The People's Court - General Discussion

AngelaHunter · June 27, 2022

I just watched the case of the used, half-empty, designer Bottles of Stink and I cannot understand any of this, although I found it rather fascinating. P thinks she's super-cute, appears to be some wannabe star of a crummy reality show, and got her one-liners all written out in advance. She's sure she and JM will be besties!

There are people who buy this shit, not knowing how old it is or even if it's the actual DESIGNER perfume? Obviously, they do. It could be bought in quart bottles from the dollar store, but it doesn't seem to matter as long as the bottle says "Prada". D has no teeth, is dangerously obese and seems to have few funds, but really wants depleted bottles of rip-off "Candy Kiss", scent which probably came from the same vat that supplies Walmart with house brand perfume. Everyone has different priorities!

Peddling very, very used perfume (or whatever is in those bottles. Perfume does not retain the orignal scent when it gets old) deteriorates into vile texts and FB garbage. P says she only mentioned that D's son was driven to suicide by his mother because she's been having such a terrible time herself and may also be driven that far by problems with what she calls "Flea-Bay" business. *giggle* She must have spent time thinking that up and was hoping for laughter and applause for it. P thinks shipping glass bottles in old K-Cup pod boxes is acceptable. She's not spending money on real boxes!

Maybe this crap was a good deal. I'm allergic to most perfumes so maybe I'm being too judgmental. I did learn there are people who will buy virtually anything. I've got a cracked mirror and a half-empty tube of genuine Polysporin I'm thinking of listing on Flea-Bay.

CrazyInAlabama · June 28, 2022

22 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

There are people who buy this shit, not knowing how old it is or even if it's the actual DESIGNER perfume? Obviously, they do. It could be bought in quart bottles from the dollar store, but it doesn't seem to matter as long as the bottle says "Prada". D has no teeth, is dangerously obese and seems to have few funds, but really wants depleted bottles of rip-off "Candy Kiss", scent which probably came from the same vat that supplies Walmart with house brand perfume. Everyone has different priorities!

Peddling very, very used perfume (or whatever is in those bottles. Perfume does not retain the orignal scent when it gets old) deteriorates into vile texts and FB garbage. P says she only mentioned that D's son was driven to suicide by his mother because she's been having such a terrible time herself and may also be driven that far by problems with what she calls "Flea-Bay" business. *giggle* She must have spent time thinking that up and was hoping for laughter and applause for it. P thinks shipping glass bottles in old K-Cup pod boxes is acceptable. She's not spending money on real boxes!

There are people who collect the bottles. I knew someone who had a little shop reselling collectible perfume bottles, the little Avon jewelry, and other things, and she did very well. That was years ago though.

I think the people who bought the perfume dumped it, and used water tinted to the same shade as the perfume.

Buying used old perfume for the scent is ridiculous, but so is almost everything on this show.

Also, in spite of the TPC commercials I get saying new shows, they're reruns this week.

This morning's rerun was the ridiculous case of Finn the cat's custody. JM again gave people almost $1,000 for the cat, and for the plaintiff and partner's travel and gas expenses for seeing her relatives on the way, and to pick up the cat which didn't happen. I wouldn't have given them anything. The only interesting part was plaintiff woman was a partner with defendant, and now is a partner with the man she lives with now.

The second case was also bizarre, with tenant not even understanding that her security deposit didn't cover something from a couple of years ago, and landlady was totally unprepared, wasn't she an attorney too?

Edited June 28, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama

AngelaHunter · June 28, 2022

20 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

There are people who collect the bottles.

For sure there are lots of people who collect antique, unusual or very decorative bottles. I have a couple of very old ones myself. The D in this case wanted the perfume and was distressed that most of it leaked out in the flimsy pod box.

AngelaHunter · June 28, 2022

Today was the boring rerun of P, who claims she's only 26 so says she doesn't know much about anything except getting knocked up. She had one of her baby daddies film her as she walked down the dangerous stairs of her rental place, just on the off chance that she might fall on the stairs, and her two months preggo. Surprise! She falls.

Anyway, I amused myself as we listened to property manager def. who was in front of a green screen, by imagining what she could have put on this screen: A dino stampede from Jurassic Park? The deck of the sinking Titanic? The top of the Eiffel Tower? The bridge of the Enterprise? Don't our litigants have any imagination about anything besides screwing, cheating, scamming, and money-grubbing? Such a wasted opportunity.

AngelaHunter · June 29, 2022

I know I have no life. What of it?

Come on, people! No need to be so boring. Look how much better this is!

CrazyInAlabama · June 30, 2022

Rerun, Stealing From an Ex.

Case 1-Ridiculous case of Uncle and his niece suing her soon to be ex over $500, and who stole it from who, and I don't care either way.

Case 2-Fool plaintiff moves into defendant's house as a room renter, with a cat. Poor cat gets attacked by defendant/landlady's pit bulls. Cat survived that attack. However, fool plaintiff went back into the same bedroom with the cat, dogs came in and killed the cat this time. No one in this case has the commen sense that the good lord gave a chicken, and the poor cat is the one that suffered and died because of it.

Defendant partially paid the bill for the first attack, and despicable plaintiff gets the rest of the money for the first surgery. JM really rips into both litigants, and then Doug from the hall really does it again. I love Doug.

Edited June 30, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama

AngelaHunter · June 30, 2022

9 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Case 1-Ridiculous case of Uncle and his niece suing her soon to be ex over $500, and who stole it from who, and I don't care either way.

I actually watched this again, not only for Def winking at JM, but because I'm just fascinated that a woman like the 30-year-old niece who - in this day and age - chose a retro, 1950s era life to get married while in her teens, to never want or get a job, and to depend on her husband to take care of her forever and ever. A true throwback. They exist! I'm surprised she didn't have her hair in a French twist, while wearing a little string of pearls and an apron.

Maybe she watched too much MeTV and June Cleaver was her idol?

CrazyInAlabama · July 1, 2022

Rerun, "Family Crisis"

Case 1-Plaintiff aunt is suing defendant niece for $6500 for pain and suffering and defamation. Defendant is counter suing aunt for $5800, for furniture left with plaintiff's mother, niece's grandmother, a long time ago. Plaintiff's sister sent a text that the furniture left in the basement was moldy and tossed. Plaintiff saw the furniture before she left Michigan, and has no idea if the furniture is still there.

Then, defendant got very mad, and went on Facebook videos saying plaintiff is awful, and immoral, and ranted about the aunt. The video is played, and at least half has to be bleeped. Defendant niece says she left the furniture with grandmother nine years ago, when she was 'unstable', and claims she's 'stable' now, but I have to disagree.

The funny thing about the Facebook footage is while defendant was hideously angry at aunt, she was cooking at the same time. That's taking multitasking to a whole new level.

There is no way for plaintiff to prove defendant lied about what the grandmother said. Niece's mother wanted to testify for her daughter, and against plaintiff, her sister.

Plaintiff claim dismissed, defendant claim for nine year old furniture is dismissed.

Case 2-Plaintiff suing neighbor/defendant for ripping down her chain link fence that was on her property. Defendant says chain link fence was a code and safety issue. Plaintiff built the privacy fence with her own two hands, and JM can't get over that. Plaintiff claims fence was fine until defendant drove into the fence, actually it was the tenant of defendant. Privacy fence was entirely on plaintiff's property, and inside the chain link fence that was there first, and was also entirely on plaintiff's property. The chain link fence was taken down by defendant, but the tenant hit the corner post before that. Defendant never will tell why he took the fence down.

Tenant submitted a letter saying how she slammed into the fences. Then, letter says defendant rolled up the chain link fence, and left it in the corner, and the insurance paid for damages to the privacy fence.

Tenant letter says defendant and plaintiff agreed to remove the chain link fence, but plaintiff says that wasn't the agreement.

JM says the two should have talked to each other, ignoring the fact that there's been bad blood between the two litigants for years. Plaintiff had a violation notice from the city about the fence, and apparently didn't get a permit until defendant ratted her out to the city, and she had to rebuild the fence.

JM tells plaintiff to sue the defendant's tenant, not defendant. However, defendant is the one who ripped down a fence he didn't own, so I disagree with JM.

