The People's Court - General Discussion

[AZChristian]

 It amazed me that someone who can't pronounce "refRigerator" earns enough money to buy one that was 5 feet wide, requiring a custom kitchen to be built around it.

[Maverick]

 I thought it was de classe to use a Walmart gym sock to protect her portable Barbie dream igloo and her light color cabinets that will look like shit in 3 months with 5 kids in the house.   Anyone with taste knows in that scenario you use a sock made from organic Yak wool shorn from a herd that resides in remote Tibet and has has been blessed by the Dali Lama.

[AngelaHunter]

On 3/12/2022 at 8:57 AM, AZChristian said:

 It amazed me that someone who can't pronounce "refRigerator" earns enough money to buy one that was 5 feet wide, requiring a custom kitchen to be built around it.

I didn't notice so had to go back and listen again. Yes, Pudge-Boy says "refigerator" constantly. I guess it's a step up from litigants who merely say "figerator".

What is it with these people of a certain age group that they need everything super-sized? They have kitchen islands the size of dance floors, bathrooms as big as ballrooms, closets as big as my living room, etc.  Do they watch too much HGTV? They need to outdo everyone in their circle, or...?

On 3/12/2022 at 9:54 AM, Maverick said:

I thought it was de classe to use a Walmart gym sock to protect her portable Barbie dream igloo and her light color cabinets that will look like shit in 3 months with 5 kids in the house.   Anyone with taste knows in that scenario you use a sock made from organic Yak wool shorn from a herd that resides in remote Tibet and has has been blessed by the Dali Lama.

😆🤣 And the herd dines only on pesticide/herbicide-free buttercups.

[CrazyInAlabama]

Plaintiff audited a condo at the request of the board of directors, with a signed contract.    Plaintiff did the audit, and now defendant refuses to pay her fees, or the late fees.     However, defendant is no longer on the board, and says she never authorized the audit.  The man who was President of the board at that time is plaintiff's witness.  Defendant claims the vote didn't approve spending $3,000 for the audit, unless it was approved by the majority.   Defendant claims former president/plaintiff witness exceeded his authority, and she is on the board, and she's not paying.   

Former board president Buckingham, says 3 out of 5 board members agreed to do the audit, and it only requires a majority.   Defendant was one of the ones who voted the audit down.    Defendant is no longer on the board, and she's management for the condo.   Defendant claims she doesn't remember ever voting on the audit, and won't pay it.   

On a personal note, a local HOA didn't do regular audits, and then it was discovered that a board member was embezzling, and it took several years before this was discovered.   Unfortunately, embezzlement is seldom prosecuted for smaller amounts, and jail time is not happening either.  

Plaintiff wins.  

Case 2-Plaintiff wanted maroon and white sneakers for her school reunion, she didn't get the sneakers, and wants her $275 back.  Defendant says he offered a comparable shoe, because Covid slowed the import of the shoes, but plaintiff refused.   PLaintiff says defendant told her 8 to 10 weeks for the custom sneakers, but the contracts say 1 to 20 weeks.  

$275 back to plaintiff. 

Case 3-Plaintiff uses the handicapped placard that his father qualifies  for, to park in the handicapped space in front of the neighboring church.   Then, plaintiff's car got hit, the church cameras don't cover that spot, and plaintiff still wants money for the damages from the minister, and his church.   Defendant / minister says they built their own parking lot, because the street parking isn't legal.  Plaintiff claims defendant erased the security camera footage.  However, plaintiff never requested the footage until two months after the accident.    Plaintiff was parked on a public street, and that's not the church's responsibility.  

Plaintiff loses.  

Edited March 14, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff audited a condo at the request of the board of directors, with a signed contract.

I actually rewatched this rather boring case just for the relaxation, knowing the P wasn't going to get drunk or high and challenge the D to fight her, she didn't smash her windshield, make a false call to CPS, or complain about D posting 'explicited' photos of her. Grammar was unmangled and 'explicitive'-free. Def's hairdo was a crime but it was a victimless crime. Nice job, ladies!

[DoctorK]

4 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Defendant claims former president/plaintiff witness exceeded his authority, and she is on the board, and she's not paying.   

I despised her, she was arrogant and self righteous. I loved the hallterview in which she complained about people who pick and choose what bylaws they follow; that is exactly what she was doing, the audit was required by the bylaws. What a lack of self awareness.

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, DoctorK said:

I despised her, she was arrogant and self righteous

I couldn't stand her either while she spouted babblespeak about why she felt she could just ignore what she didn't like, as the former president rolled his eyes at her BS. JM all but ridiculed her and Doug in the Hall did same.

[CrazyInAlabama]

"Livid at a Landscaper"    a rerun from 2021, I think last Fall. 

Case 1-Plaintiff claims she's a single woman, and defendant should be ashamed for ripping her off for $1500.   Defendant claims he did what he was hired to do, plaintiff paid him, and he's not paying her back.   Plaintiff wanted the area between the curb and the street, either a parkway, or a swale, and trim foliage at her back wall, and take down a palm tree.  Correct the sprinklers (you need to aim them), and resod.   

Defendant says he did the work.  PLaintiff claims the workers were drinking, swearing, and awful.  Plaintiff wanted every penny back, tried to sue twice and failed.   Plaintiff also drove 24 miles each way to see if defendant's truck was in his driveway.    ANother wrinkle, Cranky old plaintiff says she threatened the defendant and his workers with calling immigration about them.  She's also a retired IRS employee, and claimed to defendant that she would turn him into the IRS for tax evasion. 

Plaintiff loses after her despicable threats to turn defendant, family, and friends into the immigration authorities, and IRS.    Doug really jabs the plaintiff, and I really love Doug and his snark.   

Case 2-Plaintiff is a minister, wanted a sign from defendant, and claims the background sign was printed backwards, and wants a refund.   Defendant says the sign is only backwards when you do a selfie, unless you do the phone the other way around.   

Plot twist, sign is hanging behind the plaintiff, and it's perfect.  However, he preaches his sermons over his phone, which reverses things.    Apparently, plaintiff actually wanted a backwards sign, so it would appear the right way over his phone, but is too stupid to realize that.  Defendant offered to do a backwards sign for a 20% discount, and the judge says defendant already did most of the work, and do the sign at 50% off.   

