The People's Court - General Discussion

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said: Unfortunately, Doug is actually in the hallway with both of these loons. 

Sometimes I get anxious that someone is going to slug Doug in the chops for his probing questions.  And as AngelaHunter has pointed out many times some of these contestants are big, brawlin’ and ready to rumble. 

Doug needs security. Serious security. 

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, DoctorK said:

Today's first case, just a couple of low rent hustlers and chiselers, neither interesting nor entertaining.

I only found it interesting in the sheer level of uber-dumbness and/or chutzpah displayed by all parties. Well, I don't know about the silent men these idiots had in tow.

JM: "You don't have the qualifications or a license to use potentially harmful chemicals on clients' hair or eyelashes, so you just rent someone else's license?"

Dimbo with the fake everything: "Yes".

JM: "You know that's illegal?"

Lisping Dimbo with the fake everything: "Yes."

Hey, everybody breaks the law, so what's wrong with ME doing it? The manly Def with the fugly eyeshadow and the bad attitude is incapable of understanding what she's doing by renting her license out to any nitwit who can pay for it. She's not embarrassed or ashamed. HER complaint is that she didn't get paid enough.

JM, of course, gives nothing to the stupid plaintiff and Def finds that amusing until JM informs her the transcript of this case is going to the cosmetology board. I really hope that was done.

1 hour ago, DoctorK said:

Unfortunately, the only things in the "back of his head" were ignorance, entitlement and a complete lack of ability to reason.

I liked how JM mocked that "back of the head" thing. 😄 Yeah, I'm sure he'd take his deposit and run right out to the utility company.

The Plaintiffs were utter morons. Bun Lady - who is one of those pen-wavers who annoy me -  says that yeah, she left the utility bills in her name because "it was easier". She just trusted the egg-headed, bug-eyed Def to pay them for the last 5 years without once checking. They say he has 30 late charges against him, they had to chase him for rent every month, and he had a revolving door of baby mommas coming and going (the pickin's must be slim in that town) yet in 5 years never did they move to evict him.

I guess she and her ex looked around and saw nothing better in the offing, so decided to go back to "co-habiting" in an "I guess you'll have to do" pact. She seems embarrassed to admit it, as though JM might be scandalized by this wintry rekindling of ancient passions.

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, PsychoKlown said:

Doug needs security. Serious security. 

I think they do, standing just off-camera. It wouldn't be the first time some loony started an altercation in the hall. I recall at least one fight that was broken up out there.

Really, many litigants, like today's brutish-looking def in the fake license case could head-butt poor Doug into next week. He's looking rather frail and should at least be equipped with bear spray or a taser.

ETA: And here it is:

 

Edited June 20, 2023 by AngelaHunter

[Guest]

47 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

I think they do, standing just off-camera. It wouldn't be the first time some loony started an altercation in the hall. I recall at least one fight that was broken up out there.

Really, many litigants, like today's brutish-looking def in the fake license case could head-butt poor Doug into next week. He's looking rather frail and should at least be equipped with bear spray or a taser.

ETA: And here it is:

 

I never saw that clip. But truly some of those contestants are solid individuals and our Doug is looking a tad frail.

These might help.

Just keep Doug and Douglas safe.  That Levin creature?  Who cares, but our Dougs need protection.

[Mrs Shibbles]

22 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

How do you rent a cosmetology license?  Plaintiff claims she rented the license from defendant, and defendant claims plaintiff offered her the manager's job.  Job for defendant never materialized.  Plaintiff is suing for $1,500,  for renting the cosmetology license for a year.   So, plaintiff ran a beauty shop without a license?   Pink Diamond Beauty Bar is the salon.   Defendant is counter claiming for $5,000 for lost wages. 

Plaintiff had to have a licensed cosmetologist employed, but didn't.  Instead plaintiff rented defendant's cosmetology license, didn't have anything but a business license, and was operating illegally. 

Almost eight months after the shop opened, plaintiff says defendant sent her a text requesting the next year's payment early.    The city caught up to the plaintiff, about her business license, and didn't have a zoning license. Plaintiff thought she had to show the cosmetology license from defendant, but she didn't need it.   Plaintiff panicked, and told defendant the situation, and claims defendant increased the price because plaintiff was desperate. 

Plaintiff claims she found someone else to let her use their license, so broke the agreement with the defendant.    Judge M says that the state cosmetology licensing board should do something about plaintiff using defendant's license.  Defendant didn't ask about what services the plaintiff's salon was performing.  

Since the text says defendant works for Sportsclips, I hope the franchise did something about defendant's renting her license out too.  

Judge M dismisses both cases.  She also says she's sending a transcript to the NJ Cosmetology Board.   Unfortunately, Doug is actually in the hallway with both of these loons. 

I was really glad Judge M was going to send the info to the Cosmetology board, but I can’t help but think that Judge Judy would have dismissed this case from the beginning because of the litigants coming to court with unclean hands .

[DoctorK]

Okay, I am having deja vu again on the fake dreadlocks case. The case and the plaintiff are very memorable. The plaintiff is a blue eyed white woman with Native American themed jewelry and middle names of "Willow Wind" (nothing wrong with any of this, it is just unusual enough to be memorable, like a man who is seven feet tall is more memorable than a man who is 5' 9"). Maybe it was a case on a different court show or maybe just a coincidence. If I see a third case someday with so many similarities, I might think I am living in The Matrix world.

eta: I watched through the whole one hour case which seemed to go on for longer than that. Now I really dislike the plaintiff. She was going in for a BONANZA! award, $4000 for a redo by a stylist who charges about four times as much as the defendant. Plaintiff made a lot of claims that she did a piss poor job supporting, with pictures that don't seem to show anything, and an expert's statement, except that the "expert" statement is very shaky, says that the defendant did a lousy job but nothing about the plaintiff's major claims, and also the "expert (absolutely no documentation presented to verify her expertise) throws in some pop psychology about hair with no indication of training or expertise. The final nail in the coffin for the plaintiff was when JM finally dragged out of the plaintiff that the "expert" who wrote the statement did it without seeing the hair! She just consulted with the plaintiff via texting.

Defendant counter suit dismissed because it didn't really have any basis. Plaintiff's case also dismissed. I think JM was getting ready to give the plaintiff back all of the money she spent with the defendant, but then JM found out that the "expert" didn't actually see the hair and I think that pissed her off so nothing for the plaintiff.

 

Edited June 21, 2023 by DoctorK
watched the rest of the show

[callie lee 29]

Found the plaintiff's IG, still has the dread posts up. She's also in (or at least her yoga studio is in) a town of app 2300 people. Not huge but still not the 60ish people she said.

