The People's Court - General Discussion

[Guest]

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

I kind of enjoyed P suing D for wages he promised. They met on FB marketplace where fairy tales can come true. Both realized that their "political ideologies" were  perfectly in sync, so it's a match! Sadly, trollish D's attempts to "seduce" her with his winning personality and totally wrecked grill did not succeed, so they decided to just work together, cleaning businesses and whatever. 

This is where my head snapped upright.  Maybe it’s my age, maybe it’s the fact that I follow a lot of true crime stories or maybe it’s because I hear so many scary stories at work but I would never, ever pursue a relationship (working or personal) from someone on FB marketplace.  Think people.  Think.  

I’m asking too much.  I know.

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

JM asks, demands, and all but begs him to tell her why he thinks P shouldn't get paid, but he goes off, rambling about other stuff. He flings himself around in his chair, rolls his eyes, huffs and puffs like an adolescent and whines that JM won't let him tell his story. Finally he explains that P "screamed and hollered all day" so she shouldn't get paid for her work. P gets her money. Doug in the hall asks why they weren't dating. "He's... not my type," says P, very diplomatically. Yeah, I bet.

Plaintiff should have knocked him over the head with a metal wastebasket.  She might not have received her half of the salary but it would be worth it.  I don’t know the idiot and I wanted to hit him in the head.

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

I actually liked this "As is" case. Blobby P wants to buy a 21-year-old Chrysler from D. He goes to look at it and notices a smell of burned oil. No problem. Did he test drive it? Well, no. Weather conditions did not permit that. Turns out it was just raining. Do ancient beaters melt in the rain? D says he was shocked that P refused a test drive and merely said, "I trust you." Did he get the heap checked by a mechanic? Of course - after he paid for it. He just wanted to get it home asap, you see. Maybe his favorite reality show was going to start and he forgot to DVR it. Mechanic says there's possibly a cracked head gasket, but can't be sure until the engine is taken apart. P maintains that D knew about this and ripped him off. JM gets sick of listening to his idiotic whining and gives him the heave-ho with nothing, of course.

 

“As Is” is for the others.  Not the special snowflakes who cannot be bothered by checking out a wreck before purchase.  

Now, if you don’t mind I’ll end here because for some strange reason I got a hankering for a cold can of “hoop-tea”.

[CrazyInAlabama]

"Not Making a Customer Happy"

Case 1-Plaintiff hired defendant to put in concrete countertops, poured in her home, not the shop.     Plaintiff claims countertop was broken, lumpy, cracked, and then defendant said it would flip over and look fine.    It looked like garbage.  (Since when does a professional pour a countertop, and flip it?   And most concrete counter tops have to cure for up to a week).

Defendant is full of excuses.  He claims the huge cracks can be patched, and will be fine after that.     There's no way that concrete was cured in one day.    You also pour the concrete counters in place, over a wooden cabinet top, with sides to hold the concrete. Then, days later you strip the edges off, polish the edges, and maybe the top, and it's done.   No you don't glue it together, flip it, or any of the other bizarre things the defendant did.   

Plaintiff gets $0, because they didn't let the incompetent defendant come back to trash their house more.

(I'm watching the new episode of "Fixer to Fabulous" on HGTV, and they do concrete counter tops, but they came cut to fit just the way granite or quartz does.   So now you don't have to worry about defendant coming in your house with a bunch of concrete.   You just call the counter top store.    The counter tops on TV tonight were perfect, no cracks, and no filling in with glue or epoxy). 

Case 2- Plaintiff is suing the mother of his child for false arrest, and claiming he hit her, sexually assaulted her, and he was not guilty in court, and he wants money.   Defendant claims she caught plaintiff in bed with another woman, and claims that's when he hit her, and raped her.     The litigants have a seven-year-old together.   

Defendant's video sent to plaintiff doesn't look good for defendant.   Plaintiff is suing for $720 he had to pay for classes for the assault, and $3500 for attorney fees.  Plaintiff was arrested for felony aggrevated stalking.    Defendant says she only filed two cases, and a violation of the TRO, so the other cases weren't her filings. There are five total cases against plaintiff. 

Then, defendant claims the police officer threatened to shoot her, but defendant didn't file charges about that either.  

Judge Marilyn sides with defendant, and dismisses plaintiff's case.   She says they belong in family court to help them co-parent their kid.    

Edited December 1, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

15 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

-Plaintiff hired defendant to put in concrete countertops, poured in her home, not the shop.

Did that slobbish def have the worst multitude of tats ever? He claims P watched too many YT videos. I suggest he might want to watch some and learn how to do this job properly. Although I have no interest in concrete countertops I have watched some of those vids. Not one of them show huge corner chunks broken off, or "hairline cracks" that looked like huge fissures to me. His defense that he planned to "paper over the cracks" seemed wonky to me, but I guess JM felt the Ps should have let him continue his path of destruction before suing him. Makes sense, I guess.

 

19 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff is suing the mother of his child for false arrest, and claiming he hit her, sexually assaulted her, and he was not guilty in court, and he wants money. 

In addition to dog cases, I can no longer watch sordid domestic violence especially when witnessed by kids, hypersexuality, careless breeding replete with SSMs and all that Springer crap. Skipped.

I want more skeevy contractors, shady business deals, or as on last Friday, totally incompetent yet haughty lawyers who don't think they need to keep contemporaneous records of expenses for clients ("Nah. I didn't bother!")and show up here with some nonsense they typed up the day before their appearance. I can only imagine what JM thinks of them. Love it!

[Guest]

24 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

Did that slobbish def have the worst multitude of tats ever? 

My husband entered the room while defendant was, I guess defending himself from the comforts of his car.   He (my husband) took one look at the myriad of assorted tats and their odd colors said “apparently this guy showed a copy of the Bayeaux Tapestry to his local tattoo artist and said ‘just do it’”.

24 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

In addition to dog cases, I can no longer watch sordid domestic violence especially when witnessed by kids, hypersexuality, careless breeding replete with SSMs and all that Springer crap. Skipped.

I want more skeevy contractors, shady business deals, or as on last Friday, totally incompetent yet haughty lawyers who don't think they need to keep contemporaneous records of expenses for clients ("Nah. I didn't bother!")and show up here with some nonsense they typed up the day before their appearance. I can only imagine what JM thinks of them. Love it!

I had to walk away a few times during the second case.  I was embarrassed for them since they didn’t have the sense to be embarrassed for themselves.

It’s also part of the reason why I am not in marriage counseling.  It can get pretty mucky. 

