The People's Court - General Discussion

[rcc]

50 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

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.

Another case where I disagree with JM. They shouldn't have gotten a dime for that mess.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

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?

Didn’t you love the snotty response from Ms. Cremore to JM - you’re the one who said they’re 18…I didn’t know that.

When I saw the fiancé popping up on the screen I immediately thought of Eddie Van Halen and Valerie Bertinelli.   I could never tell those two apart either 

2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

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.

There are signs all over Massachusetts for student painters in the summer.  Did anyone catch if that’s how they advertised or was it under another name?

2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

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.

What’s that saying that common sense isn’t so common after all.

Ladies and gentleman…the future of civilization.  God help us all. 

2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

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

Couldn’t do worse that’s for damn sure. 

2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

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.

Who in fresh hell owned the gown?  Eddie or Valerie?  The gown looked rather petite in appearance.   No judgment but…..??????

 

2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

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.

In my opinion the $500 judgment was based on JM’s appreciation for their attempt (no matter how lame) at earning a buck.  I liked those two kids but I wouldn’t have them paint my Tidy Town Trash barrel - let alone my disco ball gown. 

[AZChristian]

I googled Ms. Cremore.  She should know what it's like to get in trouble for not doing a good job.  I'll simply state in three words what got her into hot water:  rescue pit bulls.

And if she paid $2,000 for that gown, she was ripped off.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, AZChristian said:

I googled Ms. Cremore.  She should know what it's like to get in trouble for not doing a good job.  I'll simply state in three words what got her into hot water:  rescue pit bulls.

And if she paid $2,000 for that gown, she was ripped off.

Wow.  

Great sleuthing AZCHRISTIAN.  Great sleuthing. 

Maybe she was going to wear the gown to the Pit Ball!  

I know, groan, groan!

 

[AngelaHunter]

33 minutes ago, PsychoKlown said:

What’s that saying that common sense isn’t so common after all.

Ladies and gentleman…the future of civilization.  God help us all. 

Yep. They grow up in a child-proofed world where no child is left behind and nothing they do is EVER their fault. They will remain as babies for most of their lives, denying responsibility and totally lacking the understanding that the world is not their Mommy who will crow with pride over their bumbling attempts to do anything, as our own Mommies did when we were 5 and did our first piece of kindergarten art.

 

37 minutes ago, PsychoKlown said:

In my opinion the $500 judgment was based on JM’s appreciation for their attempt (no matter how lame) at earning a buck.

Agree she probably did that and was also influenced as usual by anyone in that age group, comparable to the beautiful, talented, etc, etc, etc daughters.

 

35 minutes ago, PsychoKlown said:

Didn’t you love the snotty response from Ms. Cremore to JM - you’re the one who said they’re 18…I didn’t know that.

Right. I guess she thought they were 30. Really, they looked no more than 15 and they made excuses like 6-year-olds.

36 minutes ago, PsychoKlown said:

Who in fresh hell owned the gown?  Eddie or Valerie?  The gown looked rather petite in appearance.   No judgment but…..??????

Spandex ball gown?

[CrazyInAlabama]

The cable guide says today's show is new, and called "Cat Attack", but they're showing the ridiculous tow case, where the man claims the car with no plate visible was towed illegally, and the tow company lied that the damages were in place when it was towed. 

I wonder why I'm getting a rerun instead of the new show?   I wonder if they flipped it with the rerun show I get in the morning?  I skipped the morning rerun.  

Edited April 14, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama

[rcc]

I have the cat attack today.

[rcc]

Harvey calls it "cat on cat violence." Lol

[AngelaHunter]

Cat case here, which I skipped. Then I got the woman suing def for damaging her car.

P was driving down a residential street and def. who was parked just threw his car door open without looking and smashed up P's bumper. He always looks, he claims. He repeats this information. He looked this time too, but there was no car there, so not his fault. I think a law needs to be passed banning invisible cars.

Yes, he had insurance. Sadly, it was canceled a mere 5 days before the accident and he had no idea about that, so that's not his fault either. He says it was her fault, for not being vigilant enough to just know some idiot would fling his door open on the street and she should have stopped in time.

At the scene he told her he couldn't understand English very well, but he has no problem  with the language here.

Oh, and yesterday, with the P who sent 135$ to def for memorabilia he was peddling (hoodies, and such emblazoned with the tats of the dearly departed)on FB, in honour of their friend who died? P was dumb and naive, but def was such a small, petty, lowdown hustler it was disgusting. I can't believe he was willing to appear here and get shown up for the POS scumbag he is. No way would he try to profit from the death of his dearly beloved friend, except he did. When P called the friend's momma she informed the P that D was in a "dark place". Yeah, I bet. I'm sure it's the first time he scammed anyone. I guess he had a mental health crisis.

He couldn't return her money after he sent her nothing. His wallet, phone and ID were stolen. Who stole it?  JM wants to know. Well, he was shacked up, doing the dirty with some stripper at a motel and she probably stole it and took over his FB account. Did he call the police for his stolen items? Well, no. He's too nice to get anyone in trouble. JM wants to know what his girlfriend thinks about him bumping uglies with a stripper? He explains they have a "polyamorous" relationship which includes banging hookers in motels, I assume. He knows most people aren't cosmopolitan enough to understand that. I get it. His g/f should know he can't possibly keep his hunky magnificence just for her. He's gotta spread it around! I bet he paid the hooker with P's money. Ugh.

56 minutes ago, rcc said:

Harvey calls it "cat on cat violence." Lol

I wonder if there will come a day when "Fuck you, Levin!" will not be appropriate.

[CrazyInAlabama]

Today's new one (I hope really new) is "Swindling an Ex" 

Case 1-Plaintiff loaned some loser defendant, Gigolo,  $1,000, and defendant says it was a gift until he dumped plaintiff and found someone new, and now it's a loan.   Defendant just asked for $1,000 for person bills, or something, and plaintiff gave him the money.    Actually, plaintiff admits they met online, and never went out, and she actually went to lunch with him, once, and this 'relationship' was 9 months long. 