[AngelaHunter]

I have no memory of these litigants, but I guess we had to be punished for having two semi-decent - at least amusing -  cases yesterday. ONE HOUR of this utter BS. I detest hair cases.

Stacy Willow Wind Willson? Gee, her back hurts and she's moving and some guy hacked into her phone or her computer and she feels these things are so important that a hairdresser needs to know about them.

Stacy Willow Wind? May I just say that those dreads looked utterly and completely stupid and ridiculous on you? Nothing the Def or anyone else can do will make them look anything less than ludicrous.

She loves it, she hates it, she loves it, and thinks her displeasure with the 260$ job she got - fake plastic hair tied to hers - is worth 4K. Just think of her pain and suffering and turmoil!

From her affect, and with the dramatics here, I really think she may be mentally disturbed.

When we got to the interminable video of Def installing these things, I just skipped ahead to the end. The pics of the top of P's head looked like someone had photographed the interior of a rat's nest. Ew.

2 hours ago, DoctorK said:

The plaintiff is a blue eyed white woman with Native American themed jewelry and middle names of "Willow Wind"

I don't usually do this, but I just looked her up because she seemed like a phony baloney kook to me. She may claim to be Native American, but seems to be a proponent of a certain Yogi (her "spiritual leader) whose methods can cure cancer! He's "been on Jimmy Kimmel and worked with Snoop Dog!" Oh, well then. I think my first impression of her may be correct.

ETA: I said yesterday's cases were semi-decent but I may mean Monday's case with Newman. Time apparently has no meaning for me.

Edited June 21, 2023 by AngelaHunter

[callie lee 29]

And per her Twitter page I'm not sure if she's full on an antivaxxer but she was opposed to the COVID vaccinec.

Coupled with the pseudo-native American persona the dreadlocks just make me get a whole random cultural appropriation vibe from her.

[AngelaHunter]

On 6/19/2023 at 6:28 PM, DoctorK said:

Wow, I am sorry I missed this one due to severe weather about 100 miles away from me. I will have to watch out for this to come by again on reruns. What a crap fest.

@DoctorK Here you go:

 

 

[DoctorK]

3 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Here you go:

Thanks, you saved me some time. Plaintiff was a complete arrogant asshole and a fool on top of that. I don't think anyone could be stupid enough (especially a self-proclaimed lawyer!) to bring in only copies of key documents unless he had doctored them and thought that JM wouldn't notice. Plus he did a ridiculously bad job of faking them. The defendant's junk yard looks sort of sketchy but I enjoyed the guy's laid back approach to being in court.

As a side note, I always listen to litigants claiming that a wheel came completely off without any warning due to loose lug nuts. If the lug nuts are working loose, it takes a while for them to unthread all the way off, and the wheel will wobble badly. For the wheel to come completely off and fly away without a lot of tire noise and wobbling all or most of the nuts have to come off at the same time. Us ancient drivers learned decades ago that if you are changing a tire on the road and you drop all the lug nuts and can't find them, you can temporarily take one nut off each of the other three wheels and spread them around the nut-less wheel. Losing one or two nuts will not lose the wheel.

I see several scenarios in which the wheel could have come off as described:

1. If an axle breaks, the wheel and part of the axle will come out suddenly, in seconds or less.

2 If the wheel is damaged, defective or has stress cracks (possibly from gross over tightening) the wheel can come apart especially if it is a cast wheel like most fancy ones.

3. If the wrong lug nuts (or lug bolts) were used, they can damage or strip the threads since an impact hammer used to tighten the lugs has enough torque to strip either the lug or the nut or both if the threads are mismatched, leaving the wheel not secured.

4. You run over an anti-personnel mine. (If it is an anti-tank mine instead, most of your car will be gone and you will notice that immediately.)

If you really want to put oversize tires with fancy rims on you ancient big old hooptie, go to a shop that does this for a living; don't go to a junk yard.

 

 

Edited June 22, 2023 by DoctorK

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, DoctorK said:

If you really want to put oversize tires with fancy rims on you ancient big old hooptie, go to a shop that does this for a living; don't go to a junk yard.

I don't think he could afford it. Being a non-lawyer probably doesn't pay all that well, plus he was just trying to dress up the old thing to palm off on some other idiot who would be dazzled by oversized tires.

Today's ep had 2/3rd of it pre-empted so we could hear about millionaires looking for thrills who decided that paying a quarter of a million each to descend two miles deep in the North Atlantic was just the thing. Personally, I would not do this even if I were PAID 250K. All I can say about that is I hope for their sake a window blew out and they were crushed instantly. The alternative is not pleasant to contemplate and has me short of breath.

It's just as well that I missed most of this case - "Mom Always Loved Him Best". Middle-aged brother P and his wife(?) suing his stupid, loser baby brother for money they or she loaned him. Little baby bro, here with his freshly-coiffed douchebag hair, his earrings, and landscaped facial hair is broke. However, he needs a BRAND new Jeep, so dumb big brother agrees to put his name on a lease, since of course douchebag can't get anything in his name. This is due to the fact that he doesn't support the child he made with some desperate woman and heaven forbid he should have to pay for the fruit of his loins.

A new Jeep is much more fun than that child support and commensurate with his position in life as a deadbeat grifter. It seems their momma wanted her favorite baby boy to have the Jeep as well, so now none of them are speaking to each other.

Not sure, but I think Jeep, who took the car back when the lease ended after the douchebag damaged it, is now coming after Big Brother for the damages. Def is so stupid he thinks Jeep "bought" it back.

1650$ for plaintiffs. "Stupid-a-facking" case.

[DoctorK]

11 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

Little baby bro, here with his freshly-coiffed douchebag hair, his earrings, and landscaped facial hair is broke.

Hey Baby, I may be broke but I sure look good! And looking that good costs money!

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, DoctorK said:

Hey Baby, I may be broke but I sure look good! And looking that good costs money!

He thinks he looks good, and maybe to his Mommy, he does. To me, he looks like a narrow, shrimpy, man-child twit who was spoiled by Mommy and can't take care of his own business.

Big Brother needs to grow a backbone and learn to say "NO" to the baby's "I want!" Let Mommy subsidize his desired toys.

[Guest]

Thank you AngelaHunter and DoctorK for covering the weak cases today.  Totally agree with you both on major points.  

Does anyone have any idea what in fresh hell happened to wifey contestant in case one?   She looked like a friggin’ melted candle from the $1 store (yes, $1 not the more recent $1.25).  I kept staring at her Mr. Limpet lips, fake cheekbones and the flattened Morticia Adams hair (extensions).  