Whatever police officers are paid it is not enough.  To get in-between that nonsense is trying on a person’s soul.   I should also include the first responders - they do police work without a gun or badge.  Bless them all.  

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

"Not Making a Customer Happy"

Plaintiff gets $0, because they didn't let the incompetent defendant come back to trash their house more.

I totally disagree with JM’s verdict.  So let me get this straight - no matter how much wreckage the defendant is accomplishing in the home, as a homeowner I am supposed to let the doofus finish destroying my house so that I will have pictures for the judge when I sue?  What the hell kind of law is this?  Makes no sense.  Did JM just make that up?

And all I kept thinking about when that “countertop” was shown that I know, for sure, if it were in my house chunks of that mess would fall on my foot while having morning coffee. No thank you.

It also reminded me of an article in the New York Post several years ago.  A countertop company was touted for having the least expensive prices for marble countertops.  Twenty years ago marble in the kitchen was all the rage.  

We’ll, one of the satisfied customers was cleaning under her island (there was a hangover of the marble so she could have chairs positioned underneath) and saw something that scared her so much she actually hit her head on the marble countertop.  She saw a partial name and date engraved underneath her marble countertop!!

Apparently the contractor was able to have lower prices because he was robbing cemeteries at night (for marble) and using them for countertops.  Either he was figuring that someone wouldn’t look underneath the piece or his installer slipped up and exposed a name and date but either way - he was caught.

On an added note it really disturbed the lady who discovered his trickery.  She kept lamenting that she was serving food off of someone’s marker.  I completely understand and from what I can remember, the contractor was facing numerous charges.

He probably served his time and is onto new projects.  Like selling vacation condos that he guarantees are “quiet and situated in a serene park”.   The only drawback is that you have to share space with others.  Shudder.

 

 

[CrazyInAlabama]

2 minutes ago, PsychoKlown said:

On an added note it really disturbed the lady who discovered his trickery.  She kept lamenting that she was serving food off of someone’s marker.  I completely understand and from what I can remember, the contractor was facing numerous charges.

They were having a lot of headstone thefts in New England a few years ago, the very old ones.  People would steal them, and sell them for patio and walkway pavers.     The headstones were stolen, or stolen and resold, and just used face down.     

I wonder if the headstone thief in Psychoklown's posting went into the concrete counter top business?     There was nothing that plaintiff said defendant did that was how you do a concrete counter top.  

[AngelaHunter]

37 minutes ago, PsychoKlown said:

 A countertop company was touted for having the least expensive prices for marble countertops.

Has no one ever figured out that the person who offers good/services for a fraction of what other companies charge does so for a reason? Or do they just block their ears and close their eyes, thinking only of the "I trusted him!" discounts until something goes wrong? Buyer beware since it's hardly likely these people would advertise, "We just knocked over and stole a bunch of headstones! Getcher marble countertops dirt cheap from us!"

 

37 minutes ago, PsychoKlown said:

So let me get this straight - no matter how much wreckage the defendant is accomplishing in the home, as a homeowner I am supposed to let the doofus finish destroying my house so that I will have pictures for the judge when I sue?

I think, and could be wrong as I often am, that people are obliged to let whomever they hire have a chance to finish and/or fix whatever mess they are making - the theory seemingly is that he may have turned this disaster into a work of art had he but one more day -  and then can sue.  Personally I don't think the rachet tat guy had any idea how to do this, which is why he pushed the granite countertops. And why was he testifying in his car?

37 minutes ago, PsychoKlown said:

It’s also part of the reason why I am not in marriage counseling.

I have a feeling that marriage counseling (or sperm donor and incubator counseling) is not the answer for most of the loving couples we see here when they have no inhibitions about hurling lamps, knocking out teeth, and generally beating the shit out of each other with the kiddies as their audience.

Edited November 30, 2021 by AngelaHunter

[Guest]

30 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

They were having a lot of headstone thefts in New England a few years ago, the very old ones.  People would steal them, and sell them for patio and walkway pavers.     The headstones were stolen, or stolen and resold, and just used face down.     

I wonder if the headstone thief in Psychoklown's posting went into the concrete counter top business?     There was nothing that plaintiff said defendant did that was how you do a concrete counter top.  

I live in New England.

We have a stone paved patio out back and a stone walkway on the side of our house.

We’ve lived here more than a few years.

As I see it I have two choices:  grab my flashlight, go out on the patio and side yard, and see if the underside of the stones are smooth or have engraving similar to RIP ye olde Rev. John Goode. 

Or, second choice, I can have a very restless night.

Either way I am shaking my fist at the sky and shouting “damn you memory…I can’t find my shoes but I can remember an article from the NY Post from 1999”.

Maybe I should call Concrete Guy and see if he can replace my patio and walkway just in case.  With the cold NE winters not too many people will comment on the cracked finish or “Hershey kiss” mistakes.  Wonder if he would pass a Cori check?

 

[rcc]

I live in New England too and hadn't heard about the thefts in a cemetery. The bastards belong in hell.

[AngelaHunter]

16 hours ago, PsychoKlown said:

Either way I am shaking my fist at the sky and shouting “damn you memory…I can’t find my shoes but I can remember an article from the NY Post from 1999”.

Indeed. I can't remember the names of any of the litigants 15 minutes after I hear them - unless they are really outlandish - but can recall in its entirety a poem I heard back when dinosaurs ruled the world.

I could never appear on this show. Every question about when something happened would result in, "I forget" and not just the time or the date, but the year.

Wow, we've seen some true Wrecking Crew contractors on this show, yet they are willing to appear here and have large photos of their not-so-handiwork displayed to all.

[CrazyInAlabama]

"Not Getting Along With Mom"

Case 1-This is so sad.  Plaintiff/mother of dead son (son was shot), is suing his brother for custody of late son's car.  Mother wants either the value of the car, but really wants the car back.   However, defendant has all of the brother's paperwork, including the car title, and defendant says mother can't see well, and is a terrible driver.     Death of son is still open case.    Plaintiff mother says she was going to get car towed to her house, but mother couldn't afford a tow anyway.    Plaintiff claims she wouldn't drive the car, but her nephews would use it to drive her on errands.   Mother says son (defendant) and aunt (mother's sister) plotted to retrieve the car.    

Mother tried to get police to tell defendant/son to give her the car back, they declined.   Neither litigant has a driver's license, and I'm assuming no insurance, or registration.    