Edited July 1, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama

CrazyInAlabama · July 4, 2022

Rerun "Shipping Situation"

Case 1-Plaintiff claims he shipped two expensive sinks, and paid defendant $435 to ship them. The items arrived in pieces. Plaintiff buys and sells on ebay, and shipped to two different buyers, one sink was a pedestal sink, and the other was a drop in sink, One sink went UPS, and one went Fedex. Plaintiff's son shipped the items with defendant, and declined extra insurance after hearing the price, $32. They have $100 insurance on all packages., but both carriers declined to pay for the items.

The shipping forms the son filled out is shown, and he did not want extra insurance, didn't put declared value, and signature releases defendant's company from liability.

I really thought the decision would be against defendant, but JM seems to be reading the evidence for once. I was wrong.

Plaintiff gets $435 for the shipping, and $200 for the insurance by the shipping company, so $635. Not the $1700 plaintiff wanted. I guess it never occured to JM that the receivers took extra packing materials off before photographing the sinks?

Case 2-Plaintiff hired defendants to redo the ceiling on her house, and it took over 35 days and still wasn't finished, she wants $2600 for lost rent, and the cost of the job. Plaintiff claims she couldn't rerent the space for over a month, so the defendants should pay for the lost rent. There was no written contract, and no receipts for payments, the litigants used to be friends. Both sides have ridiculous reason why plaintiff hired defendants, and defendants have even more excuses why they couldn't do the work, and why their work sucks. .

Plaintiff wanted popcorn ceiling removed, and replaced. $1300 for labor, and $400 for supplies, and then another $400 for supplies, and plaintiff paid $2100, defendant says plaintiff paid him $700, not $2100.

I'm not liking any of the litigants. This case is why if you try to save a lot of money by hiring someone who can't do the work, and go for cheap, you're making a mistake.

Plaintiff will get $760. I guess because the defendants did some work, and there are supplies used and on the job site.

I know the room renters are desperate to find somewhere to stay, but the prices some of them pay amaze me.

Edited July 5, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama

AngelaHunter · July 4, 2022

Today I got a successful root canal and came home needing some nice, light entertainment. These repeats fit the bill!

"My boy is only 28! You can't expect him to know how to pack something or take the initiative to get insurance if I didn't write a note and pin it to his shirt! He's just a lad and doesn't know anything!" Gross negligence! 😄

Def: "My hubby-boo is a "big guy" so you can't expect him to do a good job in that dinky little room!"

P is raking in 800$/month for that dinky little room, yet is too cheap to hire someone who knows what he's doing and isn't too huge to fit in the room to do the work. 2100$. 😆 Receipts? What are those? Of course none of us have any! We all trust each other!

Thanks, litigants. I needed the laugh.

CrazyInAlabama · July 5, 2022

Rerun, "Dessert Disaster"

Case 1-Plaintiff wanted a decorated dessert table for the grandbaby's first birthday, in a mermaid seashell theme, complete with a balloon arch, and backdrop. Plaintiff paid $950 for the table. for a contest. Defendant was paid to do this, and dessert table wasn't as spectacular as a photo plaintiff found online. I'm sure the table from the picture cost thousands.

Defendant claims the photo shows a backdrop, not a balloon arch. Defendant says plaintiff/grandmother was competing with the child's mother, and there were 40 treat tables at the party for a 1-year-old. The estimate for a balloon arch was about half the cost of what defendant charged plaintiff.

JM brings up a good point, why didn't they start a fund for the baby, instead of wasting thousands of dollars on this ridiculous party. Plaintiff whines about the amount and type of food, decoration, balloons, The candy apples were missing. Plaintiff paid $150 for the cake she had commissioned, and brought.

Unfortunately, JM agrees with the plaintiff, says everything looked skimpy and cheap.

Plaintiff wants $675 back. So, plaintiff gets $250 backon top of the $150 the defendant already refunded, because the plaintiff's claim was ridiculous.

Case 2-Plaintiff landlord claims when tenants damaged his beautiful, newly installed hardwood floors, and he wants $1300 to repair them. Defendants as usual, claim they're innocent, say plaintiff is a greedy jerk who inspected the place when they moved out, and they owe him nothing.

I fail to see why plaintiff claiming defendants claimed to be Christians is relevant to the case. I also fail to understand why the plaintiff is commenting on the defendants buying a home, and having a child.

The defendant admits to the scratches, but claims it's normal wear and tear, no it isn't. He only wants to pay $200 for the repair, and already did.

Defendants received $2200+ back, and plaintiff wants $1300 for the scratches and gouges on the floor and mouldings. Plaintiff agreed to the $200, and that's all he's getting.

Plaintiff gets $0 more for the repairs.

Edited July 5, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama

AngelaHunter · July 5, 2022

28 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

I fail to see why plaintiff claiming defendants claimed to be Christians is relevant to the case.

It seems that many people, and certainly a lot of them seen on this show see their god as very petty, mean-spirited, and vindictive who will refuse to give blessings to people who put scratches on the floors of someone's 'beloved' condo. These floor vandals might even be cursed!😳

Maverick · July 5, 2022

I never ceased to be amazed at people who will give someone their business based solely on the fact that they're. MM: why would yo deal with someone so shady? Litigant: "He said he was a Christian, so I assumed he's honest" "I want to support black business" "Because he's gay" Like, people seem to get someone someone who's like you doesn't automatically know what they're doing or even have your best interests at heart.

AngelaHunter · July 6, 2022

15 hours ago, Maverick said:

I never ceased to be amazed at people who will give someone their business based solely on the fact that they're. MM: why would yo deal with someone so shady? Litigant: "He said he was a Christian, so I assumed he's honest" "I want to support black business" "Because he's gay" Like, people seem to get someone someone who's like you doesn't automatically know what they're doing or even have your best interests at heart.

I've mentioned this a couple of times and it always has me bemused. Yes, if any stranger is of your ethnicity/race/religion/nationality that means there's a bond of solidarity, kinship, and unbreakable trust, well, until that person lies, cheats, scams, or breaks your trusting little heart and you end up on TPC.

Call me cynical and overly suspicious, but I just wouldn't automatically trust a CL seller of a 23-year-old BMW who tells me it's in perfect condition, just because he has an Irish surname. If I did I would expect to end up saying, "No, I didn't do a test drive or get a mechanic check before I paid him for the car. His name is O'Reilly so I TRUSTED him with all my heart, your Honour!"🤪

CrazyInAlabama · July 6, 2022

Rerun, "Stiffing Your Grandmother"

Case 1-Plaintiff Grandmother loaned Granddaughter money to buy furniture, $943 (originaly was $1183) on Grandma's account at a furniture store. Granddaughter claims she already repaid grandmother, owes nothing, and the other bills on Grandmother's credit account are Grandmother's. Granddaughter was supposed to pay $150 a month, and Grandmother claims Granddaughter paid one payment of $150. (This was at Badcock Furniture).

Granddaughter claims she paid Grandmother off long ago, but Grandmother is lying about it. Also, Grandmother was paying the minimum, so the interest keeps piling on.

The Granddaughter's crocodile tears, without actual tears are not impressing me. JM is claiming the Grandmother is confused about payments, and apparently her cheese slipped off of her cracker. How despicable of JM, and the Granddaughter. Why is JM believing Granddaughter's boyfriend, and Granddaughter's other friend?

Granddaughter has no receipts, and no proof except for the one $150 payment.

I don't believe the Granddaughter. Now Harvey chimes in claiming Grandmother forgot too.

Plaintiff receives $200, and that's it, not the $943 Grandmother wanted.

Case 2-Plaintiff purchased tires from defendant, claims tires were rotted out, and dangerous, and he wants his $110 back. Defendant said she didn't sell the plaintiff tires, but only mounted tires he brought in to be mounted and put on his car. Tire photos show rotten, cracked, and obviously bad tires, and that didn't happen in three months.

Plaintiff does paper work at a dealership, says he didn't know the tires were bad. JM interprets a taped phone conversation between defendant's husband, and plaintiff to mean plaintiff did buy tires from defendant's tire shop. I don't interpret it that way, and think it could mean that plaintiff didn't pay for mounting the tires, or to order a replacement, used rim.

So, JM calls defendant wife a liar, takes the plaintiff's side.

To plaintiff $60.

AngelaHunter · July 6, 2022

2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

I don't believe the Granddaughter. Now Harvey chimes in claiming Grandmother forgot too.