This old bag thought she was some hot ticket reciting her cutesy monologue and then blurting out to JM how much she loves her.  And of course JM is all gushy with her but immediately Ticia must inform her that even though she loves JM…he (meaning her deadbeat brother-in-law) doesn’t like JM.  

I disliked Morticia and her doughy soulmate. Lumps. 

I did chuckle when Doug asked deadbeat brother-in-law “Aren’t you embarrassed?”

Ah, Doug.  He really should have been a comedian!!!

Edited June 23, 2023 by PsychoKlown

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, PsychoKlown said:

She looked like a friggin’ melted candle from the $1 store (yes, $1 not the more recent $1.25).  I kept staring at her Mr. Limpet lips, fake cheekbones and the flattened Morticia Adams hair (extensions).  

Figures I had to miss that one. Back to YT for me!

1 hour ago, PsychoKlown said:

I did chuckle when Doug asked deadbeat brother-in-law “Aren’t you embarrassed?”

That's mild compared to, "The judge really let you have it in there", or "You sounded really stupid." Of course a simple "You're a loser" is never out of place.

[AngelaHunter]

I didn't know if I should be disgusted or amused at the stupidity and dishonesty, so I guess it's a bit of both.

Condensed version: Ms. Hibbler is in the parking lot of a grocery store when Derrick Howard, "The Furniture Guy" - super fugly, shady-looking, and missing all his front bottom teeth - approaches her out of the blue and says, "Psst, I sell furniture." Ms. Hibbler says "I want some". Derrick says "Cash, no tax! Free delivery!" and he'll go with her to her Credit Union so she can get 1K in cash to give him. No receipt from Derrick, of course, but that was fine with Ms. Hibbler.

JM wants to know if there was some flirtation going on. Yes, says P. He flirted with her, but she never reciprocated. Casanova sends many texts, calling her "beautiful" and asking her to go out with him. Does she say, "Absolutely not!"? No. She says she'll see what time she's getting off work. I was just waiting for the sexual stuff to enter into this. I guess since there's to be no bonking, he then tells her he's charging for delivery after all.

The furniture never arrives, so finally, this dimwit finds out he's had numerous run-ins with the law for fraud, bad checks, etc.

This plaintiff is not some naive teenager, but a 38-year-old woman who gives money with no receipts to some creepy character hitting her up in a parking lot. She is way too stupid to have a kid, but sadly she does. SSM, I assume. 

Derrick's brain-dead, pathetic, desperate girlfriend is here by his side, standing by her man. In the hall Doug says to her he bets she learned a lot here she didn't know before.  She says she knew all about his felonious history, but it doesn't bother her. "I support him". Yeah, I bet, you stupid bimbo.

JM calls P a "fool" and hates to award her anything since she says P won't learn a thing if she gets her money back but has no choice but to award her the 1300$ she gave the scammer.

Here are a few of the complaints about "The Furniture Guy".

https://www.scampulse.com/the-furniture-guy-llc-reviews

 

[Carolina Girl]

On 6/19/2023 at 5:13 PM, seacliffsal said:

If the litigants get to split the money (as there was no financial award in this case), then he may receive more than the car was worth and may come out ahead.

 

You know I don't recall seeing that disclaimer recently - I wonder if the shows have decided to change the policy and the litigants settle for transportation and a nominal "appearance fee" in lieu of the splitting of the pot after any judgment is deducted.  

[CrazyInAlabama]

Someone who was on the show years ago, said that they pay your airfare, and hotel if needed, and both sides get a minimal appearance fee.  Plus, any awards were paid by the show.     

At one time a lot of the shows had a pool of money (the court limit, usually $5,000), then awards were paid out of this, and the remainder was split between litigants.    However, in recent times I suspect the producers figured out people were coming on shows for publicity, and to split the $5,000.   

So, I've read that  the appearance fee for each side was $500 or less, plus hotel for the period of taping, (two or three days), plus meals, and transportation from airport to hotel, and to the show for participants and witnesses.  The reason everyone stays for two or three days is because they tape a lot of episodes in that period, and mix and match for the episodes that share an episode with one or two other cases.  

On the People's Court, the defendants and witnesses, and plaintiff and witnesses are in two huge rooms, and only see each other in the courtroom. 

  Now what the winner is awarded goes to the winner, and no money except the appearance fee to the losing side.   So, no more pooled money to split, reducing the number of litigants who wanted a free trip and to split the $5,000. 

Edited June 24, 2023 by CrazyInAlabama

[Guest]

I’m curious about the hotel rooms some of the contestants occupy during the case. 

The producers must have something to do with that because I highly doubt the grifters decide on their own to rent a room at the local Hampton Inn. 

Trickery folks. Trickery.

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, PsychoKlown said:

I’m curious about the hotel rooms some of the contestants occupy during the case. 

The producers must have something to do with that because I highly doubt the grifters decide on their own to rent a room at the local Hampton Inn. 

Trickery folks. Trickery.

I'm thinking maybe the ones in hotel rooms don't have the capability to connect remotely at their homes. My monitor doesn't have a camera. Maybe the show gets them set up with the equipment? And for sure they would never pick the Hampton Inn unless the show pays for it.

I have very fond memories of the Hampton Inn. We would stay there when a discount was being offered and somehow managed to not get drunk, trash the room., or get thrown out.

 

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

I have very fond memories of the Hampton Inn. We would stay there when a discount was being offered and somehow managed to not get drunk, trash the room., or get thrown out?  

Really?

Next you’ll say the last time you were in a limousine you didn’t leave it strewn with busted liquor bottles, Mickey D wrappers, vomit, blood and ripped pleather seats. 

Or maybe the last time you went to a wedding there were no knock down drag out fights in the fire hall parking lot between the grooms baby mamas.  Or raw chicken and hot sushi .  And don’t even think to tell us the brides gown wasn’t haute couture from pieces flown in from China then sewn together  

I refuse to believe it.  We’re a classy bunch here and there’s no way a true fancy celebration can take place without at least one black eye and one of the guests being arrested on an outstanding warrant.

No way.