Sadly, both sons were in foster care from birth, and barely at mother's house.   Defendant says he's his mother's only son, but then plaintiff says she was a drug addict, was always in her children's lives, but wants judge to call another son.     Next witness for defendant will be his aunt, mother's sister. 

Judge Marilyn says the law is the parent would be the inheritor, but car isn't even in late son's name, but whoever he bought it from in Arizona.    So, car doesn't belong to anyone.   

Everything dismissed, and sent to local probate court.   

Case 2-Plaintiff paid a vendor fee to have a booth at defendant's pop up shop, event was rained out, without a makeup day.   Defendant says plaintiff was Miss Whiny Britches, it only drizzled a little, plaintiff whined about everything, and left.    Plaintiff also had a taxi standing by with the meter going, and plaintiff is suing for the taxi fare too.   

Harvey calls this one "A pop-up shop shakedown".     The event was for Juneteenth, with different vendors, in Brooklyn.   There were tents set up in the outdoor space too.     Plaintiff claims the deluge was of biblical proportions.   Defendant shows video showing a nice day, and defendant witness says it only rained lightly for about 20-30 minutes, first thing in the morning, and the event went all day.   

Plaintiff loses because she keeps swearing in Spanish at the judge, kept claiming the defendant's witness was his girlfriend.   Defendant advised to update his contract. 

Edited December 1, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

42 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Mother tried to get police to tell defendant/son to give her the car back, they declined.   Neither litigant has a driver's license, and I'm assuming no insurance, or registration.   

I lasted a few minutes with this heartwarming family tale. Mom and son want the core the core the core with its fancy rims and tinted windows yet neither has a license to actually drive the core. Yeah, I know - when has that ever stopped litigants from driving?

No, JM - I think we can assume the deceased had no will considering everything he owned was in the core.

Whatever that yellow ball Mom had on her upper lip just turned me off really badly. Sorry.

[AZChristian]

16 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff loses because she keeps swearing in Spanish at the judge . . .  

I got the feeling that the plaintiff didn't know that Judge Milian speaks fluent Spanish and understood every epithet the plaintiff was uttering.  I really wanted JM to look at the plaintiff and tell her just that - in Spanish.  

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, AZChristian said:

I got the feeling that the plaintiff didn't know that Judge Milian speaks fluent Spanish and understood every epithet the plaintiff was uttering.  I really wanted JM to look at the plaintiff and tell her just that - in Spanish.  

Did JM not comment on this? Does anyone know what she was saying? I didn't bother watching this case.

[rcc]

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

Did JM not comment on this? Does anyone know what she was saying? I didn't bother watching this case.

Yes JM admonished her but we don't know what she said. Any Spanish speaking people here on the board?

[AZChristian]

I replayed the first time to see if I could hear what the plaintiff said . . . it sounded to me like they muted the offensive word the first time, so I assume they may have done so on subsequent occasions.  I don't "speak" Spanish, but I've been exposed to enough of it that I recognize a lot of the swear words.

[AngelaHunter]

Murder - 1st degree murder by Darryl, elusive witness "Maurice" murdered, yesterday son shot dead - is mentioned in passing as though it's no big huge deal.

Work by truly shitty contractors/handymen continues. I like it. Def did a job that was absolutely laughable in the bathroom of P's rented premises. It's been my experience that good contractors don't need to drum up business on FB or CL by people looking for cheap jobs. They usually have more work than they can handle. But I guess if you're happy to find some unlicensed handyman to do the work, then go for it. There are plenty of very skilled, meticulous handymen (I had one of them) but this guy is not one of them.

Def babblespeaks in the hall, "It is what it is. I do good work... Things happen... I'm trying to get better," and blah blah. Doug really sticks it to him: "Anybody who sees this is not going to hire you!" 😄

We did hear something that made me sit up and pay attention. P, who seems to be a SSMo3, said she had a tubal ligation! Better late than never. Good for you!

[Carolina Girl]

On 12/1/2021 at 1:25 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff loses because she keeps swearing in Spanish at the judge, kept claiming the defendant's witness was his girlfriend.   Defendant advised to update his contract. 

I think had the Plaintiff behaved with more decorum, Judge Milian would have found for her, on the basis that the contract simply said "rain" with no mention of duration, etc.  But no, she had to act the fool and be disrespectful.  I haven't seen Judge M get that pissed off at a plaintiff in a long time.  A defendant, yes.  But not a plaintiff.

[CrazyInAlabama]

I wasn't paying attention to the first case with the person claiming he would get a statement about plaintiff's son's murder.    That was sad.    

The handyman in the second case was so bad.    I could have done better than he did.    

[Carolina Girl]

I think that PI n the statement case is a filmflam artist.  
There’s something really squirreley about his whole story.   Why would the witness be hostile when it was the witness who wanted  to make a clean breast of it?  

20 hours of work my ass.  Probably called him a couple of time and that was it.  And then writes that ridiculous letter concluding the witness’s testimony wouldn’t help her son.  How do they know since they never spoke to him?  Whole thing smelled to high heaven.  
 

[AngelaHunter]

13 hours ago, Carolina Girl said:

Why would the witness be hostile when it was the witness who wanted  to make a clean breast of it?  

Witnesses do change their minds, especially if they are threatened unless they keep their mouths shut. No idea if that happened here. But still it's the usual silliness from def. - "I did 20 hours of work. Take my word for it. Why would I keep records of that for clients who paid me?"

He's as bad as the shady lawyers.

[Carolina Girl]

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

Witnesses do change their minds, especially if they are threatened unless they keep their mouths shut. No idea if that happened here. But still it's the usual silliness from def. - "I did 20 hours of work. Take my word for it. Why would I keep records of that for clients who paid me?"

He's as bad as the shady lawyers.

Worse.  He knew that Mother was counting on that statement to exonerate her son.  Probably did nothing and thought he had plenty of time.  Then the witness gets killed and he realizes that he's going to have to explain why there's no statement.   They sent that ridiculous CYA letter to the Mom saying they didn't think there was anything Marius would say that would help her son.  

[CrazyInAlabama]

"Feuding With a Friend"   

Case 1-Plaintiff was friends with defendant, and paid former friend/defendant $39 to have defendant sew a wig into her hair (or whatever it is).  Plaintiff says defendant never did the wig, but defendant claims plaintiff changed her mind, and is suing for $7,500 for defamation of character.   Defendant claims plaintiff put out on social media not to deal with defendant, and was going to put up posters saying not to deal with defendant.   Plaintiff says she sent money to defendant for the wig installation (sorry, I don't have a clue what they're talking about), then stopped it as defendant arrived.   