Granny probably paid for the tats, the Ronald McDonald wig and the extra-long talons, too - all necessities, I guess. If Granddaughter bought one queen bed with Granny's money because neither she nor boyfriend, both of them big, healthy, husky adults, could buy their own shit, why were there two beds behind them, in what looked like a hotel? I didn't look that closely so could be wrong.

Levin's witty commentary on the tire case: "It's the case of 'I'm so tired of you.'" We got tired of you many years ago, you little shitass.

AngelaHunter · July 8, 2022

Upon skimming today's rerun of the Mom and son ("basically basically basically basically") who appear to get their eyebrows painted on at the same eyebrow shop I saw something I didn't notice the first time with my warp-speed FF of any and all things Levin:

"Ripped off by a Painter"? Really, Harve? Were you having a bad day? Did your Plexaderm not plump up your wrinkles well enough? Did someone finally punch you in your big, nosy beak?

Where is the awkward, dumb alliteration, the 4th rate snickering high school locker room double entendre, the cringe-worthy, vulgar insult to women?

You let your fans down big time, Levin. Even I could do better: "Pissed off by a Painter"(to use your charming expression, you shriveled clown), "My Painter Gave Me Palpitations!" or the always appreciated and much beloved, "Painter? He Hardly Knew 'er!"

Disappointed in our Levin, I was.

CrazyInAlabama · July 8, 2022

Rerun, "Ripped Off by a Painted" This was case 1, but I don't care about it.

Case 2-Plaintiff claims defendant's two unleashed Pit Bulls attacked her, and her dog Charlie, a 25 to 30 lbs. terrier mix. She's suing for $765, for vet bills. Defendant says he was going to pay the vet bills, but only if plaintiff didn't make a report to the police or animal control. Plaintiff called in a report about the attack, and defendant received a citation. Defendant claims plaintiff telling the police and animal control about the attack ruined his reputation in the community, so he's not paying.

Plaintiff was walking with her 2-year-old, and fiance, at the time of the attack. The fiance and baby escaped. The plaintiff was walking Charlie in the townhouse complex, and several people were standing with the unleashed Pit Bulls, and dogs charged her. The HOA president was one of the people standing around talking, and she told plaintiff that this wasn't the first time the Pits were off-leash, wandering at large.

The two Pits attacked Charlie, plaintiff climbed on a car hood. Fiance put the toddler into the back seat of the Jeep, to escape the attack. Plaintiff says the Pits never barked or anything, and grabbed Charlie. Charlie was on a leash the entire time. A neighbor came to help and hit the Pits with sticks to drive it off.

Plaintiff's fiance, Johnny Turnipseed, testifies. He put the baby in the Jeep's back seat, then he went to get the dogs off of Charlie, and the neighbor with sticks helped.

Defendant lies and says his dogs are in his house all of the time, I bet those dogs have never been in that house.

Defendant claims he was working on his back fence, to keep the dogs contained. Defendant claims he didn't know about the attack, and said the dogs dug under the fence. Then he claims the dogs escaped by pushing the fence panels out.

Defendant says he was told the plaintiff fiance threatened the Pits with a gun, and the sound of chambering a round drove the dogs off (Bull Pucky). Defendant found out what happened when four police officers showed up at his door that evening, and animal control came the next morning. Defendant received several citations. I'm hoping the HOA does something about the dogs.

Defendant says he's moving, hopefully somewhere where polar bears will take care of him and his awful dogs. Defendant is the dog owner that gives irresponsible dog owners are bad name.

Photos of poor Charlie are awful.

Plaintiff gets $756, for the vet bills, and the repair costs to the Jeep when plaintiff climbed on top of the hood. Plaintiff gets the money, and defendant is still a fool. (Levin is wrong, many places don't have leash laws, or animal control, and an attack or death of another animal isn't a crime).

Today's rerun, "Heartbroken over a Puppy". I'm not watching this one again. I think it's the one that's rerun several times where the puppy died after the buyer switched his food, supposedly to a raw diet, and she denies she did this. She also delayed taking the poor thing to a vet. This poor animal should have been with the mother for weeks longer.

Edited July 13, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama

Bookworm13 · July 14, 2022

On 6/24/2022 at 4:55 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

New "Exes Square Off"

Case 1-Plaintiff dated defendant, defendant kicked her dog into a cabinet, and dog was severely injured, and then defendant ran off to Oklahoma. Plaintiff keeps making excuses for defendant.

Defendant claims dog snapped at him. Defendant claims dog snapped at him, so he 'slid' the dog across the floor, and since plaintiff used their joint bank account to pay the vet bill, he owes nothing. Plaintiff was out of town, returned home to find her dog injured. Dog is tiny little ball of fluff, 7 lbs. Plaintiff took dog to vet the next day, and plaintiff claimed she didn't know how the dog was injured.

Dog may never walk again.

After the vet, dog can't walk, and needs 24/7 care. Meanwhile, he's skipping town.

I can't stand either one of these litigants. So, no one thought about calling the police, until her mother did. The video is heartbreaking, the dog is dragging her hind legs.

$5,000 to plaintiff for dog. $2500 for the MRI that hasn't happened yet, or possible surgery, but that needs documentation.

$3100 from defendant to plaintiff, but that comes from the show so I still dislike both litigants.

Catching up on my backlog of episodes and just watched this one. I hate the mis-use of the word literally(and I kinda hate myself for what I’m about to say), but these two are literally the worst. I think the worst part of it all is the fact that the poor dog is still with the woman who clearly gives zero fucks about it’s health/well-being. Neither one should be allowed around animals or kids in the future.

CrazyInAlabama · July 14, 2022

Today's rerun "Leaving a Friend in Stitches"

Case 1-Plaintiff loans neighbor an expensive sewing machine, defendant claims she never borrowed it, but maybe she saw it in her house. Plaintiff loaned the machine, and didn't ask neighbor/defendant until five months later if she still needed the machine. Then, defendant moved, and plaintiff didn't even know she was leaving. Defendant says she never borrowed the machine, had her own machine. Defendant claimed the only time she used the plaintiff's machine was at plaintiff's home.

Then, defendant says while she was talking to her buyers, that the plaintiff was talking to other neighbors, claiming defendant was broke, and plaintiff would scoop the defendant's house up at a very low price. If the defendant's statement was true, I wouldn't tell the plaintiff I was moving either. Plaintiff claims she never had an interest in buying the defendant's home, so defendant is lying.

Plaintiff gets $700 (not the $1200 she requested) for the sewing machine, and they're both some of the most bizarre stories I've heard in a long time.

Case 2-Plaintiff was walking his two tiny dogs on a leash, defendant's front door was wide open, and defendant's Pit Bull ran out and bit plaintiff. This is the bizarre case where the bite isn't shown on the doorbell camera, because the footage mysteriously skips over it. So, JM doesn't like that plaintiff carries a baseball bat when he comes back to defendant's house, I would have brought a cattle prod.

Plaintiff says he has injuries, but doesn't want to do what his attorney says, and keep going for all kinds of tests and treatments. (This happened in L.A., Topanga Canyon area).

I would have given the plaintiff the $5,000. The defendant obviously edited the attack out, when the police came to the defendant's home, the front door was wide open (and an officer was carrying a fire extinguisher), so defendant lied about everything. I hope animal control cited the defendant for a dangerous dog, and that her insurance cancelled her.

Plaintiff wins $500.

Edited July 14, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama

CrazyInAlabama · July 15, 2022

Rerun, "Stealing from a Customer"

Case 1-Plaintiff had his car at car wash, and claims someone there stole $2,000 of money orders and cashed them. Plaintiff claims there is footage showing people from defendant Patel's car wash in and out of his car, during the oil change and car wash. Money orders were $1500, $1200 for rent, and $300 for child support. When plaintiff went back to talk to the manager, worker claimed he never went in the car, which tape proved was a lie.

However, plaintiff has no proof of the two money orders purchased. JM decides the defendant owes the money, the employee was a thief.

Defendant lost a good customer over this, but my question is why plaintiff had no proof?

$1500 to plaintiff. (Then, JM goes off, and says men should carry a purse, and Douglas just about loses it).

Case 2-Plaintiff sells sneakers online (Shoemuers is the company), sold a pair to defendant. Defendant claims they were counterfeit/fake, and been slamming the plaintiff online. They were Jordan sneakers, and defendant warned the Nike fraud division about the situation.