[DoctorK]

Another full hour case and I am glad they did, there was a lot going on in this case. The plaintiff confused me about whether she is a congenital liar or so air headed that she gives answers that just pop out of her head randomly. She really didn’t know any of the important dates, she was fuzzy on the eviction details, and doesn’t understand the concept of “month to month”. She also believes that rent is due on the first but it is perfectly OK to pay on the tenth or the twentieth or the thirtieth whenever she was short. She claimed that there really was only one broken window shade until JM pointed out the claim for three, and then she ad-libbed to “well maybe the kitchen one was broken too”. I was also flabbergasted when the plaintiff defended against the oil on the driveway complaint was that she didn’t dump the oil on the driveway – she dumped it on the grass (???). JM did not come across particularly well either. She can claim that contracting is in her heritage but doesn’t know that oil degrades asphalt (I used to see this often back in the old days when almost every car dripped oil when parked). More importantly, JM completely misunderstood the mediation result and only figured it out after the defendant finally found a key document (I was relieved when the document showed because the defendant was not good at presenting her case). Plaintiff ends up getting $114 (instead of $2800) and the landlord gets nothing, I am OK with that, although I would have given the plaintiff nothing because she is a fast talking airhead and liar while the defendant was just inept.

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, DoctorK said:

The plaintiff confused me about whether she is a congenital liar or so air headed that she gives answers that just pop out of her head randomly.

"Samoa"? Does she have sisters named "Fiji"  and "Hawaii?" Another TikTok, "I was, like, and she was, like, and it was, like" millennial idiot who thinks she can use the "I"m just a cute little girl and I don't know anything" argument.  No, you can't, you entitled moron. Why was she being evicted? All wide-eyed and innocent, she explains she doesn't know, since she merely paid her rent late once. She had no idea what "month-to-month" means (but she certainly knows how to ask for an extension so she can keep squatting). Isn't that adorbs?

She has her daddy here for moral support since she's - of course - a SSM. I hope the kid didn't inherit her dumbness. Why would she keep paying rent on the place she's living if she's moving out? She needs that money and the landlord doesn't. I bet the cost of that hairdo and dreads could have covered a month's rent.

What kind of oil was she talking about, that she and her numbnuts boyfriend seemed to have by the gallon and "always" threw on the grass? Nice touch. However, that ancient driveway is broken and nearly crumbled into rubble anyway, so Def paying (if she did) for that cement patch is nuts.

1 hour ago, DoctorK said:

Plaintiff ends up getting $114 (instead of $2800)

JM seemed to take great pleasure in giving her that pittance. I too am sorry she got even that. Her sweet expression sure changed when JM told her she wasn't entitled to double the security in any case and turned positively nasty when she heard that verdict.

If the Def wants to keep owning rental property I suggest she take an intensive English course since she didn't seem to be too sure about anything at all and got some lawyer who threw her under the bus.

[Guest]

Again, I defer to DoctorK and AngelaHunter for succinct, yet strangely detailed analyses of the case.  Bravo.  👏

All I'll add is the comment by Doug.  Poor confused defendant confided in Doug that she didn't understand why the judge ruled the way she did.  Ever-ready Doug said something to the effect Well, why don't you just go think about it for awhile.  

And then, with Princess Mensa he just pretty much said the ruling is the ruling.  (In other words, sucks to be you Stupid). 

Recently I've been half-listening to the contestants and focus my attention on Doug.  That's where you get the bang for your buck.  He's a real ball tosser Doug is.  I just love him.  

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, PsychoKlown said:

 Ever-ready Doug said something to the effect Well, why don't you just go think about it for awhile.  

I really need to stop skipping the hallterview so often, as I do so love a good Doug zinger.

In this case, as in so many others, I just couldn't bear to listen to one more lying and/or mangled word from the mouths of scammers and/or idiots.

[Mrs Shibbles]

17 hours ago, PsychoKlown said:

Again, I defer to DoctorK and AngelaHunter for succinct, yet strangely detailed analyses of the case.  Bravo.  👏

All I'll add is the comment by Doug.  Poor confused defendant confided in Doug that she didn't understand why the judge ruled the way she did.  Ever-ready Doug said something to the effect Well, why don't you just go think about it for awhile.  

And then, with Princess Mensa he just pretty much said the ruling is the ruling.  (In other words, sucks to be you Stupid). 

Recently I've been half-listening to the contestants and focus my attention on Doug.  That's where you get the bang for your buck.  He's a real ball tosser Doug is.  I just love him.  

Doug Llewelyn is my hero!  I was so happy to see him on The People's Court when he returned.

[Guest]

Calling AngelaHunter and DoctorK.  Emergency…come right away!!!

Please do your magic and decipher what these two idiotic contestants are saying in Case One. 

He’s a mush mouth probably because he has six extra teeth in his skull and she thinks she’s like way like too cute. Like, you know weeze been giving money like back and forth. 

I can’t.  I’ll be back for Doug to grind these two in the ground.   This show is getting more bizarre by the week. 

[AngelaHunter]

9 minutes ago, PsychoKlown said:

Please do your magic and decipher what these two idiotic contestants are saying in Case One.

Haven't seen this yet, but I'll try. Sometimes even my CC throws its hands up and merely says (unintelligible).  I'm pretty sure the day is coming when CC says "Oh, screw this!" and tells me (gibberish) or (mangled beyond recognition).

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

Haven't seen this yet, but I'll try. Sometimes even my CC throws its hands up and merely says (unintelligible).  I'm pretty sure the day is coming when CC says "Oh, screw this!" and tells me (gibberish) or (mangled beyond recognition).

Or say something so intelligent and scholarly that you absolutely know someone is pulling your chains. 

[DoctorK]

PsychoKlown, your wish is my command. I turned on closed captioning and recorded the show because anything worth doing is worth overdoing.

First case. The mush mouth was annoying but we have heard worse. The closed captioning really helped and it actually cleaned up a lot of the grammar murder ("dis" and "dat" and singular/plural misusage, to say nothing of present/past tenses), but I honestly would have FF'd most of this case. The plaintiff can’t control his temper even on camera; I don’t want to guess what he is like off camera. He handles his relationship like someone in middle school. The defendant uses the silly little girl persona to just blow off everything, and the whole “I pretended that I was going out with someone else but I was just taking myself out, all to make him mad" is also middle school at best. I despised both of them.

Second case. The CC really helped with the defendant, his accent was pretty strong (I do the same thing for some British shows when the accents are really thick). The plaintiff looked spiffy and started off well spoken; unfortunately he is a complete liar about just about everything. A specific example was the damaged cabinet above the refrigerator which the plaintiff claimed was that way when he moved but he didn’t see until later. He is a big guy, probably 6’ or over like I am, that damaged cabinet would jump out at him every time he opened the refrigerator. The defendant’s picturs nailed the plaintiff as a complete slob and pig. The place was filthy (rotten food left in the dishwasher? Really?), multiple dirty foot prints on the walls, etc. If I heard correctly (I can’t bring myself to watch this again) he wanted $8900 back for security deposit and something else, and then another $8900 for harassment and mental anguish. Wow.

Another day, two more cases, lots of people to despise.

ETA: Maybe it was $8900 total, not $8900 + $8900. Either way, it spells BONANZA!