(My understanding is for extensions and some wigs or weaves, there are glue in attached to your real hair, clip in extensions, sew ins attached to your own hair, and who knows what else.   I think we need a resident hair dresser consultant on here). 

On the second trip, defendant came to plaintiff's, but plaintiff says after one braid installed, she told defendant to stop, because plaintiff was going to get someone else to pay for the hair work.  Then, plaintiff gets the money the same day, and Cash Apped money to defendant.  Next twist, plaintiff wanted her money back, defendant went to the hospital, and plaintiff did the mean Facebook postings.    Plaintiff was upset because defendant was doing her own hair, and posted on FB, and since defendant couldn't do her hair when she wanted it done, plaintiff wanted a refund.

Everything dismissed.   I suspect they were just on here to have fun on TV, and temporarily famous. 

Case 2-Plaintiff was hired by defendant to put a metal roof on defendant's barn, he did the work, and she never paid him $2724.   Metal roofs are not cheaper than shingles.   Plaintiff took a while to pay defendant, and changed her mind on the shingles, to metal.   There is a verbal contract only.  Plaintiff also tarped the barn roof twice until the payment for materials was made. 

It sounds like a long time that plaintiff took two years to install the roof, but he wasn't paid, the type of roof was switched out because defendant changed her mind about the type.   Defendant paid $3k for materials, and was paid about $5,000 by check, but not until four months after roof was completed.    

Plaintiff receives $2074. 

 

Edited December 4, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

[rcc]

20 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

"Feuding With a Friend"   

Case 1-Plaintiff was friends with defendant, and paid former friend/defendant $39 to have defendant sew a wig into her hair (or whatever it is).  Plaintiff says defendant never did the wig, but defendant claims plaintiff changed her mind, and is suing for $7,500 for defamation of character.   Defendant claims plaintiff put out on social media not to deal with defendant, and was going to put up posters saying not to deal with defendant.   Plaintiff says she sent money to defendant for the wig installation (sorry, I don't have a clue what they're talking about), then stopped it as defendant arrived.   

On the second trip, defendant came to plaintiff's, but plaintiff says after one braid installed, she told defendant to stop, because plaintiff was going to get someone else to pay for the hair work.  Then, plaintiff gets the money the same day, and Cash Apped money to defendant.  Next twist, plaintiff wanted her money back, defendant went to the hospital, and plaintiff did the mean Facebook postings.    Plaintiff was upset because defendant was doing her own hair, and posted on FB, and since defendant couldn't do her hair when she wanted it done, plaintiff wanted a refund.

Everything dismissed.   I suspect they were just on here to have fun on TV, and temporarily famous. 

Case 2-Plaintiff was hired by defendant to put a metal roof on defendant's barn, he did the work, and she never paid him $2724.   Metal roofs are not cheaper than shingles.   Plaintiff took a while to pay defendant, and changed her mind on the shingles, to metal.   There is a verbal contract only.  Plaintiff also tarped the barn roof twice until the payment for materials was made. 

It sounds like a long time that plaintiff took two years to install the roof, but he wasn't paid, the type of roof was switched out because defendant changed her mind about the type.   Defendant paid $3k for materials, and was paid about $5,000 by check, but not until four months after roof was completed.    

Plaintiff receives $2074. 

 

Missed the first case but sounds like a fake case to me. I'd hate to have the producer's job that has to decide which case to air on the show.  

[AngelaHunter]

25 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

I suspect they were just on here to have fun on TV, and temporarily famous. 

Possible but it wouldn't surprise me if it's real. I wouldn't want to appear here and think I'm famous over a 39$ down payment/refund but can spend all kinds of money on priorities like getting wigs/weaves glued down or "installed" or whatever. I gave up on this nonsense pretty quickly. I never want to hear the words, "He/she blocked me on FB!" again.

28 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff was hired by defendant to put a metal roof on defendant's barn, he did the work, and she never paid him $2724

Could not stand that woman. If someone with whom I worked had to chase me for money owed for services rendered, I would be so ashamed. Not her. She just blabs on and on, talking over the judge, lying and trying to avoid paying what she owes. Of course the lack of one single word written or texted about what is expected is just the usual "I assumed!" "Did too!" "Did not!" stupidity on both their parts.

At least Douglas is getting some laughs from all these nitwits.

[DoctorK]

3 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

getting wigs/weaves glued down or "installed" or whatever.

I think she actually said that she was going to get the wig "sewed to her scalp". Maybe I misheard this, but who knows with the litigants we see here.

[AngelaHunter]

14 hours ago, DoctorK said:

I think she actually said that she was going to get the wig "sewed to her scalp". Maybe I misheard this, but who knows with the litigants we see here.

If that's the case (hearing of people getting their eyeballs tattooed makes it seem not just possible but even mundane) physical altercations could start getting even messier. 😲

[CrazyInAlabama]

"Loaning You Money Ruined Our Friendship"

Case 1-Plaintiff was stupid enough to loan mortgage money ($1,000) to defendant for her investment property, of course now she calls it a gift, and no promissory note to back it up, or any other proof.    After the loan/gift, no money was ever paid back, and then a year later defendant bought all kinds of stuff, and plaintiff thought they were still friends.    

Defendant claims gift only became a loan after she got a boyfriend.   If defendant says she's a single mom again, I'm going to scream. 

No proof of a loan, so defendant wins. 

Case 2-Plaintiff claims she was a model tenant, but landlord/defendant won't give her back $1355 security.  Defendant/landlord says 'model' tenant who moved into a newly renovated rental, was a nightmare,  and her dogs ruined the floors and carpets. 

Counter claim is $2150 for repair of floors.  Plaintiff claims prior tenants left everything, including dirty dishes behind, and place had to be cleaned.     Plaintiff was a month-to-month tenant, with no lease from her, and no proof of security deposit paid by plaintiff.    Defendant says she only paid $1,000, but he has no real proof either.   Plaintiff claims her neighbors were racists.    Plaintiff also claims her high school age son had to move elsewhere because of the racists neighbors.

 Defendant claims the brand new (3 months before plaintiff moved in) floors were buckled and need to be replaced because of her dogs.        Plaintiff claims the floors were always awful, and nothing was her fault.    Defendant sent a certified letter outlining the plaintiff's damages, over and above the security deposit, but plaintiff never picked up the certified letter.    

Defendant's estimates say the floors must be removed, and had dog urine pooled under the wood floors.   There are no photos to prove what the floors were like when plaintiff moved in, and defendant has a few days to show that the floor was new.