Plaintiff gets no refund, and still doesn't understand that he approved the proof of the sign.   Plaintiff will do the reverse sign for 50% discount, and it will be ready by friday.  

Case 3-Plaintiff hired defendant to make a boat cover, but three months have gone by.  Plaintiff wants his deposit back.   However, defendant says the cover is ready to install, but her installer lost a child, and that delayed everything.    The the employee left the company, and that delayed the job even further. 

Defendant says that two employees did leave after a death in the family.   Defendant says the two subcontractors weren't her employeeS, but they were a mother and son, and the son died.   Defendant says boat cover was done, and defendant tried to get the cover installed, and blamed on the canvas worker.    

$450 back to plaintiff. 

 

Edited March 16, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama

[Mrs Shibbles]

I remember the case 1 lady from when it originally aired.  What kind of person goes before a Latina Judge and admits to all sorts of bigotry toward a gardener of Latin American descent, including threats to turn them in to immigration and the IRS.?   Then she was flabbergasted at the ruling.  Prejudice runs deep.

[AngelaHunter]

12 hours ago, Mrs Shibbles said:

I remember the case 1 lady from when it originally aired.  What kind of person goes before a Latina Judge and admits to all sorts of bigotry toward a gardener of Latin American descent, including threats to turn them in to immigration and the IRS.?   Then she was flabbergasted at the ruling.  Prejudice runs deep.

It would be funny if it weren't so ugly. Many of the landscapers and tilers here are Italian. I just engaged one of them for a bathroom reno. I guess I should assume he's here illegally and if I don't like his work or if he charges too much I'll stalk him and threaten to have him, his family and all his friends deported. Anyone with an Italian name who does stonework/landscaping must be here without permission and pays no taxes.  😄

[CrazyInAlabama]

Today's rerun, "Your Kid is Out of Control"

Case 1-Plaintiff suing neighbor for her grandson throwing rocks at her car, and damaging the car.   The two women are next door neighbors, and haven't seen each other in months. Grandmother says plaintiff lied to grandson, and plaintiff said she had surveillance video of grandson tossing rock at her car and scratching it.    Plaintiff got 3 estimates, two from chop shops, but grandmother refuses to pay for the damage, because plaintiff lied about the video. 

Grandmother now claims she misunderstood the type of rocks, and where they were thrown from.   (As Angela Hunter said, defendant claims they were faux rocks.   Pretty upscale apartment complex to have faux rocks for landscaping).  Grandmother claims she will pay for the car, but hasn't in the year since this happened.   

Grandmother claims she raises the grandson, along with his mother, but the mother is barely in town.    Grandmother also claims she would pay the car damages, but she never did, and never will. 

Judge Marilyn says $650 against the grandson.  My guess is plaintiff will never see a penny since the kid's only 12. 

Case 2-Plaintiff suing cousin for not paying back a loan.  Plaintiff claims $839.31 is owed.   Defendant Serinity (not a misspelling by me) cousin claims money was a gift, not a loan, and was for her college expenses.   Defendant cites the statute of limitations, so that makes it a loan to me too.  

After demanding repayment, defendant sent plaintiff 69 cents by Zelle, with a nasty emoji.

I love how asking for payments on a loan are 'harassing' the defendant.  

Plaintiff gets her $300 back, plus attorney letter plaintiff paid for. 

(I think if the despicable grifter defendant hadn't sent the .69 Zelle payment, that Judge Marilyn might have said the cousin had no expectation of payment, since her cousin was a long-term user, and deadbeat.   Her .69 payment tanked her). 

Edited March 17, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

38 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Grandmother now claims she misunderstood the type of rocks, and where they were thrown from. 

They were "faux" rocks. 😄

[AZChristian]

3 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff gets her $300 back, plus attorney letter plaintiff paid for. 

Minus the $.69 the spiteful little entitled brat already sent her.

[CrazyInAlabama]

"Tantrum Over a Tow", a fun rerun.

Case 1-Plaintiff suing tow company for towing his car from a city street.    He claims it was an illegal tow, he was legally parked, and it was harassment.   However, defendant from the tow company says car didn't have license plates on it (plaintiff says they were on the floorboards of the car), so no registration, and was on a city street for over a week like that, so police called her company to tow the car.  

Plaintiff claims he was out of town for a few days, the car was towed because some cranky senior citizen didn't like him, (I'm a senior, and I can't stand him), and he claims the seats were ripped up, and all kinds of other damages, and blames the tow company.     Tag is clearly on the floorboards of the car, but that's bizarre.  Plaintiff says he just bought the car, and only took the tag off because he parked in his driveway (This happened in Far Rockaway, in Queens, NY), not that makes no sense to Judge Marilyn, Doug the bailiff, or me.    

Plaintiff also claims interior damages were done by the tow company.   However, it looks like someone broke into the car, to search for something.   The front seat backs are torn loose, and that screams looking for drugs to me.  Tow personnel said car was ripped up before they towed it, and it was received in the ripped up condition.    

Case 2-Plaintiff suing neighbor for him crashing into her lamppost, and she wants it repaired.  Plaintiff doesn't want the replacement defendant offered, she was a more expensive one.  The electric lamppost was installed in 2014, and defendant says it was rusty, and worthless.   

Since defendant took too long to replace lamppost, plaintiff had it done, and gets the full price from the defendant.

Case 3-Plaintiff wants her deposit back, defendant says non-refundable.  Defendant says plaintiff wanted the commercial space she was going to rent to work like an apartment rental.     So, plaintiff changed her mind about renting defendant's commercial property, and wants her $1,000 deposit back. 

 Plaintiff claims the non-refundable statement was added to the contract, but right in front of her.  Plaintiff claims her attorney told her the rental office would be a money pit, because she's responsible for everything in the building, plumbing, leaks, utilities, and claims all of this was a surprise to her. 

Judge Marilyn says that defendant / landlord shouldn't have been talking to others about renting the property, since plaintiff put down a deposit.   In my opinion having a back up leasor is a good idea for when someone like the plaintiff bails on you.   The judge was wrong, if you have a list of possible renters, then when someone bails on you like the plaintiff did, you can get another tenant in there quickly, and you don't lose extra months rents hunting for a tenant.   

The big difference to me is that the defendant was subleasing an entire building to plaintiff, and I bet her new office is just a space in an office building, or a section in  a strip mall, so the second would have maintenance and other amenities centralized.  