Defendant shipped the shoes he claims are fake to Judge Marilyn, the first piece of evidence she's touched in two years.

The shoes are 1988 or 1989 Jordan 4 Retro Black Cement. Plaintiff claims the shoes are the same kind as his son's shoe, and it's not a fake, it's a different series but still that year and Nike Air Jordans.

SHoes were $390, and photos are submitted of what plaintiff sent to defendant. Defendant claims the shoes came in the wrong box too, not the original one. Defendant wanted the Jumpman logo shoes. jDefendant has a lot of reasons why sneakers are fake.

The 2012 version are very different, but what defendant wanted were 2019 reissue of the sneakers.

Defendant gets $ 390, and it's not a good day in Mr. Roger's neighborhood. Yes, I went there.

AngelaHunter · July 15, 2022

11 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Defendant lost a good customer over this, but my question is why plaintiff had no proof?

I watched this again, thinking maybe this time I could understand why JM chose to take a litigant's word for it with zero proof. Maybe because the D's idiocy in quoting law he learned from some anonymous people offering opinions was so annoying? P's idiocy and carelessness was equally annoying. "I say it was 1500$". "Okay, I believe you implicitly".

This kind of thing could be avoided if grown-up adults/parents could or would use bank accounts instead of money orders/WU/Moneygram. With all the various ways of transferring money these days I find it very suspicious when someone chooses to use none of them and prefers to either deal in cash only (usually without even a receipt) or stick money orders in their glove compartments.

CrazyInAlabama · July 18, 2022

Rerun "Cancelled Trip Tantrum"

Case 1-Plaintiff says she agreed to pay the defendant for a trip, the Airbnb, that defendant paid for. However, after the assault by defendant, plaintiff said she no longer owed him. Defendant says he has to take a six-month batter prevention course, but doesn't know if he's ever been arrested for domestic violence.

Defendant made the reservations, so plaintiff couldn't cancel the trip or reservations. What a sordid, nasty case. I feel so sorry for plaintiff, this isn't her first abusive relationship.

Loser defendant says he didn't assault plaintiff "he just pushed her down", and she had cuts from her braces all over her mouth, and he refused to let her leave, so false imprisonment too (can you tell I was on a grand jury years ago? )

Defendant gets nothing, plaintiff gets $500. I would have given plaintiff $5,000 so she could get counseling to find out why she keeps getting in relationships with violent losers. Doug is so nice to her in the hall-terview.

Case 2-Plaintiffs installed security cameras to cover defendant's gigantic yard sale. His entire yard, garage, is full of yard sale stuff.

Case 2-Plaintiffs claim they were hired to install security cameras at defendant's house, they installed the cameras, and were never paid. Defendant claims plaintiffs screwed up the installation, and he had to hire someone else to do it. Apparently there was a verbal contract with one plaintiff, but not a written estimate or contract.

Defendant claims he paid the plaintiffs, but plaintiffs say he never paid them. Plaintiffs say the cameras work, defendant said they didn't. I'm not happy with either side in this case, no contracts, nobody has anything in text, email, or any other proof.

Nothing proves payments, charges for work, or anything else. Judge Marilyn orders defendant to pay $1,000 to plaintiffs.

(It was discovered last time this aired, that if you Google "Renaud Staten Island yard sale" and you will be amazed at the video of this yard, and his valuable (yes, that's totally sarcastic) junk all over his yard. ~~As Angela Hunter~~ The comments on the Youtube from neighbors are hysterical. I feel so sorry for the poor neighbors, with the hideous junk everywhere, the traffic, parking issues, and this man being allowed to do this year round.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScumSkDVgrU

During the off season, he sells from inside his house and has his own Facebook group:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/198881464685592/

SInce it's a mixed use Residential/Business area, the city can't or won't do anything about it. This all started 6 years ago. I feel so sorry for his neighbors. I can't imagine the traffic, parking issues, crowds, etc.

Edited July 18, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama

AngelaHunter · July 18, 2022

25 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

(It was discovered last time this aired, that if you Google "Renaud Staten Island yard sale" and you will be amazed at the video of this yard, and his valuable (yes, that's totally sarcastic) junk all over his yard. As Angela Hunter said the last time this aired, the neighbor's comments are hysterical).

Actually, I missed this video last time. I believe I got distracted by someone renovating their bathroom or kitchen for 300$ or something along those lines. 😄 It's hard to believe def is allowed to run a flea market in this neighbourhood.

I did watch this repeat because I found the utter dopiness of The Three Dumbos hilarious (especially Mr. Lamanna, who shakes his head, sighs, and rolls his eyes as though he can't believe JM doesn't get why it took 12 or 14 months to do the work and they were to get paid whatever was "reasonable". It's so simple!) and, unlike the first case, there was no punching, choking, or biting. I rather enjoy non-violent "stupid" but can't take "feral" anymore.

CrazyInAlabama · July 18, 2022

2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Actually, I missed this video last time. I believe I got distracted by someone renovating their bathroom or kitchen for 300$ or something along those lines. 😄 It's hard to believe def is allowed to run a flea market in this neighbourhood.

I did watch this repeat because I found the utter dopiness of The Three Dumbos hilarious (especially Mr. Lamanna, who shakes his head, sighs, and rolls his eyes as though he can't believe JM doesn't get why it took 12 or 14 months to do the work and they were to get paid whatever was "reasonable". It's so simple!) and, unlike the first case, there was no punching, choking, or biting. I rather enjoy non-violent "stupid" but can't take "feral" anymore.

I fixed it. However, you should look at the Youtube of his endless fleamarket. It's amazing, but not in a good way.

AngelaHunter · July 19, 2022

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

I fixed it. However, you should look at the Youtube of his endless fleamarket. It's amazing, but not in a good way.

I did take a look and came away very thankful that such atrocities aren't allowed in my neighbourhood. Imagine trying to enjoy a peaceful weekend at home with this circus next door with the piles of old junk and musty old clothes. No permits needed in NY, even with 40 complaints. A "hobby". Sure it is.

CrazyInAlabama · July 22, 2022

Rerun, but fun "Bickering Over Belongings"

Case 1-Plaintiff suing her short term ex, long term friend (12 years) over trashing her bottles covered in glitter. She actually calls this arts and crafts business supplies. She immediately tries to get sympathy from the judge over plaintiff's son passing. A long time after plaintiff moved out, defendant finally trashed her bottles covered in glitter. Plaintiff never paid rent, or anything else, hasn't worked in a long time. When defendant told her to leave, she claims she didn't have a car, anywhere to go, dumped her younger daughter on ex, or sister or somewhere. Plaintiff put her stuff into storage, but couldn't get her bins of bottles and glitter. How can plaintiff claim she was broke, had nowhere to go, but left for a trip to Texas the next day. She also rented U-haul trucks several times, how did someone who never works have this money?

Defendant says plaintiff left some liquor bottles with glitter and paint on them, and he claims didn't want a confrontation with her. He put the stuff she left in the hallway to the apartment, says he didn't realize empty liquor bottles were are, and says she never picked anything up. Defendant says Miss Chanel scarf never picked her stuff up, he arranged multiple pickups that she never showed for.

Plaintiff shows her 'art', and it's as awful as you think it would be. Plaintiff loses, and defendant wins.

Case 2-Plaintiff suing her niece, and brother over a grave site that she claims they stole from her. Niece has a notarized document giving the title to the grave site from aunt. Niece says grave plot/site was a gift from aunt. This was after the mother/grandmother's estate was settled, and plaintiff says she won. Plaintiff says parents bought 8 grave sites, kept two for them, and 2 plots/sites for the other three siblings. Plaintiff claims the notary who signed the 'gift' was 40 miles from her home, and the brother used the same notary after that too.

A month ago plaintiff claims she found out niece was saying that the plot was a gift. A year ago the aunt and niece met for lunch, but niece was late, and they argued again. Then, aunt sent an email to niece saying she was out of the will, and never to bother her again. Niece says when she was 12 (she's 52 now), aunt came to the niece's parents place, and aunt said the niece and brother didn't greet her immediately, so the next time the two kids stood up and formally greeted her, setting aunt off again. Then aunt and the defendant nieces parents had no contact. Then, 40 years later the grave site issue came up, and aunt disowned niece again. (Personally, if aunt kept the grave site, and was planted next to the rest of the family, I think we would see the deceased relatives climb out of their graves, and run like hell to get away from her).