$1,000 to plaintiff, if defendant doesn't supply proof that floors were new.   Defendant gave proof, and was awarded $1500, nothing to plaintiff.  

[AngelaHunter]

28 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

 If defendant says she's a single mom again, I'm going to scream. 

She said it three times, just in case we didn't hear it and say, "Awww!" the first two times. If she thinks that makes her special, she's not watching this show.

 

29 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Case 2-Plaintiff claims she was a model tenant, but landlord/defendant won't give her back $1355 security.

I don't recall seeing this one. Landlord was beyond annoying. Seems he saw himself as some benefactor, a savior to the poor little deserted single momma who has so many challenges. The baby daddy was her choice, so shut up about that. Trying to get straight answers from him was the real challenge. "She loved the apartment!" and on and on with non-sequiturs about immaterial things until JM finally tells him to stop whining.

Little put-upon single momma has the same old crap - he wouldn't give her a copy of the lease, and of course she has no records of her payments to him but none of that is her fault. He wins for the destroyed floors and she should have left well enough alone.

[CrazyInAlabama]

I guess the new stuff is over for a while.    The boring case of "Bickering Over a Battery" is on again.    

Case 1-Plaintiff bought a $1600 battery replacement for her Prius from defendant.    Defendant says that she had to register it with Toyota, and that would give her a warranty.  The local installer told her to buy a battery from the defendant in Colorado, and the mechanicbattery installer  installed it.  I wonder if Toyota stopped defendant from using "Prius Replacement Batteries" as a company name yet?  THe batterie replacements cost $3,000 at the dealer, and defendant makes his own version of the battery, for $1600 including shipping.   The battery installer actually gave plaintiff a loaner battery pack.      

However, plaintiff claims her battery was a dud, wanted a replacement, and defendant agreed.  This was after defendant offered to send her another battery pack.   Then, defendant claims she was complaining he couldn't sent the replacement until the following Tuesday (must have been a holiday weekend?), and that plaintiff was spamming his accounts constantly.       The battery installer screwed up the installation.    But, before the defendant could send the battery, plaintiff filed a Better Business Bureau report about the defendant, so battery was never sent.   

This all happened when the replacement battery was a year old.   Plaintiff wants every penny back too.    Judge Marilyn reminds defendant that there are a lot of Prius drivers watching.    Defendant says he'll still send plaintiff a new battery (replacement).   Plaintiff opts to get the new battery, when one comes in.   Plaintiff decides she doesn't want to wait for a replacement.   So, installer is blamed, defendant wins, but still offers to send a replacement to plaintiff.  However, plaintiff loses.    

Case 2-Plaintiff suing used refrigerator seller for a fridge she bought, and says failed.   Defendant says fridge ran fine when he had it, but he doesn't know what she did to it when she took the fridge home.   Defendant delivered fridge, and when she was having issues with fridge, came over to look at it.     Defendant says you have to set the temperature, and let fridge reach temperature. but plaintiff didn't do that.    This was purchased for a group home, plaintiff is starting it.    The defendant fixed her doorbell and a couple of others things when he came to look at the fridge, for free.   Defendant says fridge was stuffed, and too close to the wall, and plaintiff didn't let it reach temperature before stuffing food in it.     Defendant told plaintiff to put her food in her working fridge until the other one reached temperature.    Defendant offered to use his food stamps to replace the food (His wife was not happy about this offer).   

Plaintiff gets nothing, because it was an 'as is' sale, and certainly won't get food replacement either.      

Edited December 7, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

17 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

I guess the new stuff is over for a while. 

Yeah. We're back to cases that aired so recently even I remember them.

[CrazyInAlabama]

The not so classic recent rerun "Remote-Control Plane Problem"  The ridiculous rerun of plaintiff buying a remote controlled plane, defendant sent it via Greyhound (they have luggage, and cargo bins under the bus), plane wasn't insured with extra shipping insurance.   Then the hurricane disappeared the plane.     SOld for $425 via Paypal, but insured for $100.  Defendant claims he wanted $500 insurance, but either way it was for $100. 

$425 for plaintiff. 

Case 2 Plaintiff was walking his dog on leash, when defendant's vicious dog attacked little Sassy, and he wants $670.00 for vet bills.   ANother defendant who claims his vicious, out-of-control Pit Bull is a service dog, and never does anything wrong.  Sassy's a Shih Tzu, and appears on camera.   

Defendant was standing with Daisy the Dog Shredder, she was off leash, when she attacked Daisy.   Plaintiff had to kick the Pit Bull off of his dog, and Sassy escaped her leash and ran home, and went to the vet.  Defendant says he doesn't have the money, and won't pay.  Daisy isn't a Pit, she's a Lab crossed with American Bulldog, which is a pit breed.  

$670 to plaintiff.   So, since the show pays the award, defendant gets away free again. 

Case 3-ANother tenant who moved out and wants their security deposit back ($1050), even with an incentive ($1000, and full security) to get out by a certain date, because the house buyer wanted the house empty (smart buyer).    However, tenant stayed after the date agreed on, and buyer backed out on buying the house from defendants.     Tenant says landlords were heartless, and threw her out after 13 years, in the middle of the pandemic, and she was homeless.  Tenant had almost two month's notice, and was told about the incentive, and was a month-to-month tenant.  

Landlady says tenant left behind a lot of furniture, canned good, and all other kinds of stuff.   The landlady found someone to empty the house out, for $650.   

Plaintiff gets $1,000 back from bleeding heart Marilyn.   I didn't hear any evidence justifying the plaintiff getting a penny back.   

I don't understand why landlords come on this show, or came on Judge Judy.   It's very rare that a landlord get a break from either judge.     Decisions like this are why landlords sell their investment properties.   

 

 

Edited December 8, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

11 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff gets $1,000 back from bleeding heart Marilyn.

I don't know if I got the reasoning behind this last time, but why did she get anything back? JM has always said that if a tenant or their stuff are there one minute past midnight on the move-out date they owe rent for that month.

This overly-entitled, or just plain stupid P not only made defs lose a sale, but left a ton of furniture and garbage there she didn't want until the end of Dec and had the gall or stupidity to tell Defs "Donate it". She didn't want her shitty stuff but thinks someone else will, so certainly owed for Dec. No, YOU "donate" it! She thinks saying at least twice, "I lived there for 13 years" gives her special rights.

And JM - the defs are right. You can't always get someone to come and perform services the minute you call them. They had to wait a few weeks until someone could come and haul away P's leftovers. Never mind her trying to scam 1000$ for not doing what she said she would. Some people!