Predictably, plaintiff gets her $1,000 back.   

Edited March 19, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

20 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

the car was towed because some cranky senior citizen didn't like him, (I'm a senior, and I can't stand him),

Even if I were a junior I couldn't stand this lying, mush-mouthed, pathetic excuse for a hustler.

[Bazinga]

8 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

8 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

the car was towed because some cranky senior citizen didn't like him, (I'm a senior, and I can't stand him),

Even if I were a junior I couldn't stand this lying, mush-mouthed, pathetic excuse for a hustler.

Now this guy was a mansplainer, yet JM did not call him that, but she did harshly rebuke the defendant a few weeks ago who, IMO, did not speak to her in an inappropriate way, as a mansplainer.  I think it is sexist and inappropriate for a judge to call a litigant a mansplainer but at least in this case, it would have been warranted.  Instead she just laughed off his nonsense.  

Edited March 18, 2022 by Bazinga

[Guest]

I still cannot figure out why Plaintiff got her grand back when all signs pointed to her willingly signing the lease.  JM is not what I would call consistent in her rulings or even as Bazinga mentioned her treatment of the litigants.  Sheesh, I still have her cutesy reaction to the college girls (faux case) in my head when they were acting like complete idiots.  I think AngelaHunter was on point by saying (paraphrasing) JM adores her college-aged daughters so much and probably longs to be in the same category.  I think AngelaHunter said that.  If not, apologies to AngelaHunter and kudos to whoever suggested that.

Confession:  Been checking dates on the repeats and re-living original posts so there isn’t much that I’ve already said in November.

One thing though…I’ve noticed our posts are like diaries.  I forgot half of the stuff I write about but with all the repeats I can relive neighbors, sidewalk stones, marble gravestones, and my all time favorite activity - spending time at the Emergency Room when I sliced my finger.  

With this board I really don’t need to write in a journal.  My life is already here.  Kind of sad, isn’t it?

[AngelaHunter]

13 minutes ago, PsychoKlown said:

 I think AngelaHunter was on point by saying (paraphrasing) JM adores her college-aged daughters so much and probably longs to be in the same category.

Partly correct. I said (I think) that she gives a pass to girls/young women and often to the elderly because of her own affinity for those two groups that represent her darling, brilliant, perfect daughters and her parents. 

21 minutes ago, PsychoKlown said:

With this board I really don’t need to write in a journal.  My life is already here.  Kind of sad, isn’t it?

From one sadsack to another, I sometimes actually go back and read posts from bygone times when in serious need of a laugh. It always works. This forum is therapy...

 

[Bazinga]

8 hours ago, PsychoKlown said:

I still cannot figure out why Plaintiff got her grand back when all signs pointed to her willingly signing the lease.  

From what I gathered from JM, the defendant did not prove that he went over all of the details of the lease with the plaintiff.  He did not completely memorialize the lease agreement in his confirmation text. 

The plaintiff brought the lease to her attorney AFTER signing it.  The attorney pointed out issues.  The plaintiff wants out and got her deposit back.  Why the defendant is not held to the lease she SIGNED and should have read, I have no clue.  Why the defendant is required to confirm the terms of a signed lease, I don't know.  The defendant was correct in pointing out he can not put everything in the lease in a text. The lease, that the plaintiff should have read, already includes everything, as that is what the lease is for.  JM never even asked if she bothered to read it.  Would have gotten excuses of it was late, it was dark, I worked all day, he pressured me, I really wanted it, I don't understand legal stuff tee hee, I forgot my glasses, etc.  One solution would be to have the perspective tenant initial each lease term. 

IMO, JM was simply looking for a reason to give the plaintiff back a non-refundable deposit.  Blaming the inadequate text, finding issue with his still looking to rent to another after the plaintiff signed even though the plaintiff was not denied renting the property, somewhat even considering the plaintiff's blatant lie that the defendant wrote in non- refundable in front of her after she signed, not that it should matter as non-refundable is the default position, caring that the lawyer AFTER plaintiff signed the lease, found issues she should not like, and having issue with whether the money is called a down payment or deposit.  All that should matter is that the plaintiff signed the lease and should be held to its terms and should not get her money back under any circumstances.  But, obviously the plaintiff was a poor defenseless female victim of the unscrupulous male landlord.  Why should she have read the lease or brought the lease to her attorney BEFORE signing it and handing over money (seems analogous  to bringing a used car to a mechanic after purchase)?

Edited March 19, 2022 by Bazinga

[DoctorK]

5 hours ago, Bazinga said:

But, obviously the plaintiff was a poor defenseless female victim of the unscrupulous male landlord.

JM is starting to do this a lot, as if she wants to be the next Judge Corriero. Apparently women are just not capable enough to be held to adult standards.This is actually pretty insulting.

[badhaggis]

3 hours ago, DoctorK said:

JM is starting to do this a lot, as if she wants to be the next Judge Corriero. Apparently women are just not capable enough to be held to adult standards.This is actually pretty insulting.

Highly insulting I agree.

[CrazyInAlabama]

"Puppy Problems", 

Case 1-Idiot plaintiff spends $950 to buy a Pug-Chihuahua mix puppy from Canadian breeder/defendant.    The plan was to meet at the border, exchange the puppy, and but the Canadian authorities wouldn't let them exchange the puppy, and for plaintiff to get back to the U.S. side.     

(I know that there were professional haulers that brought horses between the U.S. and Canada during the Covid lockdowns, and they carried dogs and puppies with them.    Plaintiff wants over $5,000 for travel expenses, and all of the problems she had because she couldn't get the puppy.)    

Defendant says it's not his problem that plaintiff's stupid plan to sneak the puppy over the border failed.   He hasn't paid plaintiff her $950 either.    He also points out that plaintiff sent him more money after the failed cross border transfer. 

Plaintiff claims she had various schemes to get the puppy across the border, and plaintiff claims defendant's girlfriend vetoed all of her plans.  Plot twist is girlfriend took the puppy when she dumped the defendant.  The girlfriend supposedly had a restraining order against the defendant too. Defendant got the puppy back.   (My guess is the girlfriend doesn't exist, and defendant always had the puppy). 

Plaintiff gets her $950 back.    (I can't stand either litigant.   Who thinks buying a Pug/Chi cross is worth $950?  I just hope the puppy has a good home). 