What a surprise, they met on Plenty of Fish.   Doug is certainly enjoying Judge Marilyn talking about how defendant fleeces women he met online.   It gets even worse, plaintiff was separated, but not divorced when all of this happened.   Plaintiff also started going to defendant's apartment to corner him about the money.  Defendant says plaintiff actually blocked in him, so he couldn't get in his car, and wouldn't let him leave. 

Judge Marilyn tries to shame defendant into paying plaintiff back, he has no shame.   Foolish, desperate plaintiff gets her $1,000 back, but from the court, so defendant pays nothing.  Defendant tells Doug, "it is what it is", the usually lying loser response.  

Case 2-PLaintiff says next door neighbor defendant's brother ran a car into plaintiff's fence, and plaintiff wants his $431paid back.  Defendant says he had a cheap fence guy lined up, and plaintiff went ahead and had the fence.  Defendant says plaintiff wants too much money for the fence repair.   Plaintiff contacted another neighbor, an experienced carpenter, to fix the fence, and replace a few panels.   However, defendant wanted to replace a few slats, and nail the detached supports.   

I love how defendant says his brother called him, said he was turning around in the driveway, and 'bumped' the fence.   However, a little bump doesn't result in at least two full privacy fence panels bashed off the fence posts, and a lot of broken slats.     Defendant's brother didn't show up for the court case.    Defendant and brother don't really communicate, and defendant has no idea why brother was at his house that day, or where brother is now.      Defendant also claims his brother scored big at the casino, and paid plaintiff some money for the fence.   Defendant claims plaintiff spent three times what the fence should cost for the fence, and says he's not paying anything else.  

House is owned by grandfather, so that's who the plaintiff sued for $431, or the other brother who actually hit the fence.

I bet defendant's cheaper guy hangs out on the curb, by Home Depot, and hires out by the hour.    I think defendant's idea is to nail everything together, replace a couple of slats, and it would be very cheap.   It also wouldn't last through the winter either. 

Judge Marilyn says plaintiff should have sued the brother, not the defendant or the grandfather.   However, since defendant said he would help pay for the fence, plaintiff gets some money, $170 .   Judge also orders defendant to give the brother's contact information to plaintiff.   Leaving plaintiff short $261.   

(I wonder why yesterday's new case was subbed for an old one?   Since it was called Cat Attack, I'm not really sorry I missed it). 

 

Edited April 16, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama

[rcc]

43 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Today's new one (I hope really new) is "Swindling an Ex" 

Case 1-Plaintiff loaned some loser defendant, Gigolo,  $1,000, and defendant says it was a gift until he dumped plaintiff and found someone new, and now it's a loan.   Defendant just asked for $1,000 for person bills, or something, and plaintiff gave him the money.    Actually, plaintiff admits they met online, and never went out, and she actually went to lunch with him, once, and this 'relationship' was 9 months long. 

What a surprise, they met on Plenty of Fish.   Doug is certainly enjoying Judge Marilyn talking about how defendant fleeces women he met online.   It gets even worse, plaintiff was separated, but not divorced when all of this happened.   Plaintiff also started going to defendant's apartment to corner him about the money.  Defendant says plaintiff actually blocked in him, so he couldn't get in his car, and wouldn't let him leave. 

Judge Marilyn tries to shame defendant into paying plaintiff back, he has no shame.   Foolish, desperate plaintiff gets her $1,000 back, but from the court, so defendant pays nothing.  Defendant tells Doug, "it is what it is", the usually lying loser response.  

Case 2-PLaintiff says next door neighbor defendant's brother ran a car into plaintiff's fence, and plaintiff wants his $431paid back.  Defendant says he had a cheap fence guy lined up, and plaintiff went ahead and had the fence.  Defendant says plaintiff wants too much money for the fence repair.   Plaintiff contacted another neighbor, an experienced carpenter, to fix the fence, and replace a few panels.   However, defendant wanted to replace a few slats, and nail the detached supports.   

I love how defendant says his brother called him, said he was turning around in the driveway, and 'bumped' the fence.   However, a little bump doesn't result in at least two full privacy fence panels bashed off the fence posts, and a lot of broken slats.     Defendant's brother didn't show up for the court case.    Defendant and brother don't really communicate, and defendant has no idea why brother was at his house that day, or where brother is now.      Defendant also claims his brother scored big at the casino, and paid plaintiff some money for the fence.   Defendant claims plaintiff spent three times what the fence should cost for the fence, and says he's not paying anything else.  

House is owned by grandfather, so that's who the plaintiff sued for $431.   

Judge Marilyn says plaintiff should have sued the brother, not the defendant or the grandfather.   However, since defendant said he would help pay for the fence, plaintiff gets some money, $170 .   Judge also orders defendant to give the brother's contact information to plaintiff.   Leaving plaintiff short $261.   

(I wonder why yesterday's new case was subbed for an old one?   Since it was called Cat Attack, I'm not really sorry I missed it). 

 

You didn't miss much with the "cat attack" case. Lol

[AngelaHunter]

24 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

-Plaintiff loaned some loser defendant, Gigolo,  $1,000, and defendant says it was a gift until he dumped plaintiff and found someone new, and now it's a loan. 

Chapter 1,0079 in the endless tales of desperate, stupid women who find their sad, shameful  debacles something to giggle about. We're not talking a naive, love-struck teenager, but a 34-year-old married woman so hungry and avid for a dick-fest she's willing to pay for it, and she couldn't wait until she and her 'husband' were actually separated

The big POF romance lasted 9 months, and the new happy couple never even went out together, except one time when they 'had went' to some fast-food joint  for lunch (for which she probably paid) and 6 months into this love story, Romeo informs her he needs her to give him 1,000$ but refuses to say what it's for, except it's "personal". She says she trusts him because she got him into some hush-hush deal with some unnamed party for some type of merchandise - I bet I know what kind - so she assumed he would pay her back.  PLUS, she informs JM, they had many, many 'deep' conversations on the phone. He's a very deep person, you know. Very deep! She ends nearly every sentence with "whatever". She inquires of Don Juan in what denominations does he want her 1,000$.

When it becomes apparent that Lover-Boy is just not that into her and is not going to give her one penny back, she hustles over to his 'crib' to confront him. "She came to my crib", - what exactly differentiates a 'crib' from an apartment/house/dwelling of any sort? I never refer to my home as a crib or 'whatever'  - he says with great indignation. I assume she'd never been there and the reason is probably he's living with some other woman who knows all about his little POF cons and approves of them. He's probably done this lots of times but maybe the other suckers were too embarrassed to sue him over these loans.