 

 

[Bazinga]

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

I don't know if I got the reasoning behind this last time, but why did she get anything back? JM has always said that if a tenant or their stuff are there one minute past midnight on the move-out date they owe rent for that month.

I am going to try to explain Judge Milan's reasoning but I don't agree with it.  The defendant by text agreed on December 11th to accept $650 and return the remainder of the security deposit, $1,000, to the plaintiff.  If not for this agreement, then the defendants would be entitled to December's rent, as you suggest.  Here, nothing changed between December 11th and December 31st in regard to the tenant's property being in the apartment, so the landlords are being held to what they agreed to in the text. 

To me there was no quid pro quo for there to be an agreement: what did the tenant give up?; the landlord was being nice in suggesting a resolution.  The tenant gave up nothing, so the landlords can simply change their mind and not give the deposit back if their costs turned out to be higher.  Nor do I think the text was an agreed upon settlement; more of a proposal of how to solve the problem that the landlord was going to provide.  The landlord should not be held to this offer once the tenant has the nerve to sue for the incentive money she didn't receive for moving out on time when she didn't, you know, move out on time. 

Judge Milan force fed the landlords the theory that they were not returning the security deposit  because the tenant stayed past December 1st.  Judge Milan set up this straw man argument just to knock it down by holding them to the text agreement as I described above.   Alternatively, their argument for keeping the security deposit should have been that the cost of the cleanup was higher than anticipated and that there was no agreement as their was no quid pro quo.

I so wanted JM to at least call the tenant on the carpet for having the audacity to sue for the $1,000 incentive money (and refusing to withdraw the request when JM specifically asked her to after the stupidity of the request was pointed out to her). 

Would have liked the judge to go after the tenant for not moving out when she agreed to and at least ask her why?  Of course, would have gotten, "I was a tenant for 13 years", "I didn't have any place to go" (JM, response should have been, "that sounds like a you problem.  They gave you time and money."), "Covid."  But some people she goes easy on and others she rips into.     

If the landlord defendants were more argumentative and spoke up about the actual costs of removing the furniture and paying for a dumpster, maybe it would have made a difference but I doubt it, as JM had already decided to give money back to the plaintiff. 

I hate when JM nickel and dimes landlords as to cost of repairs.  To me once you cross a certain line of damaged and a lot broken, a big disgusting mess, left behind property, for the landlord to take care of, you have in essence waived the right to get your security deposit back as the landlord having to deal with what should have been done by you should cost.  Instead, JM typically low-balls the cost of repairs and gives no credit to the landlord for work they do themselves that would not acquire a receipt to show as evidence and the time and aggravation in having to deal with someone else's mess.

Side note: These cases were uninteresting the first time around, they do not get more interesting two and a half months later.  Just the same irritations one more time.

Edited December 8, 2021 by Bazinga

[AngelaHunter]

17 hours ago, Bazinga said:

The defendant by text agreed on December 11th to accept $650 and return the remainder of the security deposit, $1,000, to the plaintiff.  If not for this agreement, then the defendant's can go after December's rent.

Ah, yes. Quite right, although I have seen JM disregard a text promising to pay back money owed because it came after the loan was made or somesuch. No lawyer am I so I guess I just don't get the subtle differences.

I guess defs learned "No good deed goes unpunished".

Edited December 9, 2021 by AngelaHunter
because I got mixed up with the 2 different amounts. Duh.

[CrazyInAlabama]

Today's bizarre rerun is "Coffin Crisis"    This is the case where plaintiff couldn't put the headstone he wanted on his wife's grave (cemetery rules), so he had her exhumed, and reburied at another cemetery.     The plaintiff couldn't be grave side, or have a civilian present to watch the exhumation, (he could have hired someone from the other cemetery or a funeral home to be present, but he didn't), so he hired defendant, a private investigator to video the exhumation.  However, during the exhumation there was a car that came up to the gravesite, and blocked the P.I.'s view, so plaintiff told defendant and his associate to move, so the crucial transfer was missed, so plaintiff wants his money back from defendant, defendant wins.      Plaintiff tells Doug that his wife was reburied, but he's going to have her exhumed again, so he can open the coffin.    He thinks the first cemetery didn't transfer his wife, or maybe it's not his wife in the coffin at the other cemetery.      What does plaintiff think the first cemetery did with the body?    Or why would the transfer that is almost all filmed be faked? 

I can think of a lot of reasons why only cemetery personnel can be at the exhumation.     Liability of observer getting hurt, someone having hysterics when the exhumation happened, someone like plaintiff demaning the coffin be opened, coffins do fall apart sometimes, and I don't want to imagine the issues with someone's remains falling out.     

Edited December 13, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

[Deskisamess]

51 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Today's bizarre rerun is "Coffin Crisis"    This is the case where plaintiff couldn't put the headstone he wanted on his wife's grave (cemetery rules), so he had her exhumed, and reburied at another cemetery.     The plaintiff couldn't be grave side, or have a civilian present to watch the exhumation, (he could have hired someone from the other cemetery or a funeral home to be present, but he didn't), so he hired defendant, a private investigator to video the exhumation.  However, during the exhumation there was a car that came up to the gravesite, and blocked the P.I.'s view, so plaintiff told defendant and his associate to move, so the crucial transfer was missed, so plaintiff wants his money back from defendant, defendant wins.      Plaintiff tells Doug that his wife was reburied, but he's going to have her exhumed again, so he can open the coffin.    He thinks the first cemetery didn't transfer his wife, or maybe it's not his wife in the coffin at the other cemetery.      What does plaintiff think the first cemetery did with the body?    Or why would the transfer that is almost all filmed be faked?    

I watched that episode when it aired the first time. That guy was a bit unhinged IMO. There is a no way a cemetery would do such a thing. The whole case just seemed "off" to me.

[AngelaHunter]

I understand why the funeral home would say "No family" present. In our extremely litigious times, it's about liability. A family member or spouse stands there watching the coffin be exhumed, gets overwhelmed, faints, hits head on tombstone, ends up in hospital/needs physical or mental therapy/has to take Ativan, and sues funeral home because "They shouldn't have let me watch that!"

We know that now no one is responsible for his/her own actions or decisions.

[CrazyInAlabama]

On today's rerun, I was disgusted at Judge Marilyn's attitude through the entire case.