Edited June 27, 2023 by DoctorK
update

[AngelaHunter]

@PsychoKlown

Not much to add to DoctorK's excellent summations, so I'll merely nitpick.

P, here in his tryout as a clown, a mime, or a reality show idiot assures JM they was in a committed relationship for three YEARS! No, they wasn't living together. They just went back and forf. His ex-girlfriend begs to differ. They was living together (maybe) and even after they broke up when she discovered he was chea-in' with some online ladies, they was still "dealin'" for months after. Yes, we know exactly what "dealin'" means. It's a synonym for "messin'".

1 hour ago, DoctorK said:

The plaintiff looked spiffy and started off well spoken; unfortunately he is a complete liar about just about everything.

Wasn't that something? I don't begrudge the fact that this enormous healthy-looking P, his girlfriend, and his sister were too lazy to pack the place up. I'd rather have someone pack up my stuff too.

What gets me is he has the unmitigated gall to sue the D landlord for nearly 9K when he and his ladies must have been behaving like a herd of bison in that place. Oh, I take that back. Some guy on YT lets his pet bull bison enter his home and it never damages anything. Sorry, bison!

Anyway, can someone explain HOW dirty footprints and shoe prints are put on a wall? How? Why? That was in addition to the broken shelf, broken door, the festering rotten food heaped in the dishwasher (seems they mistook it for a garbage disposal), and that black, filthy sink. I quit there because I was eating and this was making me queasy, especially the stinking, slimy sludge in the dishwasher.

Yes, P was going to have a cleaning company go over the place, but... he didn't. (shout-out to PsychoKlown) I think that was a big fat lie. I doubt he got anything. JM thought he should have just kept his big mouth shut since the Def was going to let it all go but now he was countersuing. I hope Def won.

[rcc]

15 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

@PsychoKlown

Not much to add to DoctorK's excellent summations, so I'll merely nitpick.

P, here in his tryout as a clown, a mime, or a reality show idiot assures JM they was in a committed relationship for three YEARS! No, they wasn't living together. They just went back and forf. His ex-girlfriend begs to differ. They was living together (maybe) and even after they broke up when she discovered he was chea-in' with some online ladies, they was still "dealin'" for months after. Yes, we know exactly what "dealin'" means. It's a synonym for "messin'".

Wasn't that something? I don't begrudge the fact that this enormous healthy-looking P, his girlfriend, and his sister were too lazy to pack the place up. I'd rather have someone pack up my stuff too.

What gets me is he has the unmitigated gall to sue the D landlord for nearly 9K when he and his ladies must have been behaving like a herd of bison in that place. Oh, I take that back. Some guy on YT lets his pet bull bison enter his home and it never damages anything. Sorry, bison!

Anyway, can someone explain HOW dirty footprints and shoe prints are put on a wall? How? Why? That was in addition to the broken shelf, broken door, the festering rotten food heaped in the dishwasher (seems they mistook it for a garbage disposal), and that black, filthy sink. I quit there because I was eating and this was making me queasy, especially the stinking, slimy sludge in the dishwasher.

Yes, P was going to have a cleaning company go over the place, but... he didn't. (shout-out to PsychoKlown) I think that was a big fat lie. I doubt he got anything. JM thought he should have just kept his big mouth shut since the Def was going to let it all go but now he was countersuing. I hope Def won.

Def won and for good reason. Love it when plaintiffs want a big return and end up paying out. 

[AngelaHunter]

5 minutes ago, rcc said:

Def won and for good reason. Love it when plaintiffs want a big return and end up paying out. 

Thanks! I enjoy it when outrageous claims backfire and the Def wins!

[Guest]

Thank you very much.  I missed a lot of the first case because I just could not understand what was being said.  And yes DoctorK… the dis and dat (with the extra six teeth) drove me up the wall.  But even then I wore socks and they were sparkling clean 😛

Got a new one AngelaHunter - I was going to put on the CC but didn’t. 

And I'm not lying.  I honestly thought that was a dead rat 🐀 at the bottom of the dishwasher.  And while I think about it, the barefoot print on the wall was definitely done by a 6’ 2” guy with big, fat toes.  I’m assuming it’s the plaintiff unless his girlfriend and sister are linebackers for the NE Patriots.  Not sure how you get a print like that unless he just got a kick out of putting his filthy bare feet on the wall. 

And I could be wrong but I think the plaintiff wanted money to pay for packing.  Not sure the route of his thinking process but that cost was on him from all angles. Still think some of these cases are purely for entertainment and filling the contestants’ pockets with a couple of bucks. 

Solid guarantees that my pockets would be bursting with hundred dollar bills to even consider being a contestant with a filthy dishwasher, backed up sink or crooked cabinet photos claiming to be from my apartment.   Even then, I’d probably show up for filming, walk in the faux courtroom… tell Douglas “I was going to be a contestant, but no.  Not happening.

On my way out though I would stop to shake Doug’s hand and get a picture.

[AngelaHunter]

26 minutes ago, PsychoKlown said:

Solid guarantees that my pockets would be bursting with hundred dollar bills to even consider being a contestant with a filthy dishwasher, backed up sink or crooked cabinet photos claiming to be from my apartment

Yes, of course. I would shrivel with shame if my filthy messes were splashed across 60" screens nationwide, but that's just the thing: Our litigants see absolutely nothing wrong with the way they treat the property of others, or even in displaying how they have no inhibitions about living in filth and destruction of their making.

The case today was merely a minor failing. We must not forget the woman who had cockroaches marching in waves on her wall, while she complained about greasy dust on some baseboards.

Thank you, litigants. I am now inspired to get out my steamer and clean my fridge which, although I'm no Suzy Homemaker, I assure you harbours no decayed piles of food or a roach army.

[DoctorK]

4 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

I am now inspired to get out my steamer and clean my fridge

Don't forget your dishwasher.

[Bazinga]

I know some do not listen to Harvey, but does Harvey even watch and/or listen to the cases he comments on?  Following case one, Harvey said the following, "OK, Doug, so, look this was a loan, and that's what the judge said, and the reality is, that when money does change hands, the presumption is it is indeed a loan, even if it is a boyfriend girlfriend situation, um, this was a case where the defendant had the burden of proof that this was a gift and that burden wasn't met."  The defendant won!  The judge thought money went back and forth during their relationship; he never asked for payment until they broke up, therefore IT WASN'T A LOAN.  Plaintiff, low-rent Chris Rock, lost, Harvey.

My usual complaint, JM was extremely tolerant of 'Chris Rock's' interruptions, shout outs and antics.  Others do less and she comes down hard.  She only got, slightly, annoyed at him when he made his stupid, sexist comment.