Case 2-Plaintiff bought a used car from defendant's dealership, plaintiff took the car to another Mercedes dealer, and got a laundry list of repairs, new tires, etc. and wants defendant to pay for all of them.    "As is" applies.   Plaintiff actually tells the judge that you can't see tire depth by looking, what a fool he is.  

Plaintiff gets $500 for the mirror, and in the future should go see defendant to see if an item is covered by the extended warranty, and maybe it can get repaired.  If it's not a covered repair, then plaintiff can take the car anywhere he wants, and has to pay for the fix.  Defendant still thinks plaintiff should buy him a new set of tires.  

Case 3-Plaintiff hired attorney defendant to get plaintiff's money back from a construction company that ripped him off.  Defendant says he did a lot of work, and was working on the case, and hasn't heard from the plaintiff for 14 months.   

Why didn't the attorney send

 

Plaintiff gets $1,000 back of his $2850 he wanted. 

 

 

[AngelaHunter]

I am still bemused at all the women litigants here, with all their kids and godmothers and aunties and grandmas, yet never a mention of the fathers. Have men become an endangered species, since it seems none of them are around?

[CrazyInAlabama]

"Not Getting Along with Mom" a rerun from 2021.

Case 1-Plaintiff's adult son was shot and killed.   She's suing defendant son for son's car.   Plaintiff was going to have it towed to her house, but defendant son and an aunt snuck the car away.   Plaintiff son won't give her the car, she's blind in one eye, has no driver's license (neither does defendant son).    Deceased brother had no wife, or kids, so I guess the mother is the next of kin.    

Plaintiff claims she can have people with licenses drive it for her.   Son / defendant offered her anything out of the car (clothing, shoes, paperwork, etc.) but plaintiff refused, and wants the car.    The car is the only asset from the estate, unless something's in the car.   Defendant son says the mother can't see, has no license, and can't afford to maintain car, (my guess is insurance won't happen either.).   

What a sordid, nasty case.   Son Rubin says the children were always in foster care, barely knew the mother.   He says he's fixing the car up a little at a time.   Car is a 2000 Nissan Maxima.   

Car is registered in Arizona, by the previous owner, there is no bill of sale, and it can't be registered in California until the paperwork is done.    They can't even get ahold of the previous, actually current, owner.   Police won't get involved, and mother still wants everything in the car. 

Judge rules that inheritance is the mother's, so the plaintiff is told to file with DMV, but the issue is the car isn't in the late son's name.   (The judge seems to have a zit on her chin, well covered, but still there).  Plaintiff told to go to probate court, and this case is dismissed.   It's a local probate case.   (My guess is mother wants anything valuable in car, and if she ever gets the car in her name, it will be sold right after she takes anything valuable out of the car).  

Case 2-Plaintiff paid a vendor fee to sell jewelry at defendant's pop-up event, and wants her $350 deposit, and transportation and other fees back.   When she arrived, it started to sprinkle, and she waited in the taxi, with the meter running, and then left. 

Defendant says plaintiff wanted him to cancel, and she left, the event continued, and the weather cleared up.   Vendors, like plaintiff, paid $125 for the vendor fee, and she wants $350.    

Plaintiff keeps cursing in Spanish during the case (Judge Marilyn says six times in Spanish), and so the judge rules for the defendant, who will now update his contract rain policy. 

 

Edited March 23, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama

[rcc]

12 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

"Not Getting Along with Mom" a rerun from 2021.

Case 1-Plaintiff's adult son was shot and killed.   She's suing defendant son for son's car.   Plaintiff was going to have it towed to her house, but defendant son and an aunt snuck the car away.   Plaintiff son won't give her the car, she's blind in one eye, has no driver's license (neither does defendant son).    Deceased brother had no wife, or kids, so I guess the mother is the next of kin.    

Plaintiff claims she can have people with licenses drive it for her.   Son / defendant offered her anything out of the car (clothing, shoes, paperwork, etc.) but plaintiff refused, and wants the car.    The car is the only asset from the estate, unless something's in the car.   Defendant son says the mother can't see, has no license, and can't afford to maintain car, (my guess is insurance won't happen either.).   

What a sordid, nasty case.   Son Rubin says the children were always in foster care, barely knew the mother.   He says he's fixing the car up a little at a time.   Car is a 2000 Nissan Maxima.   

Car is registered in Arizona, by the previous owner, there is no bill of sale, and it can't be registered in California until the paperwork is done.    They can't even get ahold of the previous, actually current, owner.   Police won't get involved, and mother still wants everything in the car. 

Judge rules that inheritance is the mother's, so the plaintiff is told to file with DMV, but the issue is the car isn't in the late son's name.   (The judge seems to have a zit on her chin, well covered, but still there).  Plaintiff told to go to probate court, and this case is dismissed.   It's a local probate case.   (My guess is mother wants anything valuable in car, and if she ever gets the car in her name, it will be sold).  

Case 2-Plaintiff paid a vendor fee to sell jewelry at defendant's pop-up event, and wants her $350 deposit, and transportation and other fees back.   When she arrived, it started to sprinkle, and she waited in the taxi, with the meter running, and then left. 

Defendant says plaintiff wanted him to cancel, and she left, the event continued, and the weather cleared up.   Vendors, like plaintiff, paid $125 for the vendor fee, and she wants $350.    

Plaintiff keeps cursing in Spanish during the case (Judge Marilyn says six times in Spanish), and so the judge rules for the defendant, who will now update his contract rain policy. 

 

Yes agreed sordid and nasty first case. 

[AngelaHunter]

19 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

 Plaintiff son won't give her the car, she's blind in one eye, has no driver's license (neither does defendant son).    Deceased brother had no wife, or kids, so I guess the mother is the next of kin. 

Maybe no one has a license but even if he had nothing else, deceased brother's 20+-year-old car had fancy rims and tinted windows as he strove to emulate older brother here. I can understand this battle over this valuable asset. 🙄

8 minutes ago, rcc said:

Plaintiff keeps cursing in Spanish during the case (Judge Marilyn says six times in Spanish)

I finally watched that. Although the cursing was removed I can kind of imagine what it was since some Spanish cursing is similar to French. What a nasty, vile women P was. She was completely unable to control herself and her big mouth even here so I can picture her behavior at this event. I don't think JM spanked her sufficiently.