"Your Dog Destroyed My Ducks!" where plaintiff was suing defendant for her dogs killing his ducks.    It was obvious from the first explanation of the case, that the judge didn't care about the ducks, and had no intention of being fair.    What a suprise when she found for the defendant, who had been smiling, and smirking through the entire case.   

Today's rerun was the cute little on-leash dog attacked by the Rottweiler, and the defendant actually refused to pay the vet bills, and defendant walked her dog off-leash in front of the plaintiff's house several times. 

Edited December 20, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

On today's rerun, I was disgusted at Judge Marilyn's attitude through the entire case.

I didn't watch this the first time or this time, but many people are nonchalant about animals they don't see as pets. "They're only ducks (or chickens/turkeys/whatever) so what's the big deal? Get some more." I don't know if that was JM's attitude, but I really hate that.

[Maverick]

On 10/5/2021 at 4:26 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

Today's show "Pooch Problems"   Case 1-Plaintiff says husband called defendant/dog owner names after defendant's dog attacked plaintiff's beagle/schnauzer.   Plaintiff is suing for $1320 in dog medical bills, from the infection the bites caused. 

 Defendant says plaintiff is looking for a bonanza, defendant doesn't believer vet bills, and says plaintiff lied to Animal Control about defendant's dog's bite history.  (My guess is plaintiff told Animal Control the truth, and defendant was lying). 

 Plaintiffs were walking leashed dog on the street, then defendant was out on her yard with Rottweiler, not on leash, and plaintiff's dog was bitten on the butt by Rottie, and plaintiff's husband was bitten by his own dog while trying to rescue her.  Plaintiff husband didn't need medical care, but the little dog needed care at the emergency vet. 

Initial vet bill was over $400, and defendant paid that.    But dog's wound became infected, and that resulted in $1100+ more in vet bills, and defendant refused to pay that.    Defendant also says she doesn't know why plaintiffs were walking their dog in a snow storm.  

(I think any dog case with an off-leash dog should result in $5,000 for the victim's bills, and pain and suffering, so the defendant doesn't get a penny.)

Later, plaintiff waw the defendant walking her other, smaller dog, in front of their house, off leash.  Plaintiff submits a photo of defendant breaking the leash laws, and I doubt it was a coincidence that defendant was walking the off-leash dog right by plaintiff's house.    Defendant says her small dog is harmless, she's still a jerk, and breaking the law.  Defendant says ignoring the leash law is a personal choice.   

Defendant says not leashing her dogs is a personal choice, and doesn't care about what anyone says.  Then Doug in the hall asks defendant if she'll walk her dogs on leash, and defendant says no.   I hope everyone in the neighborhood calls animal control every time defendant and her dogs are off leash.    I don't believe the Rottie isn't out off leash constantly.   

Harvey calls defendant a bad dog owner, and says animal control should take defendant's dog, and right now I like Harvey almost as much as I like Doug.  

$1380 to plaintiff.

 I just saw this case today, and OMG this bitch.  You can tell she's an arrogant, entitled asshole that isn't going to have anyone tell her what to do.  "It's my personal choice not to restrain my animal that way."  No Miss Thing, you're not some champion for animals nor are you striking a major blow for personal liberties.  You're a spoiled little twit that thinks your shit doesn't stink.  As Judge MM rakes her over the coals, she just sits there deadpan until finally she cracks this half crooked serial killer smile that says "fuck you, bitch...you think my dog is dangerous, just you wait".    

 She's obviously going to end up in court again very soon, which made me wonder--has TPC ever had any repeat visitors/offenders?   

[Taeolas]

5 hours ago, Maverick said:

 

 She's obviously going to end up in court again very soon, which made me wonder--has TPC ever had any repeat visitors/offenders?   

 

Judge Mathis has been doing Throwback cases and a few of the cases have seen litigants returning for another case. 

 

As for TPC,  I think I can recall one or two cases where a litigant has returned, but it is much, MUCH rarer. 

 

As for this Dog-"owner", what a psychotic b!tch. I really hope Animal Control have yoinked any living thing she has in her household from her, and she's stuck crying on FB about how unfair everyone is for not letting her do what she wants. 

 

If she really wants to have dogs off leash, then move out to the country. If you want to live in the city/suburbs, you have to agree to the rules. 

[AngelaHunter]

Best Wishes to all you snarkers!!! 🎅

 

 

[CrazyInAlabama]

Today's rerun, is an attack by a Dalmatian on a tiny dog at the dog park.   Usual defendant attitude, my dog never bites any dog, the little dog started it, I never saw an attack, and my dog was just playing.  Defendant claims plaintiff's dog is aggressive, starts fights, and it wasn't defendant's fault.   $547 to plaintiff.       "Nasty Neighbor Attack". 

By the way, I've met quite a few Dalmatian dogs, and none were good with other dogs, and most were people aggressive too.   I may have only met the naughty ones, but they are big dogs, need lots of exercise, and I don't think a little lope around the dog park will help get their energy down.  

Edited December 29, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

3 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

 I may have only met the naughty ones, but they are big dogs, need lots of exercise, and I don't think a little lope around the dog park will help get their energy down.  

Taking an high-energy, guardian breed to a dog park because you're too lazy or clueless to walk it is dumb. People get dogs based on fads or because they saw them in a Disney movie and think "Cool!", with no thought as to what the dog was bred for, or to giving it what it needs.

3 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

 "Nasty Neighbor Attack". 

That's a worse, nasty train wreck than it appeared to be the first time.

[AngelaHunter]

I never saw the first case today, featuring the screaming, lying, scamming, honest, Good Samaritan furniture peddler who agree to buy P's used applicances and pay him 200$. His workers went and picked up the stuff and took it all even though some of them weren't working. Why? Good Samaritan has no answer and thankfully takes a pause in the screaming but concludes that was part of his Good Samaritanism.

P finally looked up D online and has pages of customers relating their horrible experiences with the abusive, foul-mouthed POS def. I believe all of them.

P gets his 200$ and I was very annoyed with JM for telling Def only once to stop screaming. I had to lower the volume which was inconvenient since I'm half-deaf and had to keep turning the sound up and down. 😏

Happy New Year to the respected and respectable posters here. Let's hope things will improve in the coming year!

 

 

[badhaggis]

17 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

I never saw the first case today, featuring the screaming, lying, scamming, honest, Good Samaritan furniture peddler who agree to buy P's used applicances and pay him 200$. His workers went and picked up the stuff and took it all even though some of them weren't working. Why? Good Samaritan has no answer and thankfully takes a pause in the screaming but concludes that was part of his Good Samaritanism.