On 6/26/2023 at 3:56 PM, DoctorK said:

JM did not come across particularly well either. She can claim that contracting is in her heritage but doesn’t know that oil degrades asphalt (I used to see this often back in the old days when almost every car dripped oil when parked). More importantly, JM completely misunderstood the mediation result and only figured it out after the defendant finally found a key document (I was relieved when the document showed because the defendant was not good at presenting her case). Plaintiff ends up getting $114 (instead of $2800) and the landlord gets nothing, I am OK with that, although I would have given the plaintiff nothing because she is a fast talking airhead and liar while the defendant was just inept.

In Monday's case, I did not care for how JM went easy on the cutesy tenant and hard on the landlord over the security deposit return.  Deducting from the curtain rod repair cost, even though plaintiff admitted to additional damage, from $30 to $20; not allowing that there was obviously damage done by throwing oil on the driveway, that plaintiff was practically admitting to (why is throwing oil in a garden OK?; not a large leap from garden to driveway; why is the neighbor's driveway condition proof that plaintiff didn't do damage?), that should have covered the extra $100 security deposit; the glee JM had in giving the plaintiff two extra dollars in interest; and somehow, inexplicably, going from $96 she was discussing to a final judgment of $114.  You know that plaintiff did over $100 in additional damages.  Defendant could not present a good case and JM was against her from the beginning by misreading the agreement, wanting to blame the landlord/landlord's attorney for having agreed to waive two months rent, and enjoying laying the blame on the landlord for not having gotten evidence of something that she would not realize at the time was an issue that she needed to memorialize-the tenant taking the blame for things she obviously did.  The usual irresponsible young girl who doesn't need to understand what month to month tenancy is; believes she shouldn't pay rent since she was going to move and needed the money; who requests double security deposit be returned because there is a box on the form for it; who denies everything when it is obvious she did damage, that JM always favors.

Edited June 28, 2023 by Bazinga

[Guest]

8 hours ago, Bazinga said:

I know some do not listen to Harvey, but does Harvey even watch and/or listen to the cases he comments on?  Following case one, Harvey said the following, "OK, Doug, so, look this was a loan, and that's what the judge said, and the reality is, that when money does change hands, the presumption is it is indeed a loan, even if it is a boyfriend girlfriend situation, um, this was a case where the defendant had the burden of proof that this was a gift and that burden wasn't met."  The defendant won!  The judge thought money went back and forth during their relationship; he never asked for payment until they broke up, therefore IT WASN'T A LOAN.

I never noticed this because truthfully  when Harvey is on I tune out.  I don’t think I’ve ever digested any of his comments. 

8 hours ago, Bazinga said:

Plaintiff, low-rent Chris Rock, lost, Harvey

This is gold Bazinga. Gold. I’m still captivated by all his extra teeth.  A good portion of the contestants have few to none and this guy was blessed by the dental gods with more than 32.  Still makes it hard to understand him but he’s way ahead of the game if his next girlfriend knocks a few down his throat. 

8 hours ago, Bazinga said:

My usual complaint, JM was extremely tolerant of 'Chris Rock's' interruptions, shout outs and antics.  Others do less and she comes down hard.  She only got, slightly, annoyed at him when he made his stupid, sexist comment.

Yes. And loud. She is getting louder by the episode. I wonder if her hearing is failing and she has no idea of her volume. It might be me but at times John looks like he’s cowering. Maybe from the volume.  Maybe not 

8 hours ago, Bazinga said:

In Monday's case, I did not care for how JM went easy on the cutesy tenant and hard on the landlord over the security deposit return.  Deducting from the curtain rod repair cost, even though plaintiff admitted to additional damage, from $30 to $20; not allowing that there was obviously damage done by throwing oil on the driveway, that plaintiff was practically admitting to (why is throwing oil in a garden OK?; not a large leap from garden to driveway; why is the neighbor's driveway condition proof that plaintiff didn't do damage?), that should have covered the extra $100 security deposit; the glee JM had in giving the plaintiff two extra dollars in interest; and somehow, inexplicably, going from $96 she was discussing to a final judgment of $114.  You know that plaintiff did over $100 in additional damages.  Defendant could not present a good case and JM was against her from the beginning by misreading the agreement, wanting to blame the landlord/landlord's attorney for having agreed to waive two months rent, and enjoying laying the blame on the landlord for not having gotten evidence of something that she would not realize at the time was an issue that she needed to memorialize-the tenant taking the blame for things she obviously did.  The usual irresponsible young girl who doesn't need to understand what month to month tenancy is; believes she shouldn't pay rent since she was going to move and needed the money; who requests double security deposit be returned because there is a box on the form for it; who denies everything when it is obvious she did damage, that JM always favors.

She apparently has a soft spot for adults who display a veil of helplessness.  She finds them so adorable.  I am guessing her daughters are carried around on a velvet pillow so the soles of their Paul Green loafers do not get soiled. 

She’s overboard with her daughters and from my experience there will come a day she will regret it.  That and her incessant preaching that her daughters be friends.  Sometimes the more you push forward…the more they’ll step back.

[AngelaHunter]

12 hours ago, Bazinga said:

Plaintiff, low-rent Chris Rock, lost, Harvey

Exactly what I was thinking - Chris Rock, only not funny at all and I don't think Chris says things like "We was goin' back and forf". I was also waiting for JM to blow her stack at his outrageous posturing, chicken-necking, interjections, and general clownishness. Others have been severely spanked or even thrown out for less.

[DoctorK]

First (actually second?) case: the Great Parking Lot Disaster. Plaintiff starts off explaining that she was there because her daughter had a session scheduled with therapist (psychologist or psychiatrist or something). She claimed that the session was only 7 minutes instead of an entire hour which has absolutely nothing to do with the parking lot fender bender. She “proves” that the session was only 7 minutes because her daughter’s phone can only record seven minutes (therapist had recommended that the daughter record the sessions). The therapist stated that the session was really 45 minutes (which I understand is the standard for a nominal hour session). After vehemently insisting that the session was only seven minutes, plaintiff now backs off and admits it may have been longer (I think she said 20 or 30 minutes). Ask her a couple more times and I am sure she will go to 40 and then 45 minutes. For me, this has already shot her credibility. Then JM grills her about the miniscule damage to her car and notes that the repair estimate states 2.5 hours to complete but she still needed to rent a car (naturally an SUV) for three days, and also threw in some Lyft rides and two days of lost wages. The lost wages issue is iffy because she doesn’t work on a schedule, just when she gets called in. On a superficial note (because I am a superficial person), what the plaintiff probably thinks is an endearing smile comes across as more of a smirk and sneer (you may notice that I really don’t like her). Come to think of it, I really don’t like the therapist very much either and the accident was at fault. The whole case was a waste of my time, especially as an entire show for this. Hallterview showed the plaintiff in even a worse light, throwing out insults. Somehow I suspect that the plaintiff was pissed off about seven minute (not) session and has a grudge against the therapist.

