't test drive hoopty or get it inspected before buying - but her non-mechanic daddy said it looked ok) case dismissed......... after the verdict - this is case where Judge John comes up with "Return of the Jetta"

memorial t-shirt fail: p wanted custom t-shirts printed for murdered son's memorial - shirts not finished until day of memorial, and turned out many unusable - wants return of the $700 she paid....... D blames problems on slow delivery of materials due to pandemic, and expects a pass because she "did her best"......... another one where I FF before testimony begins - if i remember right D is a friend or cousin or something rather than someone who does these t-shirts full time and really had no defense for the screw up - as I'm zipping I see what mom is complaining about - silk screening coming off shirts right out of package before shirts are even worn......... mom's case does have problems - seems she didn't deal directly with D, instead someone else made the arrangements - this is important because this person told mom shirts cost $700 when actually there was an $80 discount and D was only paid $620, so this person pocketed $80 of mom's money........ mom awarded $620 And told to get rest from middleman (woman) - says once pandemic is over she'll have new shirts made for another memorial

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

as I recall hoopty was sold with a short warranty, and P drove it around past warranty expiration

There was no warranty. This was an old beater with 146,000 miles on it.  That "Oh, poor little me!" woman needed a serious smack-down for her idiocy: " I need men to tell me what to do in my life, since I'm too stupid and helpless to even buy a car by myself", and I hate that JM said she felt sorry for her. Why? JM did note that car-savvy Daddy who told her it looked nice isn't so savvy after all if he advised his darling baby girl to buy the heap without even a test drive. But girl believes whatever The Men say. However, she was cunning enough to try and misdirect JM's questions, like "Why would you buy a car you can't even test drive?" Answer, "I needed a car." Oh, okay. I guess this one was the only option. Also when she says she couldn't take it for an official inspection because she couldn't afford it? Def may have seemed a little odd, but he was totally right. It's not his job to coddle and guide Daddy's Girl. Maybe she should sue Daddy-o for steering her wrong.

[SRTouch]

3 cases - don't recognize these folks, probably just reruns that were unremarkable the first viewing - watching live today instead a recording - which means I can't just FF and skip this dog attack case.......

pitty attacks: P walking his dog and D's pit lunges and bites P's dog as it walks by...... at first D agrees to pay vet bills, but then changes mind when (in my view) starts tacking on extras - first vet visit is for a bite on the tail - then a couple follow up visits, and MM says something about P wanting therapy for his dog who is now nervous around other dogs....... D really doesn't say much, but what she says torpedoes P's case...... seems her dog was on a 5 ft leash (even has pic of leash laying on tape measure) - also, she, her friend and her dog were stationary (she was leaning on street light pole and friend actually sitting down) and P comes b-bopping along and walks right by within reach of the pit........ extra element mentioned is that this was during covid and P violated social distancing rules - not sure that matters, P was in wrong when he came to close to an unfamiliar dog and D did nothing wrong (though a better owner would have had their dog in a sit-stay)........ case dismissed

pool install gone wrong: another silly case with P demanding big bucks ($3744) when he says installer goofed when heater was installed - boring case, P has no evidence and only reason he gets anything is that at one point D offered to repair damage to a fence he admits he MIGHT have damaged - P suing based on a theory of what he thinks happened without any expert testimony - even with fence repair dude comes to court asking for new fence panel rather than estimate for repair of the scratched panel - by this time I really didn't like P and would have given him squat, but MM does her rough justice and awards a bit

auto shop transmission case: lady says D's shop took 3 weeks longer than promised to get her car fixed - says she was promised they'd pay for a rental car - suing for $4302.83........ really? I've never had a garage offer to rent a car for me - a loaner, yeah, but not a rental - and is the whole 4 grand for the rental? Or did shop maybe charge for both tyranny installs even though D admits one was bad - seems to me P should only be charged for the transmission work that actually works........ D admits first used tyranny put in was bad and that it took longer than estimated to get her back on the road, but denies agreeing to pay for her rental...... seems P paid $3500 for the first transmission install......... uh, I always hate business owners who begin their case by telling us they have no first hand knowledge, and are basing case on someone else's statement - although this guy at least says these are sworn statements he's starting behind the eight ball and his testimony is suspect with me....... problem is that after paying for repair (initial repair took 3 weeks), for next month engine light keeps coming on and P is taking car back for D to figure out what problem is - finally, after a month of this shop takes car back and end up keeping it for 6 weeks - D doesn't help his case much when he admits installation of bad transmission ended up messing up wiring harness......... sorry, dude, sounds like that's on shop and something the shop ought to get from whatever 3rd party sold bad transmission to shop....... ah ha, and here's why sending someone without firsthand knowledge is BAD - MM asks why the heck than it take 10 days to install the bad transmission but then 6 weeks to install the second one? And D admits he has no answer and he's "just here representing the company" - I HATE this answer.........  ok, but does P have anything proving her claim that shop agreed to foot her rental bills - I kind of doubt it, cuz they would have been busting their collective a$$es to get that job done instead of taking 6 weeks - but I do think lady should get something for those 6 weeks........ ah, but seems the shop's office manager wrote a letter to P saying shop (then) manager had agreed to pay the rental bill..... hmmmmm I missed it, but sounds like shop management has changed, and this guy wasn't even around when all this was going down......... well, I doubted P, but she actually has the promise to pay for the rental in writting,  but seems rental was only half the 4 grand P is asking for - wonder where other 2 grand she wants comes from........ I'd be willing to give her compensation for all the time/hassle - not really D's fault, but her husband died during this timeframe, and since he was the one handling things the return of the rental fell through the cracks and at one point rental company was threatening to report rental stolen since it hadn't been returned.......... ok, office manager's letter covers rental, and MM just asked for an explanation of the other 2 grand and it comes down to the inconvenience factor - sorry, once shop pays for rental not sure P gets extra 2 grand - though I'd give her something, MM explains that she's being made whole with reimbursement of rental........ P awarded $2200+