[Welshman in Ca]

16 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Maybe no one has a license but even if he had nothing else, deceased brother's 20+-year-old car had fancy rims and tinted windows as he strove to emulate older brother here. I can understand this battle over this valuable asset. 🙄

I finally watched that. Although the cursing was removed I can kind of imagine what it was since some Spanish cursing is similar to French. What a nasty, vile women P was. She was completely unable to control herself and her big mouth even here so I can picture her behavior at this event. I don't think JM spanked her sufficiently.

 

If there's one thing I've learned (there's many) from watching these type of shows it's keep your mouth shut until you're asked a question, it has never gone well for anyone who won't shut up, even if they were in the right.

[AngelaHunter]

7 hours ago, Welshman in Ca said:

it's keep your mouth shut until you're asked a question, it has never gone well for anyone who won't shut up, even if they were in the right.

Yes, and I'm pretty sure a judge would regard a litigant's inability to control themselves as they shout out and curse even after repeated admonitions to knock it off as evidence that whatever they're being accused of is accurate.

After all, if they're behaving like barbarians in front of a judge (even a TeeVee judge) and millions of viewers it's easy to picture how they act at a bar, a baby's birthday party, after a fender-bender, or whatever. They are their own worst enemies, but like angry toddlers they simply cannot help themselves.

[Guest]

Re:  Today’s Sugar-Daddy plaintiff (repeat)

New to me but did anyone see a wooden stage puppet in the plaintiffs seat?  The complaining ex looks like a puppet from an old vaudeville show. 

Ladies and Gentleman…JAYMES!

Edited March 30, 2022 by PsychoKlown

[CrazyInAlabama]

"Exes Square Off", rerun. 

Case 1- PsychoKlown showed the plaintiff in all of his glory, and the defendant looks just as bad.     

This case is worse than the old buzzard who was sleeping with a mother and daughter, and hinted the sister of plaintiffs also.  

 

 

[AngelaHunter]

22 hours ago, PsychoKlown said:

Re:  Today’s Sugar-Daddy plaintiff (repeat)

New to me but did anyone see a wooden stage puppet in the plaintiffs seat?  The complaining ex looks like a puppet from an old vaudeville show. 

Ladies and Gentleman…JAYMES!

😄 The superannuated sugar-daddy vs the horse-faced-hoe breeder and the 18,000$ owed to him by Kyle, homeless, druggy grifter. I had to rewatch this just for the sheer WTFery of it.

Jaymes is NOT an ancient, creepy chickenhawk, no sir. He's just a really generous benefactor - a mentor - to the deprived and will do anything to help the unfortunate including buying them 3 packs of ciggies every day, and not just two, because as he explained each of the loving couple smokes 1 1/2 packs per day.

She who bore the fruit of Kyle's loins seemed to find everything about this uber-sordid, squicky tale highly amusing.

[CrazyInAlabama]

I love Doug and his snarky hallway comments.    The judge said a woman was a scam artist, and in his hall-terview, Doug said to the woman she is a scam artist.   He certainly tells it like it is.  

[Bookworm13]

Just a few random thoughts now that I’ve caught up on some reruns I hadn’t previously watched.

1) The number of people who don’t understand what a warranty is or how one works is sad/amazing. Had they been 18-20 year old kids on their own for the first time, I could’ve understood it better, but I guess shame on me for assuming most people would have purchased something with a warranty by age 25-30. 
 

2) I feel awful for all the poor animals who got stuck with shitty owners who most of the time have no business owning pets. 
 

3) Super grateful for the landlords I’ve had. They were all professional, kind, helpful, and all around decent humans. 
 

4) Douglas is savage and I’m here for it 😂

5) I wish JM would mute more litigants, but not tell them they were being muted. I wonder how many have watched their case and were embarrassed by how they presented themselves? Not many, I’m sure. 

[CrazyInAlabama]

Ridiculous rerun, "Feuding with a Friend"

Case 1-Plaintiff claims to deposit a check from defendant, the bank teller said the defendant had to be on the acount to (Wrong, you can deposit any check from anyone in your account, but if there name is on the account then they could have access).   Plaintiff claims the check was in her account to hide it from the government assistance financial limits, so that's why defendant's money was in plaintiff's account.    When the money was taken out, then plaintiff called police.   However, plaintiff claims the defendant's name never appeared on her online account statements.   

Defendant swears that years ago she loaned plaintiff $2400 to cover plaintiff's new apartment (so long ago that plaintiff no longer lives in the apartment).   Defendant claims they fell out of contact three years ago, but claims bank told defendant she was signatory on the account, so she took $800 out of the account.   This was on the loan from 13 years ago, which is long out of time to be a debt.  

I can't tell you how much I dislike both litigants.   As a taxpayer, I hope the benefits office that sends our money to defendant saw this case, and took action.   $800 back to plaintiff that defendant stole from the account.   

Edited April 1, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

3 hours ago, Bookworm13 said:

2) I feel awful for all the poor animals who got stuck with shitty owners who most of the time have no business owning pets. 

Even entertaining cases are ruined for me when I find out lowlife, disgusting breeder litigants are like gumball machines, constantly squirting out defenseless babies and/or have animals. I guess no one gives a damn about entities who can't talk and aren't paying taxes. 😡 These cases make me wish mandatory sterilization could be enacted.

3 hours ago, Bookworm13 said:

4) Douglas is savage and I’m here for it 😂

Yep! Like after today's rerun of the pill-popping thief, Doug wants to know if P knew she was "stupid". "Yes, sir", she replies. At least she was honest, or too dumb to make excuses for her stupidity.

3 hours ago, Bookworm13 said:

) I wish JM would mute more litigants, but not tell them they were being muted.

I'm kind of torn about that. Today's repulsive, lying, conning, blabbermouth Mr. Perrone deserved to be muted, but it was kind of fun hearing him yammering incomprehensibly in the background while JM ruled,  but yes - I agree it would be more fun if were done without telling the blabbermouth so they could continue to flap their pieholes silently.

3 hours ago, Bookworm13 said:

I wonder how many have watched their case and were embarrassed by how they presented themselves? Not many, I’m sure. 

That's for sure. They're just living their usual lives of cheating, lying, and scamming and see absolutely nothing wrong with it. When JM rules against them for their lowdown ways, the reactions are always of shock and surprise; "Wowwwww!", or "Ain't that a trip!" They really don't get it.