Actually, having only one case per show may be a good thing. It gives me less to complain about.

ETA: From following posters it looks like this case only seemed like a full hour show, I now remember the house contract/inspection costs case before it. Oops.

Edited June 28, 2023 by DoctorK
senior moment

[CrazyInAlabama]

"House Deposit Disaster", not actually the real subject, from what I gathered. They were suing for repayment of a home inspection, and travel.    Plaintiffs were house shopping, saw defendant's house listing, when the price dropped to their budget of $650k, they toured the house, they actually were willing to pay $670k.  However, the defendant's house sale was contingent of defendants finding another house, no contract was signed by the litigants.    Plaintiffs want $600 for the inspection, and $200 in travel costs.  

Defendants found a house, and after an inspection, the new house would cost over $70k to fix.   Plaintiff's paid $800 for an inspection on defendants' house, before a contract was signed.    Plaintiffs want their $800 inspection cost back ($600 inspection, and $200 travel). 

Plaintiffs' case is ridiculous, and they've already been told by their attorney that they won't get inspection money back.     Plaintiff wife claims that since the defendants' house was inspected, that they now know what's wrong with their current house.   

Plaintiffs' case dismissed.  I don't know why Judge M is harping on the litigants getting inspections done without a contract, you never get inspection costs back on a house, with or without a contract.   In the interview with Doug in the hall, plaintiff wife still obviously thinks judge was wrong. 

The plaintiff/mother of patient of defendant suing defendant /daughter's psychotherapist over a collision between them backing out of a parking space.  It was ridiculous.   The damage to the palintiff's car is almost invisible. 

The dispute is that plaintiff claims the car would be done in one day, so she only rented a car for one day.  The repair took longer, and she wants to get paid for three days of rental, Lyft rides, and two days of lost wages.     Plaintiff also lies about the therapy session her daughter had with defendant was 7 minutes, but it was 45.  

Plaintiff gets damages, $347, plus one day of rental, totals $429.    Plaintiff shows how nasty she is in the hall-terview with Doug..  

Edited June 28, 2023 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

54 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiffs' case is ridiculous, and they've already been told by their attorney that they won't get inspection money back.

I must say, today was highly unusual in that none of the litigants murdered the language, committed acts of vandalism or violence and there was no mention of warrants, jail time, destroyed dwellings, or MIA baby daddies. Nearly unprecedented!

The house buyers were merely annoying. The wife sang her testimony and the hubby seemed rather dim-witted. I have to think they inherited the money for this 670K house. Of course, you never know. They could both be lawyers of the type regularly seen on this show.

59 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff gets damages, $347, plus one day of rental, totals $429.    Plaintiff shows how nasty she is in the hall-terview with Doug..  

Okay, maybe I'm wrong thinking all the litigants were civilized. I skipped the hall. And really, she just had to rent an SUV, for a day or so? Some cheap wheels that would get her around simply weren't good enough for her for that short time?

I was just surprised at JM saying that because the actual job would take 2.5 hrs that it was inconceivable that they would need to keep the car for two days. JM was assuming the shop was empty when in fact there may have been 5  or more jobs ahead of this one. Still, P was obviously trying to profit from this paint chip on her ride.

Still, I was pleased for a whole hour with no feral behavior.

I was shocked - shocked(!!) I tell you, to hear that one of JM's perfect daughters backed into someone's car!

I did watch JM and JJ talking about candles. I was wondering if he would, but really not expecting Judge John to mention certain types that smell like "body parts". He went there. I'm sure everyone knows about that vile, disgusting hag Paltrow and her candles that smell like her hoohaw. 🤢 One person on some site commented it might be called, "Eau de Warm Turtle Tank."  When did the formerly unmentionable, totally private, and personal become things you broadcast to the world? Damn.

[Guest]

I missed the 7 minute therapist case. However, unless the therapist is a real scam artist (and there may be some) too many checkpoints for that to happen in credible offices. 

I’m taking my lunchtime break at 2:00 and prefer not to see cases with blood, guts, vomit, fecal matter or pit bulls ripping the throats out of a pack of golden retriever puppies.

Here’s hoping.

[AngelaHunter]

4 hours ago, PsychoKlown said:

Here’s hoping.

Sorry to dash your hopes. Everyone spreads as easily as margarine for Mr. Edwards! We got hypersexuality, bareback rutting, and indiscriminate breeding. There's one idiot, presently knocked up with Mr. Edward's potent deposit while def, who admits she drank like a fish during her gestation period, (for which concerned baby daddy P calls DCF) has another of his crotch droppings, and that one is only 5 months old. Ew. It seems Mr. Edwards has yet a third baby momma, somewhere.  I dunno. With all this going on and with him unemployed what he really needed was an old BMW. He needed a bigger vehicle for his expanding families, you see. Naturally, he had to put it in someone else's name, that someone being the def. She turned sour after finding lip gloss in Romeo's car.

All this, combined with his surly attitude implying that questions JM asked were stupid  - "No, of course, we didn't live together! We were just off and on!"  JM, really? You must know that bringing a new life into the world (during one of the 'on" periods) does NOT mean you're dating!

I gave up. Too sordid, plus Mr. Edward's constant and rapid hand movements used to emphatically punctuate every single syllable were making me dizzy.

Has birth control been outlawed? I'm thinking it has since none of our litigants seem able to acquire any, OR they all deliberately get knocked up to trap elusive and desirable hunks like Mr. Edwards. That plan may have worked in 1962.

The next case was boring but the def was amusing. P gave D 900$ to buy and install a new skylight. Def, who is so laid-back he seems stoned, drunk, or nearly comatose, says he ordered it but it came with a crack in the glass and then the company folded so he just shrugged, decided "Oh, well!" and ignored the P's requests for the skylight or the money. 900$ + interest for P.

[DoctorK]

AngelaHunter is more patient than I am. First case is just another babydaddy vs. babymama conflict that includes (not that we haven't seen this many times before) a broke-ass unemployed litigant conniving to buy a BMW. This is OK because it is a "used" BMW and more importantly he is buying it in someone else's name. We have seen so many of these dysfunctional trashy litigants that it has become boring and unmemorable.