He calls it a loan in his texts, but in his answer calls it a gift. I guess he couldn't hold onto this thoughts long enough to keep his lies straight.

I'm sorry JM gave the silly fool her money back. She says def is "cute". I accept she and I have different tastes.

39 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

-PLaintiff says next door neighbor defendant's brother ran a car into plaintiff's fence, and plaintiff wants his $431paid back.

Keenan, another chubby-cheeked little man-child with douchebag hairdo is living either with his grandpa or in his grandpa's house. Judging by the buffet hutch thing in the background, I'd say he lives with Paw-paw. Good luck to P trying to sue Keenan's bro.

[AZChristian]

Plaintiff in the first case will probably go into the Guinness Book of Records as "Reality Court Show Participant with the Largest Hoop Earrings."

[AngelaHunter]

34 minutes ago, AZChristian said:

Plaintiff in the first case will probably go into the Guinness Book of Records as "Reality Court Show Participant with the Largest Hoop Earrings."

So far. I keep thinking we've seen the best/worst/most outrageous ________ and then I realize how  wrong I am.

BTW, I just loved Grandpa's boy, Keenan, telling JM more than once,  "It's just the kind of person I am/being the kind of person I am" meaning how generous, big-hearted, obliging, and helpful, I guess. Yeah, we see so many of these paragons on this show. Impressive.

He had "a guy" to fix the fence. I'm sure that's true. He looks the kind to be buddies with contractors.

[rcc]

First case has a real con artist defendent. His "account depletion" really means a bill collector took it. Lol But his big words and constant excuses does not change the fact he is a loser who does not need a playstation. He tells Doug he "has things to plan and is happy." Who cares dude!

[AngelaHunter]

47 minutes ago, rcc said:

First case has a real con artist defendent. His "account depletion" really means a bill collector took it. Lol But his big words and constant excuses does not change the fact he is a loser who does not need a playstation. He tells Doug he "has things to plan and is happy." Who cares dude!

Wow. So young to be such an amoral, double-talking, slimy, sociopathic, lying piece of shit.

He sits in his cozy little room at his grammy's house, pontificating on what a great person he is, he who puts his grandma above all else. Yeah, I'm sure that's true because if something happens to her, who will he mooch from?

The "instabilility of finances" and the "depletion of his account" and the P telling him about the 600$, "Do with it as you wish"  - which he did, probably getting himself a new toy for his little bedroom - because she wouldn't want him to go without all the necessities of life, like phones, games, internet, and hairdressers. He deserves all that. What he really deserves is for someone, maybe Grammy, telling him, "You're a grown man living on your grandma. Go take care of yourself and buy your own games." 

That said, P sounded like a fool, willing to give this scummy hustler 600$ because he really needed a game and couldn't afford it.

I skipped whatever he said to Doug because by then I was feeling queasy just from listening to and looking at him. The face of the future.

The case of the P suing the handyman over work done paled in comparison. Just another one who pays in full for all the work without checking it out first. He has no idea of the cost for the job before it's started. He never asked but assumed it would be "reasonable." Well, it was so late, maybe even 7:30 at night(!) that he was just too tired to really look. He finds one of his cheap tiles broken, probably by the D's assistant who does not appear here. P wants 1K for this and for the door that was shaved unevenly. Don't think so. He gets 250$ for the tile which I thought was too generous.

[CrazyInAlabama]

In today's new episode about former co-workers gone bad, the other case is about a car owner claiming a defendant mechanic ripped him off.   

It would be easier to concentrate on the case if the follicular challenged plaintiff hadn't put all kinds of stuff in his hair, and a bunch of strands are standing up like horns.  He looks like a deranged chipmunk.

Edited April 20, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama

[NYGirl]

I'm this close to deleting this show off my DVR.  It's so boring lately I find myself fast forwarding through cases.  Maybe if they go back to the courtroom it'll be more interesting.  Maybe I'm just tired of 2 cases an hour rather than 3.  I dunno.

[AZChristian]

59 minutes ago, NYGirl said:

I'm this close to deleting this show off my DVR.  It's so boring lately I find myself fast forwarding through cases.  Maybe if they go back to the courtroom it'll be more interesting.  Maybe I'm just tired of 2 cases an hour rather than 3.  I dunno.

The Marilyn and John show was a little interesting when Covid first hit and TPC needed filler.  But now that everything is being done via webcams and MM is back in the courtroom, we don't need that filler any more.  I'm tired of hearing about the Terrific Three and how their family dynamic works (good cop/bad cop, guess who's who).  I may be joining you in removing it from my DVR.

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, NYGirl said:

I'm this close to deleting this show off my DVR.  It's so boring lately I find myself fast forwarding through cases.  Maybe if they go back to the courtroom it'll be more interesting.  Maybe I'm just tired of 2 cases an hour rather than 3.  I dunno.

They could at least change up the mini-infomercials. I swear I'm more familiar with the bags under the eyes of those Plexaderm A-Holes than I am with my own!

8 minutes ago, AZChristian said:

I'm tired of hearing about the Terrific Three and how their family dynamic works (good cop/bad cop, guess who's who)

I refuse to believe any of the little angels has ever told a lie, so no need for the cop/prosecutor bit.

Yeah, I'm pretty sick of 30 minutes of cases/30 mins of Levin and other garbage in an hour but old habits die really hard, for me anyway.

I mainly just watch for business deals, janky lawyers, and contractor cases or even ones like the mentally disturbed counselor, wild roomie hi-jinks, crackpots like Hey Jude, etc.,  and skim or skip the indiscriminate breeders, 'explicited photos', and all the animal cases.

Judge Wapner never had to look at close-up pics of some classy lady high on Exx giving a hummer to some guy she just met. Hmmph.

[CrazyInAlabama]

I liked the Marilyn and John talks when they talked about legal issues, not about their family, or personal stuff. 

Unfortunately, the title of today's new episode is "Crazy Roommate", and the roommate and landlord are both seriously strange.

The dog case is revolting, just because someone sells what are supposed to be purebreds, don't think they aren't a puppy mill. 