[AngelaHunter]

New cases, which I enjoyed.

First we had Mr. Barbee, political wannabe, who hires def,  Mr. Duckworth, to create and print up a bunch of flyers, posters, door hangers, etc. The problem is that Barbee, who is running for some office has no clue as to the laws of political campaigning and never informs Duckworth of the required wording necessary on all campaign materials.

Barbee first tried to find a printer on line, but it seems they were very expensive so he then decided he wants to support local businesses and hires the cheaper Duckworth. Barbee also doesn't know he really needed to hire a unionized print shop, but "he's learning" as he goes along. JM rags on him mercilessly about his ignorance.

Neither of them ever thought of a written contract - Duckworth states he never has a contract with any customers! -  or getting proofs of the work approved before printing. I guess they're both just learning this stuff. Duh.

Barbee finally learns what is required on the campaign material after someone informs him and tells Duckworth to halt the presses and changes his order. He needed to pay Duckworth more, but as Duckworth so succinctly stated, "He (Barbee) don't have enough money no more." He's countersuing because he "never got paid for nothing." JM gives him a short lesson on how to run a business, request approvals, and write a contract. I think her advice fell on deaf ears.

Zero for both of them. Barbee lost the election. Quel surprise.

I like it when things turn around, as they did in the next case of landlord, Mr.Weizer, suing renters, Clubb & Parsons (or something like that) for giving only a two-day notice before leaving during their 1-year lease.

At first I thought it was usual ho-hum, grifting, lying tenants trying to weasel their way out of paying rent by complaining about all sorts of fake problems, but I was so wrong!

The cheapskate slumlord (JM actually called him a slumlord) had more nerve than a sore tooth suing for anything. Defs talk about water leaking all over their place, dripping on them in bed and getting no response and no plumber from Mr. Weizer, which sounds like so many tenants who exaggerate and lie.

Then we see the def's videos. Well, we don't just see the water flowing indoors, but hear the sound like Niagara Falls in the apartment. It was kind of amazing. Mr. Weizer says he put some foam around one leaky pipe, which we see gushing like a firehose. Natually, this indoor rainforest bred all kind of mold, mildew, and whatnot.

We see def's constant texts to Weizer, complaining about the raging torrents, and he does nothing and really doesn't seem to get it. Defs says they looked him up and apparently he's behind something like 150K on property taxes.

In their answer, Defs say their cat got poisoned from licking up the brown and yellow toxic rivers of water and died. I was kind of turned off when JM asked about the cat and Ms. Clubb, with a big grin, says she'd forgotten all about the cat.

JM says she would have awarded Defs all their rent for Aug and Sep back but they didn't inlcude that in their countersuit. Zippo for the slumlord. Even while talking to Doug, he still doesn't get that he's a slumlord.

My enjoyment of these cases would have been 100% if not for the poor cat.

 

 

[DoctorK]

On 4/4/2022 at 4:48 PM, AngelaHunter said:

First we had Mr. Barbee, political wannabe, who hires def,  Mr. Duckworth, to create and print up a bunch of flyers, posters, door hangers, etc. The problem is that Barbee, who is running for some office has no clue as to the laws of political campaigning and never informs Duckworth of the required wording necessary on all campaign materials.

Both of these clowns had absolutely no clue about what they were trying to do. I don't know if this was because of stupidity or ignorance or both, but sadly we see a lot of litigants who are too ignorant about the world we live in to function, just blindly plowing through without any idea of how to be an adult and take care of business (TCB).

[AZChristian]

It has been my experience that any reputable printing company knows the rules about things like political flyers.  We once had some t-shirts printed, and the original wording included something that was a copyrighted term, so the printers said we couldn't use it.  They suggested an alternative, and we printed them that way.  But THEY knew our original design had an issue, and they helped resolve it.  

[DoctorK]

Today's first case - bad wedding catering. I think this was a messy case, with both sides acting badly. The plaintiffs had substantial reasons for complaining about the food, but I think they overstated a lot of it. The bride initially claimed that the food wasn't served until 8 PM while her own bridesmaid said that it started (at least the bread and salads) at about 4:30. They also made a bad call for asking for Rare, actual rare is much less cooked than most people want or can eat; added to that is that ordering Rare is iffy if you are not familiar with the restaurant and don't know if the chef/cook really understands what rare means; this is especially unwise in catering for a hundred people. I also looked at the picture the plaintiffs provided and while it was clearly undercooked, the colors and contrasts looked off a bit as if they had used digital filters to emphasis their point. I was surprised that the defendant didn't question that picture. I was somewhat confused by the way the meat was sometimes referred to as "steak" and other times as "prime rib"; if they were steaks, they should have shown some surface cooking marks. I also didn't buy into the plaintiff (and JM) saying that having out of control children running around spilling and breaking stuff is just normal. The defendant was not any better; other than just denying things, she did not present much of a coherent defense, and didn't seem to admit that anything was wrong with the food. I was glad with the verdict, refund half of the catering charges because obviously (JM's word) some of the food was eaten (I don't believe that nobody was able to eat the food, and even if the meat was cooked correctly to RARE, a lot of people wouldn't eat it (I have seen people in restaurants send back properly cooked medium rare, saying that it was "literally raw". Overall, I think the catering was not as bad as the plaintiffs claimed and not (nearly) as good as the defendant claimed. So 50% refund sounded right to me.

Second case, battling neighbors. Both sides were pretty lousy neighbors, only solution is for someone to move. "Good fences make good neighbors" but duplexes make for friction.

[CrazyInAlabama]

"Catering Catastrophe"

Case 1-Newly married couple hired defendant to cater their wedding.   (Don't look at pictures of the food if you're squeamish, even as a veteran watcher of My 600 Lb Life, I was grossed out by the food pictures).   The bride says the steak was raw, it doesn't even looking warm; potatoes were rock hard, stuffed shrimp were horrible, and chicken was like a hockey puck, pictures are equally awful.   The steak is raw.  

Defendant says plaintiff was a bridezilla, blamed the hall not being ready for the dinner and reception on plaintiff's kids being in the way, but the kids were all 3 or under, and in strollers.   Plaintiff says she had to pay the DJ, and hall extra money to keep there.   Food was supposed to start at 4 p.m., salad wasn't even served until 8 p.m.    As usual, there is no signed contract.     Defendant says plaintiff ordered rare steak (not legal to serve), and she delivered 'rare' steak.     Defendant says she started serving at 4:30 p.m.