Next case was also boring, an apparently normal home owner suing a hapless, irresponsible contractor who when he failed to do the work, probably (I agree with AngelaHunter above) just sat on the sofa and lit a big joint and mellowed out (and ghosted the plaintiff).

Neither case inspired me enough to snark, just a few mild insults tossed at them.

[Guest]

Defendant.  Case 2. 

“Hey sucker.  Wanna buy some skylights?”
 

[DoctorK]

First case wasn’t entertaining, it was sad to watch. The plaintiff clearly has serious memory issues and sounded a lot like my mother did in her last few years when she had trouble handling anything. The plaintiff was completely lost and in denial even about documents she had actually signed. The defendant lawyer seemed to have issues of his own though not as severe; at the least he is really disorganized. They were friends for 30 or 40 years and it is sad to see them lose the friendship but I don’t see any chance of the plaintiff giving up her unfounded grudge.

The second case started as a standard complaint against a car repair shop but got strange as soon as the plaintiff started to talk. She sounded off her rocker from the beginning. When she claimed that the mechanic took off the new alternator and put the old one back in I knew that she was wrong or just making stuff up. A lot of what she said made no sense at all. The problems she described could well be caused by the alternator or some other part of the charging system but the car shaking is a different problem unless there is an electrical problem where the shaking shorts out some part of the wiring. The dealer info was worthless since they just listed the basic periodic maintenance items. I was getting fed up with the plaintiff pretty quickly, but JM finally caught up with me and flat out told the plaintiff that she was lying in a loud clear voice. For a final note, the plaintiff violated my rule that your eyelashes should not weigh more that your eyeball.

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, DoctorK said:

She sounded off her rocker from the beginning.

Yeah, the "I don't know anything about carsx5" motor-mouth sounded loony. When JM pointedly told her, "I don't trust you", P merely flapped her massive lashes and started off with, "So..." Obviously being told she's not trusted is not a problem for her and gives her no pause at all.

1 hour ago, DoctorK said:

For a final note, the plaintiff violated my rule that your eyelashes should not weigh more that your eyeball.

😄  Between the massive lashes that actually looked solid, as though made from scraps of old melted-down vinyl LPs, and that wig with the strange curlicues on the sides, she looked as though she might have come here still in makeup from her role as an extra in some Star Trek movie crowd scene.

In the first case of the house deed (that was some hat!): The fact that The Levin never EVER has anything intelligent, informative, or sensible to say doesn't stop him from flapping his gums. He must be seen and heard, no matter how irrelevant and dopey he is.

Heading to break in this case, he gave us this insightful commentary:

"Owning a house in this day and age is GREAT!"

Wow. Oh, man!  That's so, like, heavy! Every day I thirst and hunger for his nuggets of wisdom to flyl, rapier-like, from my TeeVee.

[Bazinga]

6 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

In the first case of the house deed (that was some hat!): The fact that The Levin never EVER has anything intelligent, informative, or sensible to say doesn't stop him from flapping his gums. He must be seen and heard, no matter how irrelevant and dopey he is.

Heading to break in this case, he gave us this insightful commentary:

"Owning a house in this day and age is GREAT!"

Wow. Oh, man!  That's so, like, heavy! Every day I thirst and hunger for his nuggets of wisdom to flyl, rapier-like, from my TeeVee.

His end commentary was equally stupid and unrelated to the case.  Here he talked about attorneys needs to provide monthly itemized statements of work done.  In this case, they agreed on the fee and the service, so Harvey's commentary was totally irrelevant to this case.

As an attorney, I don't think the defendant needed to explain the pros and cons of the deed transfer and don't think he really did and he probably lied that he had so as not to seem less than diligent.  Client came to him and said I want the deed to my house transferred to my children and he prepared the papers.  I don't think she asked him to explain the pros and cons of doing a deed transfer and other methods of transferring property.  He probably thought this was a simple, straightforward job for a client he considered a friend, so maybe he wasn't as thorough as he would have been with a client he didn't know well.  He prepared the required documents and was waiting for her kids to come and sign.  I assume the plaintiff told the attorney her son comes to town monthly, so he would come by shortly.  Could this have all been done through the mail, either regular or email?  Yes, but I don't think the attorney especially or the plaintiff made this a priority.  Attorney was waiting for the son to show up and was not thinking about it.  As the transfer was taking time (once signed the deed must also be filed and recorded with the Office of the City Register), plaintiff went to another attorney who put into her head that she shouldn't do the transfer for a reason that probably isn't happening; the kids could get judgments against them and she could lose her house.  Judgment creditors can attach a property lien that states that the creditor is owed money.  Until the debt is repaid, the title will be unclear.  The property owner will not be able to sell the property or have it refinanced while a lien is against it.  When the judgment debtor tries to sell the real property, he or she will be unable to finish the sale while the title is not clean.  In order to sell the property, the debtor may decide to pay the judgment creditor off prior to the sale to clean up the title or at the point of sale when there will be money available.  Judgment creditor can force a sale but then would have to pay the other two owners out of the sale proceeds, so probably not going to happen.  The attorney put into her head that she is going to lose her house, so she no longer wanted the kids on the deed.  Obviously, many people add others to their property.  Nothing inherently wrong with it and not something she should not have done.  If that is what she wanted, that is the service she should have been provided by the attorney.  Some reason attorney #2 wanted to talk her out of the transfer and into transferring the property when she passes in her will.  These are not equivalents the way JM was suggesting and as she wanted the former, that is what she should have gotten.  Brushed over was that she also wanted a power of attorney for her daughter.  She said this was accomplished by the second attorney in the will, which is wrong.  You need a power of attorney while you are alive not after you die and in your will.  Maybe she was referring to a living will.  I think the second attorney's advice was suspect.  I think she was being misguided by the second attorney and he put it into her head that the defendant was doing the wrong thing.  She seemed very headstrong and she went to his office probably angry and demanding her money back, not to talk about the situation rationally and to get his advice on what she should do, and when he couldn't find the documents (did she have an appointment or did she show up unexpected angry and demanding?), she decided she is right and deserves everything back, as he did nothing for her, even though she simply changed her mind and she should know he did the paperwork.  I think the ignored problem here was that the attorney didn't make this a priority and leaving it unfinished caused the plaintiff to speak to another attorney who gave her contrary advice.  JM should have asked the plaintiff if she put a time frame on getting this done?  I don't think she did and the attorney didn't complete the job as he was paid in full, so finishing was not his priority.  If he had connected with the son and gotten the document signed, the work would have gotten done.  If time was of the essence, this could have been completed within days through the mail.  Here the attorney let it sit for months, thus creating a problem.   

Edited July 1, 2023 by Bazinga