Edited December 29, 2020 by SRTouch

[seacliffsal]

I don't always rewatch the reruns, but I had to today as the first case was the one in which a "car girl" buys a 1984 fiero and then blames the tow truck guy for everything that is wrong with the car.  She so started with the "who? innocent me?" demeanor but as JM unraveled the true facts her demeanor completely changes and she becomes aggressive and angry.  She "blamed" someone for telling her to declare the vehicle to be operational as the tow is cheaper than way (it so wasn't operational) and then she tries her incredulous "he didn't have tools with him for putting in the battery..."  She was such a blatant liar and it made me really happy to watch JM tear apart her story lie by lie.  Good times.

[SRTouch]

A couple memorable cases 

Long divorced couple feuding over a loan: (most of this recap written from memory) old folks split long ago, but were still on decent terms - decent enough that they were still getting together for booty calls...... at some point, while woman is out of town, air conditioner goes out in rental property she owns - old dude steps in and pays for repairs, and woman was making payments to pay him back - also, for years now dude has been living in one of her apartments at a reduced rent - things go south when old lady learns old dude is a player and has a few other ladies on the side - now they're fighting over how much, if anything, is still owed to the other one - dude at disadvantage in the fight as all along he trusted old lady to keep track of the money - now he's "thinks" she still owes - also she decides to change their long time rental agreement and unilaterally collect full rent for time she didn't charge him full rent........ of course this plays right into MM's known love of old folks - especially little old ladies - and MM really thinks it's a hoot that spiteful old lady went to bank and got a bunch of pennies to make a payment to old lethario dude........ turns out old lady kept track of payments she made while dude didn't, so MM takes her version of loan history - course her attempt for unilateral rent increase goes nowhere....... not sure why old dude decided to sue when he admits he hadn't kept track of what was owed and just accepted woman he's suing today to track her payments - old lady kept good records, but once MM adds up the payments she finds D still owes a couple grand - old lady figures dude playing with other women should wipe out the debt, but MM disagrees........ $2175 to old dude, nothing for unilateral rent increase

rent deposit case: month to month tenant claims she was booted without 30 day notice and now Landlord won't return deposit....... seems from get go P had trouble making rent payments, finally D decided to ask her to leave - MM has her hands full trying to figure out this one, as P wants credit for payment for security made after she moved in which actually should have been made before move in....... not sure why any landlord would rent to a tenant who is starting in the hole before move in, but he's saying she was a "nice lady"......... ah, sounds like landlord is playing the system and adjusting rent to get max of what housing assistance will pay towards rent, so liked idea of having a tenant willing to go along with scam.......... OKKKKKKK this is case where landlord admits on national TV that he paid a $1000 bribe to the housing assistance case worker to move P to head of line so he could move P out fast.......... well, crooked landlord really has no claim on the deposit, at least no legitimate claim - first he tries to say he gets to keep it because P didn't give a 30 day notice, yet this is right after admitting he paid her case worker a grand to find her somewhere to move to - then he says P shouldn't receive deposit because the money came from housing, not P - that doesn't fly, either, MM says give it back to P and let her repay housing......... P gets deposit, but really can't explain the remaining $400 - lots of confusion here since P was paying rent piecemeal instead of on first - I let MM figure it out and zip ahead - P awarded $1395 deposit and hopefully someone in assistance program watched and investigated landlord and whoever he claims to have bribed..... during after the verdict chat MM says she's going to have staff send crooked landlord's testimony about bribing housing case worker to authorities

Edited December 30, 2020 by SRTouch