Several people reinforce what plaintiffs said about the wedding food, and how nasty defendant was to everyone.   

$1250, half of the catering bill back to plaintiffs. 

Case 2- Plaintiff says she had to put up a fence to keep defendant's vicious dog off of plaintiff's property, and is suing defendant for the cost of the fence.   Dog is small, half Yorkie, and half Shih Tzu, and never actually bit plaintiff.   However, dog jumps the small fence between the properties, and charges the plaintiff.  After defendant said she couldn't pay for half of the fence, but plaintiff says defendant put up a very nice gazebo right after saying she was broke.    Animal control refuses to do anything about the dog coming on plaintiff's property.   

Then the interesting stuff.   Defendant claims plaintiff used to have a Cane Corso, and dog would come in defendant's yard all of the time.   However, plaintiff says Corso was her ex-husband's dog, and went with him.   Plaintiff told her adult son not to come to her house, because she's afraid the defendant's son's murder will lead to retaliation, and they may not check the identity of someone before the killers blow him away.    Gate between the two houses on the porch is to keep people off of her porch.  Defendant's son was shot, but not killed on her porch, and he crawled onto plaintiff's porch turning plaintiff's porch into a crime scene.  

Defendant claims the fence is too high to build without a permit, but I think the fence posts need to be cut to fit the top of the fence, and defendant is whining that the fence ugly side is facing her yard.     I never understood why people spend a ton on fences, and the ugly side is on their side.  

Plaintiff can't force defendant to pay for a fence on plaintiff's property, some places a joint fence can be paid for half and half, but not where they live. 

Plaintiff case dismissed.   Defendant suing for ugly side of the fence on her side side and damage to her side by the front porch gate/railing.   Defendant case dismissed. 

[AngelaHunter]

36 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Newly married couple hired defendant to cater their wedding. 

Gee, that was one hard-rode looking couple, with three babies. We got a "Thank you for your service" after the groom had to squeeze in his PTSD that had nothing to do with this case. But they seemed the epitome of gentility compared to the caterer. She was scary and wherever she is living, it looked pretty rank. Not sure how she would know anything about steak since it appeared she had no upper teeth. Not sure the blushing bride did, either. No contract, of course. I have a feeling some people ate that raw roast and the hockey puck chicken too. I also think maybe the bride doesn't really know what "rare" means, otherwise she would not have requested that, although this meat looked so raw I'm thinking it was still cold. "Medium" or "medium rare" is a safer choice when serving many people and I have a feeling this may have been a  "well done" kind of crowd.

ETA: I posted this before reading DoctorK's post, so forgive repetitions!

Enough with the dog cases! I didn't watch at all yesterday since it was TWO dog cases.

 

Edited April 7, 2022 by AngelaHunter

[DoctorK]

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

I think the fence posts need to be cut to fit the top of the fence, and defendant is whining that the fence ugly side is facing her yard. 

Re; fences - Thanks to multiple hurricanes I have rebuilt/replaced several hundred feet of six foot privacy fence like they showed in the picture. Standard slats are 6 feet long and the 4x4 posts 8 feet long, proper installation is to bury about 2 1/2 feet of the post (preferably with 40-60 pounds of cement) which keeps the fence post tops below the fencing. Regarding the ugly side in or out, I understand that what is shown to the public should be nice side out. If it is a shared fence on the property line, this has to worked out between neighbors. Where I live, code requires the fence to six inches inside my property line, and generally for fences between two houses, each owner builds and maintains their own fence, with one foot gap between the fences (six inches on each side of the property line). Each owner sees the nice side of their own fence, the ugly sides face each other. More work and expense than a shared fence but no problems about who does what with the fences.

[Charbswims]

Omg AZChristian, I was yelling refrigerator at the TV the first 4 times he said it like that.

[rcc]

First case a loser who sues a woman after she puts his car in her name. JM is disgusted and so am I.

[CrazyInAlabama]

Yes, she moved to Georgia with her 8 year old, after knowing him for less than a month, bought the car for him, and put it in his name.   Plaintiff gets his $600 deposit back on the car.    Then, after moving to Georgia, plaintiff announced he had to go take care of his grandma, and left with the car.   So, defendant called in a false police report saying he stole the car.    

I don't think plaintiff deserved the $600 down payment back either, I would consider it car rental. 

Edited April 8, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama

[rcc]

21 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Yes, she moved to Georgia with her 8 year old, after knowing him for less than a month, bought the car for him, and put it in his name.   Plaintiff gets his $600 deposit back on the car.    Then, after moving to Georgia, plaintiff announced he had to go take care of his grandma, and left with the car.   So, defendant called in a false police report saying he stole the car.    

I still don't think he deserves that $600. He didn't and probably won't make the car payments. Car is in her name.  Live and learn!

Edited April 8, 2022 by rcc

[AngelaHunter]

Ms. Weaver, I salute you! Not only do you have the most astute judgment we've seen here in ages, but such impeccable taste in men. *Swoon*

I do have to admit that her big, stupid smirk though this distasteful saga made me want to slap it off her face. I think JM felt the same way.

So, this prince among men, this SSF, trawls FB Meatmarket to find some dumb, pathetic bimbo to be a free babysitter and to give him money and put her name on his car since of course he can't buy anything in his own name. Hey, FB is a career choice for so many grifters and it seems to be quite successful.

Ms. Weaver really had to run off to another state and leave everything behind to get some boinky after messaging this paragon for a week or two? No man in her own state was willing to do the deed? That's some serious itch she had. She even paid for food "in the crib". She's also willing to subject her 8-year-old child to this debacle, ripping him away from his home, his school, and his friends so she could do what she wanted. Is this guy a pedo, a murderer, a drug dealer, etc? Who knows? Suck it up, kid. Mommy's got needs. 😡

P mentions how his "friend" drove the vehicle (do NOT drink every time you hear that word) somewhere or other, but well, her boyfriend murdered her the next month so she's gone. *shrug* Hey, that's life in his circles.