Brother defendant says the issue when the mother died was over a condo plaintiff tried to swipe for herself and sell. The brother and other sibling sued, and the condo was sold and the money went to the grandchildren the way the late mother intended.

Plaintiff loses. The emails state that aunt found out niece could sell the plot, and then she wanted it back. Nothing for defendants after the despicable emails and statements from the plaintiff.

CrazyInAlabama · July 25, 2022

"You Ruined My Reputation" Rerun, from page 200

Case 1-Plaintiff /carpentry company owner, suing defendant for $10k for defamation. Defendant Robert Safari (I love that name) claims plaintiff posted mean reviews on the internet because defendant says the repair of his 1978 sailboat by plaintiff's company was bad. Defendant made a $1,000 deposit on the boat carpentry and repairs. The boat sank twice, and because of the age, had water damage everywhere.

Defendant was supposed to pay plaintiff $8,000 for the repairs, and only paid $6,000, promised to pay the other $2,000 in two payments, but never did. Both of the litigants are really enjoying their time on camera.

Plaintiff claims defendant wanted him to join defendant's business. Defendant wrote some nasty Yelp, and other reviews about plaintiff's business, and can't produce a police report, and Judge Marilyn say defendant is lying about the police report. Defendant says he filed a police report, and his attorneys will be filing a federal lawsuit. (Filing a federal lawsuit? For what?)

Plaintiff told to return the stuff defendant gave him, plaintiff gets $2500 and defendant is ordered to take down the posts online.

Case 2-Plaintiff landlady suing for $1550 for two months rent, from defendant/former tenant for leaving without notice. Defendant claims landlady stole butter out of his refrigerator. (Is this the same butter the man had in his pocket on Friday's On Patrol Live (successor to Live PD) on Reelz network? Then, sister of landlady moved in with her two cats, and put the litter box in defendant's man cave.

Plaintiff originally leased to caretaker for defendant's grandmother, and when grandmother died, caretaker moved into the apartment, and defendant was also a platonic roommate with the caretaker. Rent was $775 a month. After caretaker moved on, plaintiff's sister and her cats moved in with a reduced rent by defendant. Defendant came home right at the end of his lease, saw the cats, and decided to move out. Cats nailed his mattress, some boxes were used as a litter box too. So, defendant moved out.

Plaintiff claims he left a rifle and a bunch of food garbage behind.

Defendant will pick up the rifle. Also, defendant's lease dates were wrong, so it was never an accurate contract. Plaintiff doesn't get the two months rent, because she moved in the sister and the cats into defendant's rented space.

Plaintiff gets no back rent. Defendant gets nothing, but can pick up his rifle.

Edited July 26, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama

CrazyInAlabama · July 26, 2022

Rerun, "Doggy Disaster".

Case 1-Plaintiff (Ms. Carla of Siberian Husky Rescue of Tucson)paid for a neutering on a Siberian Husky for $420 to neuter defendant's dog.

Defendant says her daughter brought the dog home, and dumped it on defendant, and she wanted to adopt the dog out, but it had to be neutered first. Defendant says the plaintiff was paying to neuter the dog plaintiff was adopting. Defendant says she came home to a strange dog in her yard, and the Husky had been left by her daughter, who went on vacation. So, defendant wasn't going to keep the dog, so dog had to be neutered, and up to date on shots to be adopted out by the rescue. So, defendant agreed to pay plaintiff $50 a paycheck until the $420 was paid off.

The poor dog was being kept outside, in a kennel, in the yard in Tucson in July. Defendant claims the kennel was under a tree, but in Tucson in July, that's not good enough. Defendant says she only agreed to chip in $50 for the dog neutering, not pay the $420. Plaintiff's text does say "chip in" not pay all of it.

Defendant claims she found an adopter by herself, and owes plaintiff nothing. Plaintiff found an adopter named Linda, accidentally sent a text with the information to defendant, instead of Linda, and when defendant contacted the adopter, Linda directly, defendant gave Linda the dog, and refuses to pay plaintiff.

Plaintiff thinks defendant and daughter are lying about the dog. Unfortunately, the text talking about the defendant and daughter being liars, is the one with the adopter's information that went to the defendant.

The plaintiff says the adopter reports the dog wasn't house trained, or trained at all, is still causing issues in the adopter's home. Plaintiff wants the neutering fee, medical bills, gas to and from Benson. Plaintiff gets $170 plus court costs.

Case 2-PLaintiff suing her 20 year old granddaughter for the $1450 loan she made to the granddaughter, and defendant won't pay her back. Defendant denies owing the money. Granddaughter says it was a gift to help her pay the rent, and she owes grandmother nothing. Grandmother claims granddaughter was scammed, and would loan her $3200 for 90 days, and repay her $400 a month, so she sent $1450 to the granddaughter, and another $600 from her account, and $2050 was the total.

Granddaughter says she used the money for her bills, and a phlebotomy class, and grandmother wanted her money now, not later. Granddaughter paid a total of $600 back to plaintiff, and still owes $1450. Granddaughter claims because grandmother didn't keep paying her granddaughter's rent, granddaughter doesn't want to repay her.

Granddaughter sent grandmother a text saying she wasn't paying anything back to grandmother until she was totally out of debt. $1450 to plaintiff. (Granddaughter says her grandmother and mother are both angry with her, and she says she doesn't miss the grandmother at all). (I love how Doug says that the judgment will hang over the granddaughter, when we all know the show pays the judgments).

Case 3-Plaintiff hired defendant' cleaning company for seven years to clean his house. The last visit he claims the cleaner broke his glass shower door, and owes him $1306.50. Defendants claims door wasn't on track properly, and they had been warned about the shaky door, and it was broken and flimsy.

Defendants deny they were ever told about the doors. (They were very old doors, and he shouldn't get full price for them. ) This was ridiculous to pay this man for a very old shower door. The cleaner also didn't get paid either.

$1306 to plaintiff.

rcc · July 26, 2022

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Rerun, "Doggy Disaster".

Case 1-Plaintiff (Ms. Carla of Siberian Husky Rescue of Tucson)paid for a neutering on a Siberian Husky for $420 to neuter defendant's dog.

Defendant says her daughter brought the dog home, and dumped it on defendant, and she wanted to adopt the dog out, but it had to be neutered first. Defendant says the plaintiff was paying to neuter the dog plaintiff was adopting. Defendant says she came home to a strange dog in her yard, and the Husky had been left by her daughter, who went on vacation. So, defendant wasn't going to keep the dog, so dog had to be neutered, and up to date on shots to be adopted out by the rescue. So, defendant agreed to pay plaintiff $50 a paycheck until the $420 was paid off.

The poor dog was being kept outside, in a kennel, in the yard in Tucson in July. Defendant claims the kennel was under a tree, but in Tucson in July, that's not good enough. Defendant says she only agreed to chip in $50 for the dog neutering, not pay the $420. Plaintiff's text does say "chip in" not pay all of it.

Defendant claims she found an adopter by herself, and owes plaintiff nothing. Plaintiff found an adopter named Linda, accidentally sent a text with the information to defendant, instead of Linda, and when defendant contacted the adopter, Linda directly, defendant gave Linda the dog, and refuses to pay plaintiff.

Plaintiff thinks defendant and daughter are lying about the dog. Unfortunately, the text talking about the defendant and daughter being liars, is the one with the adopter's information that went to the defendant.

The plaintiff says the adopter reports the dog wasn't house trained, or trained at all, is still causing issues in the adopter's home. Plaintiff wants the neutering fee, medical bills, gas to and from Benson. Plaintiff gets $170 plus court costs.

Case 2-PLaintiff suing her 20 year old granddaughter for the $1450 loan she made to the granddaughter, and defendant won't pay her back. Defendant denies owing the money. Granddaughter says it was a gift to help her pay the rent, and she owes grandmother nothing. Grandmother claims granddaughter was scammed, and would loan her $3200 for 90 days, and repay her $400 a month, so she sent $1450 to the granddaughter, and another $600 from her account, and $2050 was the total.

Granddaughter says she used the money for her bills, and a phlebotomy class, and grandmother wanted her money now, not later. Granddaughter paid a total of $600 back to plaintiff, and still owes $1450. Granddaughter claims because grandmother didn't keep paying her granddaughter's rent, granddaughter doesn't want to repay her.