P finally looked up D online and has pages of customers relating their horrible experiences with the abusive, foul-mouthed POS def. I believe all of them.

P gets his 200$ and I was very annoyed with JM for telling Def only once to stop screaming. I had to lower the volume which was inconvenient since I'm half-deaf and had to keep turning the sound up and down. 😏

Happy New Year to the respected and respectable posters here. Let's hope things will improve in the coming year!

 

 

Happy New Year @AngelaHunter, @CrazyInAlabama and all the posters here that have given me much needed entertainment this year!

[AngelaHunter]

We got new cases today, but they were exceptionally dreary and boring. Big rap battlers fighting over disrespect, hurt feelings, FB posts, and a few dollars, when Def felt so superior he never saw P as a worth battle opponent (he could whup P with just freestyle!) and didn't bother showing up. It was raining and there was traffic. Of course JM wants to see a video. I FF. Rap warrior really should have left 'out his crib' earlier to get to the airport on time. Only good part was Douglas cracking up really badly over these "thin-skinned" combatants.

The second case was some Bigfoot afficionado suing D over a concert featuring some Platters knock-off or something when the promoter didn't have 400$ to make a promotional video and borrowed it from P and it was all a snoozefest. I FF. I think Doug-in-the-Hall threw some shade on the Defs.

[DoctorK]

Another lawyer as a plaintiff for today's first case. I wish they had kept the first picture of the rip up longer because it clearly showed a narrow rip on the seat and not a rip but a worn through place on the left side seat bolster which was what the plaintiff complained about – not a rip (note that the edges of the damage are obviously frayed not torn, probably from wear).  I have had enough old cars (plaintiff’s car is seven years old) to have seen seat wear like that often. His later pictures show a lot more damage. Unlike the judge, the frayed edges of the originally shown damage showed me that the damage was long term wear on the seat, and the fabric was just worn through from use. As always, YMMV. I was also glad that JM at least took notice of the service bulletin.

[CrazyInAlabama]

3 hours ago, DoctorK said:

I wish they had kept the first picture of the rip up longer because it clearly showed a narrow rip on the seat and not a rip but a worn through place on the left side seat bolster which was what the plaintiff complained about – not a rip (note that the edges of the damage are obviously frayed not torn, probably from wear).  

After reading your post, when I watched it I absolutely agree with you.    That was a worn spot, the rip, and everything else happened later.     Trying to get the defendant to pay lost wages, window controls, and everything else he wants is ridiculous.   The defendant was more than fair with his offer for free services.    The service bulletin about the seats was certainly proof that it was an existing issue, and not the car wash personnel's fault.     The defendant certainly came across as a nice person. 

To me, there's no way that the big mark is anything but wear.   That doesn't look like recent damage.  

So the second case where the plaintiff claims she moved out of defendant's home because defendant confronted her with a purple gun.   Both sides claim the other side threatened their kids.    I guess the plaintiff paying for the room, and getting evicted by the police so soon might be a record for the shortest tenancy on People's Court.    

I love Doug.   His remarks to the litigants say exactly what we all say about them, and I'm really glad that he's working remote with his 'hall-terviews'.  

Edited January 5, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, DoctorK said:

Another lawyer as a plaintiff for today's first case.

This turned out to be kind of awesome. Of course, I always love watching dumbass lawyers and the grinning Mr. Effron(?) did not disappoint. He's suing Mr. Greg Paul ("Call me Greg") owner of the carwash/ detailing place for ripping a hole in the upholstery of his 2014 Subaru Crosstrek.

Mr. Effron,the legal expert (he notes he's an immigration lawyer, but still...) wants not only the cost to fix the rip, but also the return of all the money he paid for the detailing (which was done) PLUS a 'modest' 250$/per hour for the two hours it took him to prepare for this case even though he waited over six months to begin to sue for it. Of course, in all this time it never occurs to Mr. Effron to slap a little duct tape over the hole to keep all the foam from falling out until it looks like the burrow of a chipmunk. Duh. Gotta love these lawyers!

It appears the lawyer is about to be awarded the 500-odd$ for the repair, but then in a stunning, last-minute Perry Mason moment, Greg whips out proof that this model car is known for having a defect that causes the upholstery in that spot to tear or wear out and there have been recalls. Mr. Effron doesn't know about this, and JM changes her mind and gives him zippo.

Good for you, Greg! In the hall, Greg explains that when he knew he would be on the show he binge-watched it and realized he needed proof for a defense, something 98% of defendants don't know. Doug in the Hall congratulates him. Lawyer grins. Greg offers to have Mr. Effron get free car washes and a referral to an upholstery place. Greg is amenable to that but still seems to think the repair "won't come out of my pocket." Pay attention, Mr. Lawyer!

Then we had a debacle, in which Taahira is suing Ronnesha over a room rental. The motor-mouthed Taahira, who says she is a caregiver, is looking on CL or FB for a room to rent to "be near my kids, as any mother would."  Seems the caregiver has lost custody of these two very young children and they have been given to her ex-b/f, baby daddy's mother. JM does not inquire as to why her kids were removed from her custody and that's just as well, since I didn't want to know either. She rambles on and on about how her ex-baby daddy sees and doesn't like the premises and she snarks that he needs to stop putting negativity into the world and into her life and blah blah until JM finally tells her to get to the damned point.

Anyway, Taahira meets up with Ronnesha and gives her payment for half a month's rent - 400$ - plus 300$ deposit. Ronnesha then hits her up for another 250$ for some reason and P just gives it to her.

Within 72 hrs, the cops are at the door, telling everyone they are evicted and to GTFO. Taahira wants all her money back. Ronnesha has a different story. SHE was not evicted. The house is partly hers and her name in on the deed. Sort of, in a way. Maybe. Her absentee b/f - well, her boyfriend in a way, sort of - Joelle, owns the the house and was not happy with it being turned into a flophouse, especially since Ronnesha "didn't give me no money" from the rents, which we learn when she phones Joelle. In a text, D tells P what "Joelle, my father" said. So she's a big fat liar and JM is not inclined to believe anything else she says. Ronnesha explains there are "no refunds" which causes JM to explode and Douglas to be highly amused at this utter stupidity and outright scamming.

Taahira gets back all the rent - 950$ - she paid plus 900$ or 1K (I think) in punitive damages even though Taahira wanted something like 10K all told for her gas, hotel, emotional distress and the usual greedy money grabs.

I was very let down when we heard nothing about Ronnesha pulling a "purple gun" on Taahira, which Levin's puppet promised in the opening blurb.