JM says what I've harped on so many times: If a grown woman wants to subject herself to a con artist, an abuser, an ex-con or other marginal creep, that is entirely her decision. Go for it. Subjecting a child to this scene is disgusting and abusive. I would have found this case rather amusing if not for the kid. Even JM pointing out what this mad cow in heat did to her kid doesn't wipe that smirk off her dopey fat face.

34 minutes ago, rcc said:

Live and learn!

She will never learn. Broke-ass, granny-loving Don Juan didn't deserve a penny.

Something about Mr. Serenberg(?) and his droning monotone annoyed me greatly. I'm always amazed to see someone his age who still had a granny. Anyway, he wants to live in his recently-deceased Nana's house, but it's filled with mold. I guess no one gave a rat's ass that granny was being subjected to this miasma of mold> It was good enough for her, but not for Mr. S. He's is suing the duct-cleaning company for 'scamming' him. He shows JM a pic of a hand with a blob of dust on the thumb.

JM: "Whose hand is that?"

Mr. S: "Blahblahblah..."

JM: "Whose hand is that?"
Mr. S: "Yammer yadda yadda"

JM: "Whose hand is that?"

Mr.S: "Mine".

I was thinking from the way he spoke that perhaps he's a lawyer, who like most of the lawyers we see here has no idea proof is needed and that hearsay, "Someone told me that..." is not acceptable.

No money for you, Mr. S. Go buy another house or clean this one up yourself.

 

[AngelaHunter]

A delightful bunch of big-mouthed liars today.

First up - the sour-faced Ms. Weiner (pronounced "Whiner") is totally shocked, indignant, and horrified to find out some guy she hired to repair her dock wasn't licensed and insured! I'm pretty sure he didn't even have a uniform.

Ms Whiner, who simply cannot stop ranting, sees this handyman painting a neighbour's porch so figures she, living in a beautiful house right on the water wtih a private dock, can get her rotted dock all fixed up on the super-cheap. He says he can do it all for 3K so she transfers 1700$ to him for materials.

Whiner texts him a "Pssst! Someone from the county is across the street so you better make yourself scarce!" Why would she do that, when she was sure he was licensed? I guess it could be like all the other litigants we see here who, when they feel they're ripped off by someone they hired on the 'lowdown' for cash/no tax doesn't perform to their expectations suddenly become sticklers for protocol, codes, permits, and rules.

Def demolishes the old decking and then doesn't show up for a few days and never sends her the receipt for the stuff he says he bought. Ms.Whiner responds to his text that he's on the way with "Don't you come back. Do not step on my property. I put your tools on the curb and you better come take them before someone else does. Someone goes around in a truck picking up scrap metal."

Ms. Whiner rushes down to City Hall to complain about this "contractor." She's told he's not a contractor and he gets fined 2,000$ for working on a dock when he is not qualified to do so.

Neither of them are capable of telling the straight truth. JM asks Def several times to show her the receipts for materials he bought. He says P has them. Def keeps telling JM to "Listen!" which peeves her off no end.

Douglas found all this nonsense and lying hilarious, as did I.

Then we had uber-annoying P. who rented some space in his garage or storage facility to the D, who wanted to use it to work on car parts or bike parts or whatever and was willing to pay 800$/mth for the privilege. The evasive one-word-per-minute P and the lying D were so irritating I nearly turned this off.

P is suing for a month's rent because D left without proper notice. Maybe he did and maybe he didn't. He finally figured out that he lives 45 mins - 1hr away from this faciilty and is not crazy about the trips. Neither of them can answer a direct question. JM wants proof Def paid a security fee. Well, he has no proof since it was all cash and P wouldn't give him a receipt, but he has a witness who saw him pay P. Sadly the witness is not here, but if he were for sure JM could question him and he would back up D's story.

P is suing for all kinds of stuff - 20$ of gas, an outlet removed, and "miscellaneous". JM informs him she cannot put a value on "miscellaneous" but P insists that's what it is - stuff?

He gets 800$ for September rent.

A day without sordidness - a good day.

[CrazyInAlabama]

The duct cleaning case was hysterical.   You can only use the big brushes to clean the sheet metal ducts, if you use the same method on the coiled aluminum vents, you destroy them.    I think the plaintiff wanted to try the cheaper way, and ended up having to replace the flexible metal duct anyway.      I think he should have called a remediation company, not duct cleaners. 

Edited April 11, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

I'm enjoying these cases!

Ms. Cremone (and her Bobbsey Twin fiance?) are being sued by the two 18-year-old boys who hire themselves out as painters on FB, naturally.  Ms. Cremone? You wanted cheap, just like countless others we see here? You got it. How much experience did you think 18-year-olds have, anyway?

I agree with JM that it's nice to see college students willing to work to make money for school, but shit! You can't just call yourselves professional painters ("Hey, let's be painters! We'll make lots of money!") when it really looks as though they struggled to figure out which end of a brush to wield. I thought we'd seen the Best of the Worst painters on this show, but these two are in a class of their own. One of them says he learned painting from his dad. He wasn't paying attention, it seems. Boys? Go to YT and learn the basics of painting. It's not that easy. I painted my whole house, learning as I went along. I made plenty of mistakes, but it's my house and I wouldn't have advertised myself as a painter for pay.

They have NO idea how to paint anything - they just painted right over brass door hinges and knobs (instead of taking them off!!), didn't bother painting the edges of the trim,  left 1/2" thick drips on the walls, spattered paint over a leather sofa - it seems they couldn't move furniture and cover it with drop cloths -  and on the floor and painted over all the glass on the French doors instead of taping it off. Their answer to everything?

"Well, if she didn't like the painted hinges/knobs, glass, drips, and spatters she should have told us. How did we know she wouldn't like it? We could have used paint thinner and a rag to get it off."🙄 Sorry, but paint thinner is not the answer for paint sloppily smeared all over trim. For this they want 2,020$.

JM says they look about 12 years old, but I think an actual 12-year-old could do better.

Ms. Cremone couldn't heave herself out of the basement to check on the work as it went along, not even once, and thought it was a good idea to leave her hideous 2K ball gown out in the work area. It also got painted.😄 She trusted them, these two clueless teenagers from FB, as would we all.

JM decides that since their texted contract did not include necessary "prep" like spackling holes or sanding rough wood (something I would also expect to be done) before painting it that they deserve 500$ for managing to cover up the dark wood doors, and that's what they got.