Granddaughter sent grandmother a text saying she wasn't paying anything back to grandmother until she was totally out of debt. $1450 to plaintiff. (Granddaughter says her grandmother and mother are both angry with her, and she says she doesn't miss the grandmother at all). (I love how Doug says that the judgment will hang over the granddaughter, when we all know the show pays the judgments).

Case 3-Plaintiff hired defendant' cleaning company for seven years to clean his house. The last visit he claims the cleaner broke his glass shower door, and owes him  $1306.50. Defendants claims door wasn't on track properly, and they had been warned about the shaky door, and it was broken and flimsy.

Defendants deny they were ever told about the doors. (They were very old doors, and he shouldn't get full price for them. ) This was ridiculous to pay this man for a very old shower door. The cleaner also didn't get paid either.

$1306 to plaintiff.

I hated the entire show first time and no way did I watch it again. Thanks for taking one for the team. Lol

AngelaHunter · July 26, 2022

2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Case 3-Plaintiff hired defendant' cleaning company for seven years to clean his house.

I rewatched this just to hate on the penurious, prissy, lying Kupferberg again. Shit happens, Kupferberg! Solve the problem like a mature adult. No need to get your panties in a big twist, and no need for name-calling.

I just hope in the meantime he got new cleaner(s) of the CL type, who will make him feel that a broken shower door was merely a minor faux pas. But then I got annoyed all over again that he got 1300$ PLUS a free cleaning job. The asshole must be so proud.

Edited July 26, 2022 by AngelaHunter

CrazyInAlabama · July 26, 2022

22 hours ago, rcc said:

I hated the entire show first time and no way did I watch it again. Thanks for taking one for the team. Lol

Fortunately, I wrote this the first time it was on, so I just had to cut and paste, and then correct all of the boo-boos in it. I only watched a little of the husky case, and skipped the shower door case, since it makes me angry that the plaintiff was awarded a lot of money, and ripped off the cleaning lady. (I did the same thing on Squabbling with Your Sister, but I did watch the first case again, it was fun to me. I can't watch the phony golf ball hits solar panels cases, JM hasn't a clue about the force needed to hit a ball that far, and cause that much damage).

New episode-"Squabbling With Your Sister"-

Case 1-Plaintif/fsister was rooming with defendant, and claims defendant/sister locked her out, slammed the door behind her, and tossed her $6,000 in property (the state maximum, plaintiff claims she was out $8,000).

Plaintiff and her adult son signed the lease, then son wanted off the lease and moved, and defendant was on the lease. Plaintiff says she's a nice little old lady, who goes to church and bingo, and never did anything wrong.

Defendant says issues started months ago, because plaintiff would leave and stay gone for at least a week before the rent was due, and claims plaintiff would pay late every month.

Defendant says plaintiff had no rights to the apartment, and couldn't pass the background check to get on the lease, because plaintiff is a many times convicted felon. Defendant says plaintiff couldn't get on the lease because of her criminal convictions, including bank robbery, stealing from Home Depot and Walmart, stealing mail from the post office, heroin addict, and a bunch of other things. Defendant got sick of the non-payment for rent, and other things with the plaintiff. Plaintiff claims she went out to smoke, and defendant slammed the door behind her, and locked it.

A few days later, plaintiff came back to the apartment and found the locks were changed. Then, police came to the apartment, plaintiff got back in, and the next morning plaintiff went out to smoke, and defendant locked the door behind the plaintiff. So, defendant put plaintiff's shoes, purse, and other items outside. Defendant was going to move out, and Judge Marilyn says plaintiff had to be legally evicted, so defendant is wrong.

Defendant put everything belonging to plaintiff out on the covered front porch. Plaintiff had a U-Haul truck right there, and picked up everything she could carry by herself, because plaintiff had no one to help her.

Plaintiff says no one helped her load anything, so she only took what she could load by herself. Defendant says plaintiff didn't have a desktop computer, or some of the other things she's claiming defendant stole from her. (I find it surprising that no one helped plaintiff pick her stuff and load it. I've been dragging a sofa out of my house, and two neighbors I didn't even know ran to help).

Plaintiff couldn't get someone to help her, but she could take time to come a day early to get her stuff, and make a video of her stuff being moved out, and post it to social media.

At first, I had some sympathy for the plaintiff, but this case is just a money grab. Judge says if you're collecting rent, even from someone not on the lease, you still have to evict the person legally.

Plaintiff gets $0, no proof of property left behind, or value.

Defendant gets $0, no proof. Sisters are advised to leave each other alone, and both say they will never talk to the other sister.

Case 2-Plaintiff says neighbor practiced his golf swing,, damaged two solar panels on top of plaintiff's house. The photo of a golf ball in the grass, and the damage on the solar panel does show damages from a golf ball, but who did it? Plaintiff claims there is a trail of golf balls from defendants house to his house. Plaintiff is suing for $527 to fix the second solar panel. The solar panels are a huge array, and quite far from plaintiff's house, and from defendant's house.

Defendant says he lives 300 yards from plaintiff's house, and even though he's a decent golfer, he's not capable of hitting the ball that far. (My guess with a nine iron or whatever he was using, the defendant couldn't hit the other side of the clearing, and the 1% of golf balls he can't find are the few that go into the woods.) The two hits were months apart, and there are police reports. Plaintiff claims there's a trail of golf balls from defendant's house to plaintiff's solar array.

Defendant says he only hits maximum of 90 yards, and he finds about 99% of the balls, from his own wooded lot. After the first incident, in June 2021, defendant wrote a check just to settle the plaintiff down, and to get the plaintiff to shut up. Defendant said he stopped hitting golf balls on his property, and then he got the second demand letter in October 2021, from plaintiff for another solar panel repair.

There is zero proof of who hit the panels. (Wild guess, sometimes birds pick up golf balls from golf courses, and drop them when they find out it's not food. Or more of the neighbors or visitors practice hitting long drives. ) The plaintiff claims the police reports show a trail of golf balls from defendant's house to the solar array, but the police reports don't say that. I wonder if any of the renters of neighbor's house are golfers?

Plaintiff loses, no proof.

Edited July 27, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama

AngelaHunter · July 28, 2022

On 7/26/2022 at 6:03 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

Defendant says plaintiff couldn't get on the lease because of her criminal convictions, including bank robbery, stealing from Home Depot and Walmart, stealing mail from the post office, heroin addict, and a bunch of other things.

Prostitution. 😳I guess the johns aren't too picky in her neck of the woods.

CrazyInAlabama · July 28, 2022

1 minute ago, AngelaHunter said:

Prostitution. 😳I guess the johns aren't too picky in her neck of the woods.

I don't think they're too particular anywhere.

Mrs Shibbles · July 28, 2022

I finally saw someone on the show that I know in real life. The female plaintiff on the San Francisco security deposit case. She was friends with my SIL 20+ years ago, and is nuttier than a squirrel turd. (so is my SIL)

AngelaHunter · July 28, 2022

59 minutes ago, Mrs Shibbles said:

I finally saw someone on the show that I know in real life. The female plaintiff on the San Francisco security deposit case. She was friends with my SIL 20+ years ago, and is nuttier than a squirrel turd. (so is my SIL)

Are you referring to Baby Jane in the Jane/Jan/Jen case? Please say yes!

Mrs Shibbles · July 28, 2022

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

Are you referring to Baby Jane in the Jane/Jan/Jen case? Please say yes!

Yes, the Jennifer one 🤭

CrazyInAlabama · July 29, 2022

"You Kicked Me Out of My Home!" (No it was defendant landlady's home, not the tenants). Rerun episode, same old landlord vs. tenant story. (This case is reason # 59826 that I will never be a landlord)

Case 1-Plaintiffs rented the front apartment from defendant, then she kicked them out, they received their security back, but want $7274 from defendant/landlord.. Defendant says she rented to plaintiffs for three years, and says they broke all of the rules, she booted them, and returned the security deposit, and she owes them nothing more. Plaintiff wife says the apartment was a nightmare, yet they lived there for 3 years. Tenants actually left earlier than the 60 days they were given in the notice to quit.