 

Edited April 20, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama

[rcc]

Sometimes the personal stuff is funny. But sometimes JM is full of herself and JJ just sits there. The best part of watching the show is reading the snark here.

[Bookworm13]

Really could have done without the pics of dogshit on the floor during the second case today. I typically watch this while I eat lunch 🤢

Also, PSA, please don’t buy puppies from breeders if you can help it. I understand that some people have to due to allergies, etc, but the lady today was making me extra rage-y. 

[Carolina Girl]

16 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

They could at least change up the mini-infomercials. I swear I'm more familiar with the bags under the eyes of those Plexaderm A-Holes than I am with my own!

And the stupid Medicare Part C ads are back again - and Jimmy JJ Walker's ad is the WORST.  That and the constant stream of Slip-and-Fall Lawyer ads I get from my local station.

[AngelaHunter]

4 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Unfortunately, the title of today's new episode is "Crazy Roommate"

Yes, and I was thinking this could be any one of a thousand cases. But... Ladies and gents, meet the Man of the Modern Age.

" I don't wanna clean! Can't make me!" "He was mean to me and put nasty things on my FACEBOOK page!" "I was scared!" "It hurt my feelings!" "His Swiffer isn't good enough!" Def pooh-poohs the mighty Swiffer as not up to his exacting standards, for which JM chastises him.

You might think these are the complaints of some 13-year-old, but they're not. These come from 3 grown men, one mature and two well past middle age. They want to be roomies and it never occurs to anyone that finding someone on Craigslist to live in your home might not result in perfect harmony and rainbows. Def is keeping P's 200$ deposit because... they didn't like him and he is lazy?

I wasn't shocked that  P refused to clean. He told Def before he moved in that he just doesn't clean Can't see him bending over and scrubbing anything. It's way too strenuous and I'm pretty sure it hasn't been long since he had his mommy or maybe even his Granny cleaning up after him. He, this epitome of masculinity, seems the type who would say that cleaning is for girls. Ew.

If defs can't afford to live in their home, which was littered with gewgaws and didn't look exactly upscale, without installing total strangers in their extra bedroom(s), get a part-time job (maybe cleaning hotel rooms since they love cleaning) build an apartment in the basement, sell some of your junk, buy a cheaper dwelling or something. He sounded ridiculous.

OH, and def stating that it's normal to have a houseful of fleas from spring til fall if you have pets? That is utter bullshit. I've had multiple pets my whole life and can recall exactly ONE flea infestation back in '93,  which I promptly took care of.

Then we get the ol' bedbug whine from P but of course he has no proof that he picked them up in Def's home. Take his word for it. Nah, don't think so.

P wants 200$ back for his deposit, plus 500$ for his  exterminator fees in some new place in which he now dwells. He gets the 200$. Maybe he can go to Dr. Phil for his feelings.

43 minutes ago, Bookworm13 said:

Also, PSA, please don’t buy puppies from breeders if you can help it.

As soon as I heard the word "puppy" I started to FF. Puppy mills and BYBs wouldn't exist to inflict the suffering they do on defenseless animals for $$ without deliberately ignorant and "I want!" people willing to give them money.

There are reputable breeders, but they do not breed mongrels and seldom have puppies available but when they do they do NOT peddle them to anyone with money in their pockets. All my dogs came from rescues as adults and I dearly loved each of them. No, they were not fancy, but rescues have purebreds of every kind of that's what someone wants.

 

[Bookworm13]

3 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

As soon as I heard the word "puppy" I started to FF. Puppy mills and BYBs wouldn't exist to inflict the suffering they do on defenseless animals for $$ without deliberately ignorant and "I want!" people willing to give them money.

There are reputable breeders, but they do not breed mongrels and seldom have puppies available but when they do they do NOT peddle them to anyone with money in their pockets. All my dogs came from rescues as adults and I dearly loved each of them. No, they were not fancy, but rescues have purebreds of every kind of that's what someone wants.

 

I really wanted to heart your post, but the first half had me laughing so hard I was crying, so here’s your heart ❤️

[CrazyInAlabama]

Today's new show is "You Killed My Dog".   

Case 1-Plaintiff (Ms. Van Beke-Johansen) was fostering two dogs for defendant, defendant has a dog rescue.   One dog was deathly ill, she took the dog to the vet, was giving the dog antibiotics, and a day or so later she took dog to emergency vet.  Plaintiff paid $547, and wants defendant to pay the other almost $489 too.  

Defendant says she wanted plaintiff to take dog to her vet, and plaintiff refused to.   So, plaintiff had to pay the first bill, but defendant says the vet office wrote the wrong number, so she didn't pay it.    Defendant is a 501 (c) 3 animal rescue charity. 

Then, defendant says plaintiff should have taken the dog to a regular vet, and claims vet says dog only had a 5% chance of survival, so emergency vet didn't made a difference.   (I'm sorry I watched this one).   

Defendant refuses to pay the plaintiff for either vet bill.   Since dogs were fosters, defendant was supposed to pay the vet bills, but plaintiff was supposed to call defendant for the medical decisions.    Plaintiff has refused to send the bills and medical records to defendant, so she can see what happened, and so she can pay the bills. 

Defendant actually sent a text to plaintiff claiming plaintiff killed the dog, and said plaintiff took the dog to the wrong vet.    Defendant says plaintiff only had the poor dog for 72 hours, and defendant wants to see the vet records to find out what killed the dog.   Defendant says it might have been poisoned.  (Harvey's commentary is all screwed up, he says plaintiff bought the dog, and wants a refund.  Then, in his after commentary, he says bought and sold again).  

Defendant wants records and bills to see what happened to the dog, and she gets those. $217 and $489 will be paid by defendant's charity, after medical records and an itemized bill are received by defendant, $706.

Defendant has from 9 dogs to 22 dogs at a time in her home.   Mostly Chihuahuas or Chiweenies.  

Case 2 is another plaintiff suing a mechanic for a failed transmission repair.  However, plaintiff claims it cost $5,305.    Defendant says when new parts are installed, on-board computer has to be reprogrammed, and plaintiff won't do that.  FIrst car issue was her axle broke in half, and that messed up the transmission.   How do you break an axle in half?   

Defendant says the car came to him with the wrong transmission in it.   Plaintiff was going to have Jiffy Lube do the work, do they do transmissions, and axles? 

Plaintiff's boyfriend worked at Jiffy Lube when they replaced the axle, and then car was towed to defendant's shop.  Plaintiff is complaining everything took too long, but because if she left it at Jiffy Lube it would have been finished long ago.   Car wasn't finished, but plaintiff took it anyway.   First plaintiff says car wasn't driveable, but there's a video of her picking it up, and boyfriend is driving it.   Plaintiff is suing for what the defendant's shop was paid, and for the new transmission the third place put in.   Defendant says the previous owner put the wrong transmission into the car, and he simply changed the transmission for the same size.   

JM calls the third mechanic.    He says transmission can't be changed without other parts. So, third mechanic says he can't fix the computer codes so the transmission works.  So, the transmission replacement was useless.     Defendant gets his transmission back.  Plaintiff only gets the $1860 plaintiff paid defendant for the useless transmission. 

I'm glad that the show went back to legal questions for Judge John, and Judge Marilyn. 

 

Edited April 21, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

Yeah, so I didn't want to hear about dogs being killed. FF with extreme prejudice.

Then a big ol' boring "He didn't fix my old car" saga, complete with disrespect and falling out, Jiffy Lube, alley mechanics welcomed to work after hours on the lot of a legit auto place, church goer, wrong tranny, lies, phone call to someone who actually knew what he was talking about, P, whose driving skills resulted in an axle broken in two and now wanting a free tranny job and all that half-world stuff where nothing is what it seems to be.

It was too confusing for me, so I switched to Hot Bench.

[CrazyInAlabama]

Today's stupid car case "Car Repair Catastrophe"

Plaintiff's car was hit by a little old lady, and mechanic/body shop took months to get a part in, and get it back to plaintiff.    JM is wrong, plaintiff's car insurance said 30 days car rental was the maximum, so JM saying the insurance company should have paid for seven months of car rental is wrong.  This was a 2006 Mitsubishi, so getting parts, especially if you demand factory parts instead of after market, is going to be tough.    

Defendant wins. 

Case 2-Plaintiff wanted a big deck, and defendant completed 90% in her estimation, but claims defendant didn't do the lattice work and staining, and refused to finish the deck.    Of course, there is no written contract.   Plaintiff paid in full, and now claims there's a lot of work that defendant didn't do.   So, plaintiff gets the $352 back for the lattice. 

Case 3-Plaintiff was scrapping metal, and defendant had a piece of metal hit plaintiff's car.  Defendant loses, but as we all know, the show pays the judgment, so he's off the hook. 

[AngelaHunter]

1 minute ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff's car was hit by a little old lady

What was with P's face? It looked overloaded with fillers and botox, to the point where she resembled a chipmunk gathering winter stores and had trouble making her puffy lips move the right way.

Anyway, she didn't bother getting her 16-year-old Mitsubishi fixed after the accident, not until her starter crapped out. She made a "wink-wink" deal with the big-hearted, caring, yelling D to defraud the ins co. by tacking the starter repair and other work on to the accident damage. I guess there weren't any elderly Mitsubishis with a usable door in the junkyard so the car sits at the kind body shop for seven months! P has no idea why. Now the tires are all rotted and everything else on the heap has conked out so P wants 5K as she feels for some bizarre reason that D should pay her 3200$ for her rental cars. Both of them had unclean hands, IMO.

7 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Case 2-Plaintiff wanted a big deck, and defendant completed 90% in her estimation, but claims defendant didn't do the lattice work and staining, and refused to finish the deck.

Another one - Tracey "babe" - which is how Def addresses her in texts (I thought she was a big man at first) is now bellowing like a wounded bull to the point where JM has to tell her more than once to stop it, that D isn't licensed, bonded, and insured! How can this be? How many times did she yell "He's lying!" during this case? P admits she never bothered to even glance at the contract until she got pissed off. Who reads their contracts anyway?

11 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Case 3-Plaintiff was scrapping metal, and defendant had a piece of metal hit plaintiff's car.

P is at the scrap yard in his daddy's truck and the lying Def was sledge-hammering cast iron so a fragment hit P's truck and scratched it. P apologizes and offers to pay for the damage and tells the police the same thing. He only did that because he was so "shooken up". However, his mommy was in the truck and as they drove away she convinced her boy who seemingly got unshooken that he's not to blame so he refuses to pay, unless P gets the work done for 150$ - 300$ by some character he says he knows. Strange he wanted to pay anything since he says here he didn't damage P's truck. Dad was happy he was awarded 650$ or so to fix it.

[Bookworm13]

4 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

What was with P's face? It looked overloaded with fillers and botox, to the point where she resembled a chipmunk gathering winter stores and had trouble making her puffy lips move the right way.

I was wondering if she had cheek implants and no matter how many people I see with it, big overfilled lips will never be a look I understand. 
Shocking that a car that sat for 7 months wasn’t still in “perfect” condition /s 
 

I know this show is a tad lax on appropriate court attire, but I was surprised JM didn’t ask the P in case 2 to remove her sunglasses. Unless you’re a rockstar, sunglasses inside is just dumb anyway. 
 

Case 3 was so mindnumbingly boring I just turned it off and reading here didn’t miss much.  

[DoctorK]

13 hours ago, Bookworm13 said:

I was surprised JM didn’t ask the P in case 2 to remove her sunglasses.

I noticed that also. I have seen some of the judges make a comment with regard to dark glasses to the effect that the litigant had provided a doctor's statement on a medical condition requiring the dark glasses. Maybe they skipped it this time, maybe the show figures are not in the studio but are in their (sometimes squalid) homes, or maybe they just don't care anymore.Without an explanantion, it just makes these people look like complete jerks.

[Maverick]

MM seems to be a stickler for courtroom etiquette, which I can appreciate. Some of these TV judges seem to be more about TV than judging. At least once during the at home episodes she told a litigant they couldn't smoke in court. 

[CrazyInAlabama]

Today's ridiculous new episode "Roughing Up a Roofer" 

Case 1-Plaintiff was doing the mobile home skirts, with defendant to split $500 and gas money.  For each skirting job the two did, it would be $500, for two mobile home skirts. Things got so ugly between the two of them that they had a physical fight, and each one says the other one tased them.   I really want to see a video of the tasing, because I love a good tasing. 

The awkward part is both men still live in the same mobile home park.  

$270 to plaintiff.   I'm so disappointed that there wasn't a taser video. 

Case 2-Plaintiff got a tent that collapsed, and defendant bought it for her, $1025.   Plaintiff wants the money for the tent back, from defendant.    Defendant finally did give her the refund, but why was defendant buying the tent for her anyway?    The tent was for the restaurant plaintiff owns to serve outside during Covid. 

Plaintiff wins.   What a ridiculous case. 

[AngelaHunter]

23 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Case 1-Plaintiff was doing the mobile home skirts,

I bow to JM and CrazyInAlabama for making sense of this. Between the yelling, the diametrically opposed stories, the horrible grammar, illiterate 'explicative'-laden texes on a filthy smashed screen (althought I did get that P threatened to "touch" D's wife over a couple hundred bucks!!!), cash only, nothing in writing, and "Did too! Did not!" I could not make heads nor tails of this mess. The taser tased itself, or something? I did find it amusing that P wanted money for D denting his ride, which is 20 years old and covered not only in dings, but has thick rust on the fenders. 

I did notice that as usual, JM found the P's derogatory text about a "white man" to be amusing, as she never would were it directed, even in the most oblique way, towards anyone not in that category.

30 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Case 2-Plaintiff got a tent that collapsed, and defendant bought it for her, $1025.

Def is your average small-time, fast-talking, petty hustler (although he talks about his fame as a... karaoke organizer, or..? I forget) who descends to mentioning a tumour in a sympathy bid. It was only after JM did express sympathy that he revealed it was not malignant. Anyway, because of this health issue and because P is a "mean old lady" for wanting her money back(?) he decides to not give her the refund he got for this tent.

32 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

why was defendant buying the tent for her anyway?

Maybe the "I'm just a poor, helpless little lady whose Daddy died so I need a big, strong MAN to take care of my business" reason? That's the usual reason when we see women here entrusting their money, cars purchases, or property to some guy who is often a near-stranger. That's MAN business!

[CrazyInAlabama]

"Tangle with a Tow Truck"

Case 1-Plaintiff and defendant have had a business relationship for over 20 years, Plaintiff claims defendant wrecked his gate, and fence, all caught on video, when defendant towed his car.   Defendant says he's towed uncountable numbers of plaintiff's vehicles over the 25 years.   

Defendant owns Tire Empire, and plaintiff says he was notified that defendant was towing the car (it was a loaner), and the car had to be repo'd.    Finaceing on care was through Florida United Auto Sales, and defendant's company repos cars for them.  Plaintiff claims when his car was being towed, defendant's son and co-worker ruined his gate, and fence, and he wants the defendant to pay for the fence and gate repair.   Defendant had a business relationship with the auto dealer, and he says plaintiff pays the car loan up to date about half of the time, as long as the car is still running, plaintiff pays up.    I really wonder why the auto company keeps selling cars to the deadbeat plaintiff?   Unless they make out very well on repo the car, and reselling? 

Defendant says gate post wasn't actually attached, but just leaning on fence.   On the video, the gate posts don't move at all, and the gate post looks identically bad before and after the car being towed away.   The plaintiff is milking the incident for all it's worth, he gets $350, way too much, when you can see the gate and pole were already damaged. 

Case 2-Plaintiff suing mechanic for using after market parts on her BMW, and she is suing $1040, and wants the defendant to fix the car again, with BMW parts.  My view, if you don't take your car to BMW, then you won't get BMW parts.   Plaintiff actually bought the car used from defendant's company, but their mechanic only works on the sale cars.  So, when plaintiff wanted work done, it was done by an outside mechanic.  

Plaintiff also didn't get an itemized receipt either.  Seals and gaskets don't have a warranty, so she's out of luck too. 

The only part of the repair did was to run and charge her credit card for the mobile mechanic (mobile mechanic doesn't take credit cards).     Defendant's shop isn't certified to do the mechanic work for anyone outside of their own sale cars.    Obviously, JM already decided that plaintiff will win.   

THe mobile mechanic probably went out of business after this, a lot of places have, so I don't find it strange that the mobile mechanic is gone. 

Plaintiff gets $1043.    I hope the plaintiff enjoys her money, because I bet that engine will go boom before too long.   If you want BMW parts, and a BMW mechanic go to BMW.   Plaintiff in her after interview with Doug, says BMW would charge her three times what defendant does for labor, and she doesn't want to pay it.  

 

 

 

Edited April 27, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

10 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Case 1-Plaintiff and defendant have had a business relationship for over 20 years

This baffled me. Not-too-bright Def says he's sold cars for years to def, who sometimes pays for them and sometimes doesn't, and definitely won't pay for them when they stop running. Why should he bother with repairs and maintenence when he can just get the heaps towed away and get another car from dopey D? It seems D's baby momma owns the business and maybe she finally smartened up and gave him the boot, since he says he's not with them anymore? I think?

Anyway, P reminded me of Darryl of the Plopped Up Retaining wall, in that he wants a fortune for an old rickety, galvanized gate that fell over when D was repossessing yet another car he sold P after P refused to pay for it. What would happen if, like 'the rest of us mere mortals' P had to buy a car from a real dealer, pay 100% interest and couldn't say he's not paying after the thing conks out? What a shock that would be.

JM wants to know what that other old gate is doing lying in the front yard? Oh, well - P and whoever he lives with (probably momma) got cited for the junkyard they had going on there, were forced to clean it up and this gate got left behind. Or something.

18 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

My view, if you don't take your car to BMW, then you won't get BMW parts. 

The Def is kind of a crook, with his mobile alley mechanic, and P wanted to do the job on the cheap which is why she was willing to travel 35 miles to take it to D's shop, which is not licensed to repair cars for the public. If you can't afford it or don't want to pay for repairs on your upscale car, think about buying a cheaper car? Maybe it won't have the cachet of "I drive a BMW!" but you won't need to use cash-only, no-receipt shifty alley mechanics who disappear in a puff of smoke.

[Bookworm13]

3 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

"Tangle with a Tow Truck"

Case 1-Plaintiff and defendant have had a business relationship for over 20 years, Plaintiff claims defendant wrecked his gate, and fence, all caught on video, when defendant towed his car.   Defendant says he's towed uncountable numbers of plaintiff's vehicles over the 25 years.   

Defendant owns Tire Empire, and plaintiff says he was notified that defendant was towing the car (it was a loaner), and the car had to be repo'd.    Finaceing on care was through Florida United Auto Sales, and defendant's company repos cars for them.  Plaintiff claims when his car was being towed, defendant's son and co-worker ruined his gate, and fence, and he wants the defendant to pay for the fence and gate repair.   Defendant had a business relationship with the auto dealer, and he says plaintiff pays the car loan up to date about half of the time, as long as the car is still running, plaintiff pays up.    I really wonder why the auto company keeps selling cars to the deadbeat plaintiff?   Unless they make out very well on repo the car, and reselling? 

This was a head scratcher and common sense wasn’t common. Seriously, if you sell someone something and they don’t pay for it, don’t continue selling to them. And no matter how many times JM showed the video, I never saw the gate moving. 

3 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Case 2-Plaintiff suing mechanic for using after market parts on her BMW, and she is suing $1040, and wants the defendant to fix the car again, with BMW parts.  My view, if you don't take your car to BMW, then you won't get BMW parts.   Plaintiff actually bought the car used from defendant's company, but their mechanic only works on the sale cars.  So, when plaintiff wanted work done, it was done by an outside mechanic.  

I will never understand people who buy fancy ass cars, take them to random mechanics and then get upset when branded parts aren’t used. If it’s that important to you take it someplace you can get branded parts or buy a different vehicle. IMO, plaintiff got lucky because I wouldn’t have given her a dime. 

[AZChristian]

And another thing . . . 

I disagreed with the judges when they were discussing whether a person could sue for lost wages because a traffic accident caused a power outage that shut down their building.  They said they could not.

Several years ago, some dingbat was speeding down a 45 MPH road in the highly populated neighborhood where we lived IN JULY IN ARIZONA!!!!  At approximately 90 MPH, he hit a large power transformer that served a couple of hundred homes, and knocked it clear off the pedestal.  When I called the power company to ask if they knew why the power had gone out, they told me about the traffic accident, and told me that power would probably not be restored until the next morning because a new transformer would have to be set and activated.  

As is the case with most power companies, they said they would reimburse us for 10 pounds of ice.  They told me we should put part in our freezer and part in our refrigerator, and then refrain from opening either door so our food would not spoil.

I then asked who was going to pay for our hotel room for the night, as one cannot sleep in Arizona in July without fans or air conditioning.  They told us to go to the hotel and then to call into the power company the next day and they would give us the name of the speedster and the name of his car insurance company.  I submitted the hotel bill to the insurance company, and they paid up promptly.  I don't think many people realized they could do that.  We were, however, concerned, that once the insurance company had paid the utility company for the replacement and installation of the new transformer (plus overtime for the employees to do the work overnight), there wouldn't be anything left for us private parties.  Fortunately, there was - or maybe we got our claim in so quickly we were paid before the utility company's claim, which would likely have used the rest of the policy limits.

Had he not had insurance, I'd have been visiting Judge Judy.

[Carolina Girl]

Is there any reason why Milian cannot have the litigants in the same courtroom with her?  Judge Judy, Hot Bench all have litigants in the same room (Judge Judy's new show even has a gallery).  This dueling Sony TV's needs to come to an end.

[CrazyInAlabama]

The answer is Judge Judy stopped filming last year, and part of her last season was with litigants on TV.  However, her new show is something I haven't watched, so maybe everyone is getting tested before entering the courtroom?    I understand the filmed TV shows are testing as people show up for work, so maybe JJ's new show is doing that too?    

 Maybe TPC doesn't want the liability of someone getting sick from traveling, and picking up something and suing the show.   They also save a bundle on transportation, motels, food, car service, and instead they can save a ton of money on each show by having them come to court on computer.   Then, the show producers don't have to test anyone except the in-courtroom staff, so they save a bundle. 

I figured out what's going on in the car case (the deadbeat defendant with the phony fence and gate claim).    He buys cars from the car lot that defendant repo'd cars for, I bet the interest rate is into the double digits, with a steep down payment too.   Then when the car breaks down, plaintiff stops paying for the car, and then defendant repos it.    Then the car lot either sells the car at auction if it's not repairable, or repairs it and resells it, so they can get their money several times over for the same car with a few different buyers.    I bet the lot buys at auction too, so the cars are super cheap to them, and then fools like plaintiff keep coming back over and over, and the car lot makes out very well

Edited April 28, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama

[AZChristian]

3 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

I figured out what's going on in the car case (the deadbeat defendant with the phony fence and gate claim).    He buys cars from the car lot that defendant repo'd cars for, I bet the interest rate is into the double digits, with a steep down payment too.   Then when the car breaks down, plaintiff stops paying for the car, and then defendant repos it.    Then the car lot either sells the car at auction if it's not repairable, or repairs it and resells it, so they can get their money several times over for the same car with a few different buyers.    I bet the lot buys at auction too, so the cars are super cheap to them, and then fools like plaintiff keep coming back over and over, and the car lot makes out very well

Not only that, the repo charge is passed on to the deadbeat, so the dealership gets the car back, keeps all the money that has already been paid, and then the defendant's company charges the customer to take away the car.  Why wouldn't these astute businessmen continue that money stream???

[AngelaHunter]

13 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

 They also save a bundle on transportation, motels, food, car service, and instead they can save a ton of money on each show by having them come to court on computer

I think that may play a large role in this decision. Not exactly big spenders, these producers.

[Paperclips]

These recent cases have been terrible - IMO.  Everytime I see a Dog-case I turn the channel.  I really like this show but I am struggling to even keep watching.  Most days I stop about half-way through and do something else.

[CrazyInAlabama]

New episode ""

Plaintiff rented a bedroom from defendant, and moved out and is suing for $2500 for security, double her security deposit, because no security was given back to plaintiff.     Defendant / landlord says plaintiff was the roommate from hell, and she owes her nothing.   

Defendant claims plaintiff ruined the microwave, minifridge, and wanted to keep $1500 security for damages and cleaning, but would return $1,000 to plaintiff.   Defendant says plaintiff didn't tell her about a hole developed from water dripping on the ceiling.    Defendant says the microwave in the common area was sparking because of something plaintiff  put in it.   

Plaintiff loses, because she posted nasty allegations against defendant on her foundation/charity website.    So, nothing for anyone. 

Defendant is Diane Dixon:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diane_Dixon   (If you seach this, there is another woman with the same name who recently died, not the Diane Dixon of track and field fame).  (It was so cool to see Diane Dixon again, she's such an accomplished athlete, and her foundation does great work). 

So. plaintiff was posting nasty things on the foundation website, so she looses everything. 

Case 2-Plaintiff was hired to do construction work on defendant's house, and didn't pay him, $1912.  Defendant agree to pay when job was finished, so he will only pay when the plaintiff finishes the last one or two small jobs remaining.     Plaintiff wins his money. 

(I always thought Cruella De;vil [or however it's spelled], was short for Cruel and Evil, but either way she's a horrible fictional character. It wouldn't be the first time I missed the meaning of a Disney villain). 

Edited April 28, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

20 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff rented a bedroom from defendant, and moved out and is suing for $2500 for security, double her security deposit, because no security was given back to plaintiff.  

You have to wonder what P was used to since she merely shrugged off a dirty, gaping hole in the bathroom ceiling as though it was no biggie. We got a "called out of name" from her. I couldn't take the screaming D who thinks that renting some crummy room in her apartment gives her the right to barge into that room whenever she feels like it. Her wig disturbed me. For some reason it brought to mind some version of Cruella DeVil. I just realized this very second that "DeVil" = "Devil". Wow. I'm not too swift.

27 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Case 2-Plaintiff was hired to do construction work on defendant's house, and didn't pay him, $1912.

Once again, JM (and P's wife) had to give a crash course to some adult who is in business on the basics of how to conduct that business. I'd like to meet any contractor, even one as limited as this one for whom so many jobs were "out of my realm" who says he wants no desposit or any payment of any kind until the job is done. I guess he never asked himself what motivation the client would have to pay the whole bill once everything is complete. P saw no reason to do this since in his whole couple years of experience he never had a problem. I hope he listened to JM or he's going to spend a lot more time in court, where he will recover not a penny.

Was Def wearing a great big camouflage outfit? I love it when he, and other litigants openly admit to do doing business "cash, no tax" under the table and then try to say they had no idea what that means.

[Bookworm13]

2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

New episode ""

Plaintiff rented a bedroom from defendant, and moved out and is suing for $2500 for security, double her security deposit, because no security was given back to plaintiff.     Defendant / landlord says plaintiff was the roommate from hell, and she owes her nothing.   

Defendant claims plaintiff ruined the microwave, minifridge, and wanted to keep $1500 security for damages and cleaning, but would return $1,000 to plaintiff.   Defendant says plaintiff didn't tell her about a hole developed from water dripping on the ceiling.    Defendant says the microwave in the common area was sparking because of something plaintiff  put in it.   

Plaintiff loses, because she posted nasty allegations against defendant on her foundation/charity website.    So, nothing for anyone. 

Defendant is Diane Dixon:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diane_Dixon   (If you seach this, there is another woman with the same name who recently died, not the Diane Dixon of track and field fame).  (It was so cool to see Diane Dixon again, she's such an accomplished athlete, and her foundation does great work). 

So. plaintiff was posting nasty things on the foundation website, so she looses everything. 

This was a case that just kept giving. Every time I thought it couldn't get worse, boom worse. Neither one seemed especially on top of things, but how does one just ignore a giant hole in the bathroom ceiling? I think D was just trying to get another 15 mins of fame. 
 

More cases like this instead of car repair woes and sad animal cases would be appreciated. At least these are entertaining. 

 

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

Once again, JM (and P's wife) had to give a crash course to some adult who is in business on the basics of how to conduct that business. I'd like to meet any contractor, even one as limited as this one for whom so many jobs were "out of my realm" who says he wants no desposit or any payment of any kind until the job is done. I guess he never asked himself what motivation the client would have to pay the whole bill once everything is complete. P saw no reason to do this since in his whole couple years of experience he never had a problem. I hope he listened to JM or he's going to spend a lot more time in court, where he will recover not a penny.

Was Def wearing a great big camouflage outfit? I love it when he, and other litigants openly admit to do doing business "cash, no tax" under the table and then try to say they had no idea what that means.

If P has only been doing this a short time, I hope his wife tells him to go back to whatever it is he used to do. Clearly this isn’t it between everything he can’t do and his lack of business sense. Or if he feels like this is his calling, go work for someone else for a short time to see how successful contractors work. 

[AngelaHunter]

49 minutes ago, Bookworm13 said:

If P has only been doing this a short time, I hope his wife tells him to go back to whatever it is he used to do. Clearly this isn’t it between everything he can’t do and his lack of business sense.

I must say we've seen worse, like more than a few businessmen who say they'll charge a "reasonable rate" and IIRC one who told a client "Pay what you think it's worth". Of course they ended up here. Then we had the so-called real estate agent who worked with FB strangers "on faith" and verbal contracts.  How did that work out for y'all?

[Bookworm13]

13 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

I must say we've seen worse, like more than a few businessmen who say they'll charge a "reasonable rate" and IIRC one who told a client "Pay what you think it's worth". Of course they ended up here. Then we had the so-called real estate agent who worked with FB strangers "on faith" and verbal contracts.  How did that work out for y'all?

I missed the real estate one, but um, wow. It’s amazing people like that have made it this far in life. Unless they’re the type to just think bad things always happen to them and take no ownership, which given what I’ve heard on TPC, is entirely likely. 

[AngelaHunter]

6 hours ago, Bookworm13 said:

Unless they’re the type to just think bad things always happen to them and take no ownership

Of course, it's always someone else's fault. "He made me trust him!" "He wouldn't give me a receipt!"  "He didn't let me read the contract/test drive the hoopty!" "I just have a good heart (so I gave 1,000$ to this guy who got out of prison last week)"! And the best, "I'm a SINGLE MOTHER so I should not be responsible for my actions!"

They're all just Good Samaritans and innocent victims of the big bad world out there.