Landlord says they broke all of the rules, including putting a satellite dish without permission on the roof. Mr. Peoples says he has a rug in front of the front door, to show if anyone has been in or out while they were out, and the front door to the apartment was open. Plaintiff claims he thought landlady broke in and left the door open to tenants' apartment Then, Mr. Peoples claims landlady screamed at him to step away from her. Then, defendant called police about plaintiff. After the sheriff's deputy visit, landlady said the incident on that particular day was the last straw.

She says plaintiff husband accused her of going into their unit, and left the door open, even though she just got home from work after plaintiff husband showed up. Landlady says she gave tenants a 60-day notice to leave, she says following the Fair Housing Act rules.

On the video, the plaintiff husband is holding the wife back from confronting the defendant. Plaintiffs left without 30 days notice to landlady, almost a month early, so landlady couldn't get a tenant for the 30 day period.

Plaintiffs pay $1966 for damages and one month's rent. Landlady is cackling after her win. Plaintiffs shut off the feed.

Case 2-Plaintiffs went to high school with defendant, so they hired hired him to build two decks for them. Plaintiff husband says the decks are unsafe, and awful. Plaintiffs want $3,000 back from defendant, but he says they were happy with the decks, had parties on them, and then wanted their money back anyway. All of the deck screws or nails have black gunk around them, I suspect it's a type of rust (a few houses ago they used drywall screws, not galvanized, to put up a fence and all of the screws left the same marks). My guess is the nails weren't galvanized, but regular nails and they rusted.

$7350 was to total cost, and everything was paid in full. Plaintiff wife claims a step was loose, and they found a bunch of other issues after they paid the defendant.

Plaintiffs claims they need a cemented foundation under the deck, not a stake and 4/4 foundation.

Judge Marilyn slams the work, and pulls out the old routine of her relatives working in construction. Judge gives the plaintiffs $3,000 the small claims limit in their case.

(A hint for opening jars, get an old fashioned "Church Key" metal can and bottle opener, and use the pointy end to pry up the lid edge until the lid seal pops. You can't reseal it, but it's better than tossing everything away, and you can always put the remains in a plastic container or bag).

Taeolas · July 29, 2022

Yeah, those decks were horrible. And him saying the Judge didn't know anything about contracting rightfully earned the wrath. Sure she may not be profesionally trained in contracting/building, but between the exposure from her relatives, and decades of similar cases, her knowledge is justified, at least for cases like this.

There have been cases where her gut knowledge was wrong (or at least should not have been used). But in this case, a layman could see those nails were certainly the wrong nails for an outside/wet environment and that alone would probably have gotten them the 3k$ back.

CrazyInAlabama · August 1, 2022

Rerun episode "Stiffing an Ex" (The second case is the woman who claims she left 156 items at defendant's cleaning shop, never picked them up, and two years later still didn't pick them up, so he donated them).

Case 1-Plaintiff claims ex boyfriend was loaned $3,000, but refuses to pay her back. Plaintiff claims she's actually out $3900, to fix up defendant's truck, but the statutory maximum in her state is $3,000. The loans were in 2017. Defendant never paid her back a penny, so she had no expectation of repayment.

Plaintiff claims the money was to fix up a truck, and sell it for a profit. Unfortunately, defendant did say in text he owed her the money.

Plaintiff gets $3,000.

Case 2-Plaintiff left 156 pieces of clothing at defendant's dry cleaning shop (combined with a coin and drop off laundry), never picked them up, and after two years defendant told her to pick them up, and then he donated them. There were two batches of clothes, some left in December 2019, and February 2020, and never picked up. This is not how you get free storage from the dry cleaner. Levin calls this case "The Naked Truth".

Defendant says his dry cleaning and laundry never closed for Covid, and it says on the receipt that he's only responsible for items for 30 days after they're brought in for cleaning. After a year, everyone who left stuff behind was called and told that if you don't pick up your stuff, we're donating it.

The best part of this ridiculous case is plaintiff was a school principal. Apparently, it was some kind of charter school, which is a private school, but funded by the taxpayers.

There is no way dry cleaning for 156 pieces of drycleaning only cost $94.

Plaintiff loses, and defendant gets his dry cleaning fees, $94.

(Apparently this case happened in Baltimore. I saw the giant picture posted of Ms. Pugh, but I didn't see here on the charter school website. I wonder if the school is where she left her job at? )

Edited August 1, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama

AngelaHunter · August 1, 2022

8 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Case 1-Plaintiff claims ex boyfriend was loaned $3,000, but refuses to pay her back.

They say they were in the military - she, the Dumb, Desperate Dingbat, and he, the big mooching lump of a loser who lives with his Aunty and Uncle according to their house rules and needs the Dingbat's money (and she a SSM) to buy Xmas prezzies to show off or to suck up to Aunty. Fine specimens they are.

CrazyInAlabama · August 2, 2022

Today's stupid car case rerun from April "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.

CrazyInAlabama · August 3, 2022

Rerun "Not Making a Customer Happy"

This is the soon to be classic TPC case of the man who did on site concrete counter tops, and I could have done a better job

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

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

I wouldn't have let the defendant finish trashing my house either.

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

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

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

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

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

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

(For Angela Hunter's fantastic comments on the episode, it's on page 196).

Edited August 3, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama

AngelaHunter · August 3, 2022

7 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

For Angela Hunter's fantastic comments on the episode, it's on page 196).

Hee! Thanks for the plug. I had forgotten the horrendous concrete countertops until I rewatched this just now.

I bet the YT vids the schlubby def. Mitchell, was talking about are the ones where the person installing them actually knows how to do it, i.e. this guy, who amazingly has no craters, massive broken chunks falling, or large crevasses in it and where devastation is part of the "process".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgCIKn17qYg

Mitchell of "South Western Florida Marble, Tiile and Stone" has more than one very unhappy customer on Yelp. It seems he takes on jobs when he no idea how to do them and keeps the money. Maybe he's good at things he actually knows how to do.

CrazyInAlabama · August 4, 2022

Rerun, but a juicy rerun

"Furious at a Friend" The case of two nightclub dancers who moved in together, hate each other and still work together, but have to be on separate shifts.

Case 1-Plaintiff and defendants worked in a nightclub, and were dancers. They moved in together, and plaintiff is suing defendant for $3,000 for defendant moving out early, and breaking the lease. Plaintiff also claims defendant was a bad influence on plaintiff's young daughter, and brought udesirables over. Defendant says plaintiff body shamed her online, and kicked her out, so she owes plaintiff nothing.

Plaintiff rented a three bedroom house, one bedroom for herself, and one for the 5-year-old daughter, and the other bedroom for defendant. Plot twist, plaintiff told defendant to move out, during Covid. Plaintiff only had her own name on the lease. When Covid hit, plaintiff claims since the club closed for a while, that landlord didn't charge them rent from March to May, then landlord wanted rent, or for tenants to leave.

Defendant claims plaintiff picked the door lock on her room, just to snoop. In July they had a big fight, defendant moved out, and had to get a police escort for her to get her stuff out.

Defendant claims plaintiff thinks defendant told a secret about her.

They still work at the same club, but can't work the same shifts.

Plaintiff gets $1600 rent, and has two weeks to see the date on the police report, to decide if there's more rent due.

Case 2-Plaintiff Shakima Smith bought natural hair extensions from defendant, and they look bad ( I can agree with how bad they look) plaintiff wants $1769. Defendant says plaintiff owes her money for the extensions $600, and says plaintiff wore the extensions for two months. Plaintiff is a travel influencer, has been on USA today (I guess the magazine?) has gone to 57 countries, blogging about being a solo female traveler

The hair was purchased for a meeting with a possible reality show producers. Even though the hair was 'nappy', plaintiff had all four bundles installed, and the first install was in for months, and that's normal wear, and it's due for replacement anyway.

Plaintiff used the hair the first time, and the second time, but still wants a full refund. Defendant says a few years ago, she fired plaintiff as a client, but took her back after a year or two.

Unfortunately for plaintiff, there are posted blog posts showing her in the ocean, and pool with wet hair.

Defendant (of Laila's Virgin Curl)does exchanges, but plaintiff was still wearing the hair. And defendant says the hair plaintiff claims to have mailed to her never arrived.

Plaintiff case dismissed. Defendant $600 for the hair. (My question is, why would anyone on earth be influenced by what this woman wears, or does?)

THis morning's older rerun from this morning:

"Bitter Over a Dog Bite"

Plaintiff suing defendant for an attack on plaintiff's dog at the dog park. $1089 in unpaid vet bills, defendant paid part of the bill, but this is the remainder of the bill. Plaintiff witness was at the dog park this day, when defendant's dog tried to bite witness's dog. Then, the plaintiff's dog walker came into the park (dog walker refuses to get involved or testify), and defendant's dog (being watched by a dog walker, who is testifying) went after plaintiff's dog. The picture of the plaintiff's dog's injury is awful.

The defendant's dog walker is testifying, but she's testifying that the defendant's dog went after several dogs that day, and then bit and chased the plaintiff's dog. Dog walker claims the accused biter didn't bite anyone, but that dog bit Brooklyn (plaintiff's dog), and another dog.

Judge Marilyn should stop attacking the dog walker, the plaintiff witness already said the dog walker has developmental issues. Then, plaintiff keeps interrupting, and when defendant claims plaintiff was harassing the dog walker, he butts in again. Defendant's defense is pathetic.

Everybody is being awful. Plaintiff gets his vet bills, $1,089.

Case 2-Plaintiff suing for $3,000, for awning defendant ordered, and plaintiff installed. Defendant claims awning is defective. Plaintiff company name in "Dodo Craft" in honor of his grandmother. Defendant is suing for cost of awning removal, and replacement by another company. Defendant claims she never received any drawings, or renderings (not renditions like Judge M calls them). Old aluminum awning was replaced with a sheet metal awning.

Defendant paid nothing to the plaintiff, not even for labor. Defendant wants awning removed, and replaced by another company. Defendant claims the canopy isn't up to code, but plaintiff claims it is.

Plaintiff gets nothing, and defendant gets $1,045 to pay for the structural report, and awning removal. Defendant wasn't out a penny on the awning installation, because she never paid for it.

Case 3-Plaintiff wants her rental car fees, and Uber, after her 'as is' car croaked. However, defendant says there was a recall issued, and the engine was replaced free by the manufacturer. Plaintiff never test drove the car, and still thinks 'as is' will get her a bonanza.

No money for anyone.

Edited August 4, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama

AngelaHunter · August 4, 2022

6 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

"Furious at a Friend"

We had to get the repeat of the two hard-rode stripping dimbos. P had no idea her druggy stripper friend used drugs (or did know and didn't care), let alone left them out which is something "a young child shouldn't see". So much about this case that shouldn't involve any child. Anyway, the only thing I noticed which may have eluded me last time is that Def lives with her mommy. How many druggy strippers live with Momma? I did ponder what they will do when they can't strip and pole dance anymore? Both are dull-witted (dimbos) and severely lacking in education.

I'm pretty sure I skipped the bags of hair dispute last time and did so this time after maybe 4 minutes. All that hair hanging on the wall looked like someone went on a scalping rampage. BUT I must say that getting one's hair done is so much easier these days, now that natural hair is totally verboten, when you can stick it in a box and send it off the stylist. You can get "your" hair done even if you're on a different continent. Woosah!

CrazyInAlabama · August 4, 2022

4 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

I'm pretty sure I skipped the bags of hair dispute last time and did so this time after maybe 4 minutes. All that hair hanging on the wall looked like someone went on a scalping rampage. BUT I must say that getting one's hair done is so much easier these days, now that natural hair is totally verboten, when you can stick it in a box and send it off the stylist. You can get "your" hair done even if you're on a different continent. Woosah!

However, we've had multiple cases of badly made wigs, wigs ruined by bad cuts, bad extensions, and on JJ a hair replacement system (that's really expensive) that was chopped off and ruined by a salon professional. So, having fake hair doesn't mean you won't end up sobbing and suing on a TV judge show.

Edited August 4, 2022 by CrazyInAlabama

AngelaHunter · August 4, 2022

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

So, having fake hair doesn't mean you won't end up sobbing and suing on a TV judge show.

I get it. If you're an "Influencer" or even more importantly, an "Ambassador" of (fake) hair, nails, or eyebrows you better keep that stuff looking tip-top.

Foul-mouthed, stripping, SSM should have kept that in mind when she got those eyebrows. Maybe she could have influenced someone.

AngelaHunter · August 5, 2022

LItigants, please stop saying, "Significant other" multiple times. It doesn't elevate whatever you have going with boyfriend or girlfriend and sounds pretentious and stupid, especially when you fight like cats and dogs.

I also pondered how people who cannot afford to pay their bills, buy food, have tp borrow money from virtual strangers, and live in campers on someone else's property can afford an endless supply of cigarettes, as in the case of the two caricatures seen in today's repeat. Maybe those "big hearts" we hear about all the time?

I won't bother mentioning someone who cannot work at any job on the books due to disability and anxiety disorder but CAN do "Door Dash" jobs and do the aforementioned loud, middle-of-the-night fighting. I don't know about anyone else, but those two things would certainly cause me to have anxiety. Yes, these are just IMO.

CrazyInAlabama · August 8, 2022

"Rental Ruckus" rerun Both are sure to be classics, especially the second case with the concrete in the plumbing vent pipes, with lots of landlord proof.

Case 1-tenant claims because of his PTSD from serving in the Navy, that the landlords (who have matching shirts), owe him a rebate on his rent. Tenant lives in a guest house on the landlord's property, and landlord and son live in the main house. Plaintiff is paying $1500 a month, and never signed a lease. Plaintiff claims they block two of his windows with furniture, and stuff, so he can't get fresh air. So, can plaintiff get egress in case of a fire or other emergency. Plaintiff wants half of his rent back, and security deposit. Plaintiff is complaining about noise, and foot traffic, and parties going on. Plaintiff claims the construction is ruining his life, and he can't open his windows. Defendant son says there isn't any construction, they're just doing yard work.

Defendant son is suing for the destruction of a bar cart, by plaintiff throwing stuff from the guest house, and over the gate. The defendant's son have some business with the bar cart. After defendant's mother called and told him about the throwing items coming over the fence, the police were called, and plaintiff fled the police and was arrested, and the case is pending. The bar cart destruction has ruined the defendant son's business. Plaintiff claims the defendants and their noise keep him up all night long.

Plaintiff doesn't want defendants walking next to his ADU. Plaintiff has an audio recording of what apparently is a leaf blower, and plaintiff claims it's sawing.

Since lease was never signed, that makes the plaintiff a month-to-month tenant, and defendants can legally end the tenancy, and evict him. Nothing stops plaintiff from leaving either. I think the plaintiff is staying there, and complaining just to make everyone miserable.

PLaintiff case dismissed. Plaintiff told to move. Defendants have no proof of lost wages, but gets $300 to repair the bar cart. (this case is reason #59687 not to be a landlord).

Case 2-Plaintiff suing defendant for plumbing damages, and claims the defendant poured concrete down the drains and ruined the plumbing. Defendant was a tenant of plaintiff, is counter claiming for harassment from plaintiff, and claims plaintiff keeps coming over when only 15-year-old is home alone, and wants into the house.

Defendant moving in to the house in February 2021, and was evicted at the end of May 2021. It was a legal eviction, by the sheriff's department. Plaintiff claims the defendant wanted him to go to the Christian Charity Center, and they would pay a month's rent for him, but he was over two month's behind already. Defendant claims the charity would pay two months rent for him. Plaintiff doesn't have to accept money from the charity for the rent either. The day defendant was evicted, plaintiff went to the house, and the vent pipes (the pipes on the roof), were blocked with cement.

Defendant claims plaintiff didn't evict him legally, but the plaintiff did. Defendant claims he wasn't angry about the eviction, but he's angry on camera.

When plaintiff turned on the water after the eviction, water backed up in every drain. There's a plaintiff picture of dried cement mix on the back patio, and an empty Sackcrete (?) bag, and fresh concrete drips on the roof plumbing vent pipe. Defendant is lying and claiming the concrete stuff on the roof, and the vent is from 'defendant cleaning his van'. On the roof?

Plumber's statement says they had to jackhammer the drain lines through the concrete slab, and replace everything. Defendant claims there were a lot of people in and out of the house, and they must have done it.

Plaintiff gets $2850 for the plumbing repairs, plus court costs, and defendant's case tossed.

Sign In

The People's Court - General Discussion

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

teebax

arejay

zillabreeze

Posted Images

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment