The People's Court - General Discussion

[bref]

The landlord defendant that rented the illegal basement "apartment" looked SUPER familiar to me. Anyone else think we've seen him on this or another court show before?

[Rick Kitchen]

Yeah, the US Polo Assn website says "not affiliated with Ralph Lauren".

[BubblingKettle]

As far as i know, US Polo Assoc is not Ralph Lauren. US Polo Assoc is a brand i see at discount stores such as Burlington Coat Factory or Ross. I wish the judge would have called the plaintiff out on that. That coat was probably $39.99.

 

Yeah, the US Polo Assn website says "not affiliated with Ralph Lauren".

 

I thought the same thing when I saw that case. I looked it up and found this article...http://www.ebay.com/gds/The-difference-between-Ralph-Lauren-U-S-Polo-Assn-/10000000178493827/g.html  ....It points out the subtle differences between the images of the polo players, too, which is kind of interesting.

[SRTouch]

First case is all about 18yo being kicked out because she decides she no longer has to live by the rules of the house. An added twist is that the house she's leaving is her foster dad/godfather. Never really explained why she's living there instead of with Mom - sort of sounds like at some point there was a shared custody situation, but godfather was officially foster dad with a caseworker and everything. As she's leaving, foster dad takes back her iPhone and the computer he gave her for graduation. MM rules that computer was a gift, so foster dad was wrong to take it, but even though she was given the iPhone to use, since it was part of the plan he's still paying for, he could keep the phone. Really, a sad case, girl had been part of the family for years and it became physical as she was moving out.

Next case should have never gone to court. 16yo riding bike the wrong way on a one way street is hit by car as he goes through an intersection. Car that hit him had right of way, as street he way on had a stop sign ('Course, all he saw was the back of the sign). Luckily for the driver, there was a cop two cars behind her, so there was a police report. I sort of felt sorry for kid's dad. The kid was either REALLY nervous, or kind of slow. He couldn't even decide what street he was on, didn't know if anyone had a stop sign, his story was all over the place. OTOH, dad brought the case to court even though there was a police report. Seems like dad should have grilled kid before suing. Here's a novel idea Dad, take your kid to the intersection and have him talk you through the accident, since it's obvious a diagram is too complicated for him to grasp. It was awfully easy for MM to blow the kid's story out of the water.

Last case, adult daughter is in a hurry to move her parents out of her house. She finds a place and looks at it with her mom, puts down deposit and pro-rated rent for a month, so landlord takes it off the market. Dad vetoes the deal a week later because he never got to inspect the place. Landlord returns deposit, but daughter is suing to get back the pro-rated rent. MM has a tough time getting plaintiff to be quiet and listen as she's explaining that by law landlord has already returned everything she has to, and in fact had landlord not found another tenant so quickly she could have kept the deposit. In fact, from what MM said, she would have let the broker keep the broker fee which they had already returned.

[AngelaHunter]

First case is all about 18yo being kicked out

 

I wish Mom had been there. I wanted to see the woman who basically gave away her kid to a neighbour after he gave said kid a chocolate bar. Call me old fashioned, but I when I hear about people giving 600$ phones to teenagers I'm always amazed. I don't even have a 600$ phone.

 

16yo riding bike the wrong way on a one way street is hit by car

 

Dad felt pretty stupid when 2 minutes of questioning by JM revealed that kid lied but dad couldn't even be bothered finding out if there was a stop sign, so no surprise.

 

Last case, adult daughter is in a hurry to move her parents out of her house.

 

I was so distracted by the way she talked - "Yes-uh", "No-uh", "I gave her the check-uh" and the ultra-shininess of that cheap wig I had a hard time keeping track of the complaint. Landlady was beyond fair and reasonable with her, yet still gets dragged into court and has to waste her time. Too many people have no idea that contract actually means something. Outrageous.

 

[BubblingKettle]

The people in today's cases were beyond annoying. The strange plaintiff who claimed to be poor and living in cheap hotels bought THREE dogs??? Stupid weirdo. And the purple-haired defendant was beyond annoying. I don't know if her speech was affected by the gross face-piercing or if she was on sedatives, but something was up with her rate of speech. WTH was that part about risque videos on the plaintiff's FB page? Ugh.

 

In the case with the apartment theft, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that the 44-year-old creepster boyfriend played a part in that shit. He was so shifty and shady from the start of the case. I guess the cops sniffed that out too, since they wouldn't even write a report on the supposed burglary. We all make stupid mistakes in our 20's, but that 22-year-old plaintiff needs to get her life together. Those texts between the defendant and the plaintiff said it all -- they're all grimy people. As always, I loved Douglas' expression in the hallterview -- the subtle shade.

 

I couldn't pay attention to the last case because I was annoyed by the pronunciation of plaid shirt as pladded shirt.

[SRTouch]

Silly dog custody case. Plaintiff is suing for $5000 because defendant agreed to foster her three dogs for two months for $150 a month, then refused to return them. Plaintiff may have been a little flakey, but she had a good case based on clear text message trail. I'm saying she's flakey because she acquired three dogs within a short period, a senior dog from defendant and two puppies from breeders, and within a short time was evicted. She may have been a flake, but her text messages show a clear offer to pay the defendant to foster the three dogs until she found a new place to live, and the defendant agreeing. Only hole in plaintiff's case was she says she paid defendant when she gave dogs to defendant, but didn't get a receipt. The defendant's story was that plaintiff was jekyll and hyde. In texts plaintiff sounded like a caring dog owner who needed a foster for her beloved dogs, but then she would change into a scammer who was just out for money. I was undecided at first - then MM read the texts where the original agreement was reached, and started asking for any sort of evidence that agreement changed. Defendant claimed plaintiff was all sugar and spice in text, but completely different in person and on phone, but couldn't produce a single text where she questioned the supposedly contradictory phone calls. Defendant couldn't come up with a single instance where plaintiff scammed anyone. Closest she came was hearsay evidence from guy she described as plaintiff's ex-bf, and plaintiff said was some guy stalking her. She claims plaintiff didn't pay the promised money when she picked up dogs, but not once in the several text messages after the dog exchange does she mention she wasn't paid. Doesn't matter, MM didn't let her repeat the hearsay story, just some passing mention of risqué facebook videos/posts which MM said proved nothing. After defendant failed to come up with a single piece of evidence, she called up her husband, who testified he overhead an incident where plaintiff called and told a story consistent with his wife's BS. MM ruled for plaintiff, but saying defendant gad to return the dogs - not giving the plaintiff the $5000 she asked for. If there was any doubt that the defendant's claim that plaintiff was just out for money, her obvious joy at getting dogs back and no money put that to bed.

Next, tenant accusing landlord sold from her locked apartment/basement. She says only people with keys were her and landlord, do landlord must have stolen it. Landlord says tenant had lots of visitors in and out who could have made off her stuff. Plaintiff tenant has no evident anything was even stolen, much less that defendant landlord stole anything. Turns out she didn't start complaining about stolen property until she was behind in the rent. And yes, landlord has countersuit for back rent. 22yo plaintiff has 40+yo sugar daddy in court with her. Sugar daddy is eager to get up and speak his piece, rising his hand and trying to interrupt. When MM let's him talk, plaintiff's case quickly goes downhill. His jive street talk immediately turned me off, and when he produces evidence that this is an illegal apartment it just makes me think they're scammers out to live rent free. Well the scam works, after dismissing case MM tells us countersuit for back rent is dismissed - property is permitted for two families, 4 families live there and basement apartment is, in fact, illegal. Hallterview shows litigants totally unrepentant. Plaintiff breaks down in tears, no doubt a useful skill for scammer everywhere. Defendant sounded like she is looking forward to housing court to finally get plaintiff evicted - no doubt so that she can re-rent the illegal apartment.

Fishy car deal where plaintiff trades in junker for newer junk heap. MM opened the question of what was done with plates from old car, but far as I know question wasn't answer. Way I understood story, plaintiff is bought a car, transferred plates from old junker to new junker, then left old car on lot and drove off in new junker. Sounds like they're still driving around with old plates on new junker. 10 months later, dealer drags old junker out on street and city tows it. Now proud junker owners are suing for the impounded car. Case dismissed.

[AngelaHunter]

The people in today's cases were beyond annoying. The strange plaintiff who claimed to be poor and living in cheap hotels bought THREE dogs???

 

i shouldn't have watched that. Yeah, so I can't pay my rent and I'm going to be left homeless. What should I do? Oh, I know - I'll get three dogs, two of which come from backyard breeders and will cost me a fortune, but it's what I want! Ugh.

 

Twenty-two year old Ms. Goodie and her sleazy, shady, forty-four year old daddy boyfriend - nice text messages. Yeah, I think Ms.Goodie, who seemed to have a hard time thinking,  might want to look to one of her male "friends" to find out who stole her crap.

 

So I'll leave my old POS shit car at the "dillership" for eight months and then sue when the lot owner gets rid of it. Whatever.

[momtoall]

The people in today's cases were beyond annoying. The strange plaintiff who claimed to be poor and living in cheap hotels bought THREE dogs???

 

 

This woman doesn't have one ounce of common sense.  I wonder is her financial situation has improved to the point where she can afford the added expense of feeding three dogs and vet bills. 

 

I have to admit, after hearing the intro for other cases, I fast forwarded through them because the outcome was obvious.

[AngelaHunter]

This woman doesn't have one ounce of common sense.

 

Really, def. was just as bad in a different way. She takes her ailing father's old dog and dumps it on CL to a total stranger so she can pocket 100$. She couldn't take care of one old dog - which probably meant a lot to her father and which she was going to send to the pound to be terrified and killed -  but now has no problem taking that one back AND taking on two puppies? I feel so sorry for any animals in the custody of 99% of the litigants.

[Rick Kitchen]

Yeah, no.  You can't put risque videos on Facebook.

[DebbieW]

Real life car purchase story.  My husband is looking at a used Toyota 4 runner that is posted for sale online.  Made an appointment with the owner to take it for a test drive to our mechanic to check it out.  Guy texts my husband this morning saying that someone else is coming to look at the veehickle and it might not be available long.  Being students of JJ's and MM's law schools, we wish him luck with the meeting and tell him to let us know if the truck is still available after the weekend (because only a moron would rush right over to proceed to purchase it because the guy is "pressuring" us).  Just heard back from the seller who claims that he's a mechanic and that he can assure us that the veehickle is in excellent condition and would be happy to talk to our mechanic on the phone.  We tell him that he's more than welcome to call our mechanic and that will help him to know better what to check out when we bring the truck to him for an inspection (because only a moron would claim "we trusted hiiiimmmmmm" because he claims to be a mechanic).  I'm just finding it hilarious that this douche is trying all of the cliched stunts that we see dumbass litigants fall for all the time and he's shocked that it's not working.  

[AZChristian]

You go, girl!  We're proud of you.  LOL.

[SRTouch]

Real life car purchase story. My husband is looking at a used Toyota 4 runner that is posted for sale online. Made an appointment with the owner to take it for a test drive to our mechanic to check it out. Guy texts my husband this morning saying that someone else is coming to look at the veehickle and it might not be available long. Being students of JJ's and MM's law schools, we wish him luck with the meeting and tell him to let us know if the truck is still available after the weekend (because only a moron would rush right over to proceed to purchase it because the guy is "pressuring" us). Just heard back from the seller who claims that he's a mechanic and that he can assure us that the veehickle is in excellent condition and would be happy to talk to our mechanic on the phone. We tell him that he's more than welcome to call our mechanic and that will help him to know better what to check out when we bring the truck to him for an inspection (because only a moron would claim "we trusted hiiiimmmmmm" because he claims to be a mechanic). I'm just finding it hilarious that this douche is trying all of the cliched stunts that we see dumbass litigants fall for all the time and he's shocked that it's not working.

If you should ever actually get the veehickle to your mechanic let us know what he says. Sounds like seller might be on a roll. Veehickle probably doesn't come with a clean title. He'll gladly give you a bill of sale for far less than he's charging so you can scam DMV, just give him the money and the title will be in the mail. Edited April 16, 2016 by SRTouch

[AngelaHunter]

because only a moron would rush right over to proceed to purchase it because the guy is "pressuring" us

 

because only a moron would claim "we trusted hiiiimmmmmm" because he claims to be a mechanic

 

Be prepared to get sued by a legion of morons we've seen here. Let's see - slander(libel) and emotional distress sound about right?

 

Who wouldn't trust a total stranger from CL looking to unload his problem veeehickle? Aren't you a "very trusting person?"

[DoctorK]

First case, creepy woman versus dreadlocked roommate -  didn’t really believe either of them. Mr. Dreads was caught lying about the underwear incident based on his own text message and probably lying about stopping payment on the check.  Also annoying – naked is not the same as in her underwear (not that running around in her underwear was appropriate with multiple roommates). Plaintiff struck me as being weird and creepy, but  with the strange multiple visitors/temp roommates situation maybe they belong together.

 

Second case - Perry Mason and the Case of the Missing Oil Filter? Plaintiff was completely full of crap and her witness/boyfriend doesn’t know what “seized” means. Plaintiff wants not only a new engine (for a 250,000 mile car) but reimbursement for tickets she got when she had it towed into a restricted parking area.  Also it is unbelievable that an engine would run as long as it did with no oil (glad that JM took note of that).  With no oil, the car would first turn on the oil idiot light, then the engine will quickly overheat (with overheated oil smells and coolant temp overheating within a couple of minutes. For an old worn out engine (lots of loose tolerances), there might be enough residual oil so that it wouldn’t seize up immediately, but is still going to fail quickly. I think the oil change guy was probably correct that the engine failed from old age and extremely high mileage; at that point either the plaintiff or her boyfriend thought they had a way to get their clunker fixed on somebody else’s dime.

 

Third case, too boring to comment on except for the usurious loaner in the hallterview complaining that it was terrible that she “helped” him out but couldn’t collect her mafia level interest.

Edited April 18, 2016 by DoctorK

[OhioSongbird]

The thing that got me was she went between saying 'there was no filter' to 'there was a filter...just installed improperly'.  Pick a lane.  250+k mileage.....please, that thing was gonna die anyday.  I used to work in an auto parts store a long time ago (hubby still does), my Dad was a motorhead and I used to help him work on his cars when I was a kid (what?..girls can turn a wrench, too..;-)).  Vintage cars can be maintained as the engines are simple machines compared to today when everything is a computer on wheels.  Dad could fix anything in the 50-60's with a some wrenches, pliers and a set of screwdrivers.  Nowadays they're designed so you have to take them to a 'diagnostic center' (garage).

 

OK...senior rant over.

 

Dude with the 'super tires' could not stop smirking.  I live in OH (duh) and I know about our usury laws so he knew what he was doing and not for the first time I'm sure.  I feel for his poor Auntie as I'm sure he's scammed her more than once.

[SRTouch]

First case, creepy woman versus dreadlocked roommate -  didn’t really believe either of them. Mr. Dreads was caught lying about the underwear incident based on his own text message and probably lying about stopping payment on the check.  Also annoying – naked is not the same as in her underwear (not that running around in her underwear was appropriate with multiple roommates). Plaintiff struck me as being weird and creepy, but  with the strange multiple visitors/temp roommates situation maybe they belong together.

Turned out an easy case to predict. Month to month tenant moves out. Doesn't really matter why. Landlord's testimony is she could move out at any time, and he's not claiming no notice or back rent. He gives tenant $750 check for her security - so he's not claiming any damage when she moves. For whatever reason, when she goes to cash the check (at landlord's bank) there's a stop payment. He had multiple defenses: that he doesn't owe anything because he says tenant told him she lost first check, so he stopped payment on first and wrote a second - he never stopped payment (both versions easily proven with bank statements, which he doesn't produce) - she snuck back in and stole an iPad (which he admits was later returned) and she caused damage (last ditch effort, no pictures, and doesn't explain why he gave her a check in the first place). Dude missed a couple defenses: could have claimed he gave her the deposit in cash at some point after he stopped payment on check, or he could have said she didn't give required 30 day notice. Not good defenses, but at least as good as the ones he did use. Anyway, he's still mumbling "it's crazy" as he's ordered to give back the deposit.

Second case - Perry Mason and the Case of the Missing Oil Filter? Plaintiff was completely full of crap and her witness/boyfriend doesn’t know what “seized” means. Plaintiff wants not only a new engine (for a 250,000 mile car) but reimbursement for tickets she got when she had it towed into a restricted parking area.  Also it is unbelievable that an engine would run as long as it did with no oil (glad that JM took note of that).  With no oil, the car would first turn on the oil idiot light, then the engine will quickly overheat (with overheated oil smells and coolant temp overheating within a couple of minutes. For an old worn out engine (lots of loose tolerances), there might be enough residual oil so that it wouldn’t seize up immediately, but is still going to fail quickly. I think the oil change guy was probably correct that the engine failed from old age and extremely high mileage; at that point either the plaintiff or her boyfriend thought they had a way to get their clunker fixed on somebody else’s dime.

bottom line, plaintiff is in court with a theory but zero proof.

[AngelaHunter]

First case, creepy woman versus dreadlocked roommate

 

 Def - "I never came unto her." Text - "I was horny. Sorry about that." "I never stopped payment on the check." Check - payment cancelled. So what was he thinking? "I told those other bald-faced lies, but trust me - what I'm saying now is the truth."  Sure. We know JM is naive and gullible.

 

Plaintiff - another total weirdo. The whole situation in which she didn't mind living for two years is mind-boggling. Her voice was terribly annoying. I believed she had tons of men in, but that doesn't mean she wanted the def. Even "promiscuous" women could have standards. The hanging out in her underwear? I don't even go into my kitchen in my undies, and I don't have a multitude of strangers living in my house. She is tacky and nutty in the extreme.

 

The thing that got me was she went between saying 'there was no filter' to 'there was a filter

 

Yeah, but she had a witness. Unfortunately he couldn't be there "today."

 

Dude with the 'super tires' could not stop smirking.

 

I felt the way JM did - "disgusted." Slimy, fugly, smirking creep really thinks he's super hot, doesn't he? I loved it in the hall, when he was all on his high horse about how people who loan shark need to be punished. He's just so moral. AS IF he knew anything about that before JM explained that law in their state.

[SRTouch]

Dude with the 'super tires' could not stop smirking.  I live in OH (duh) and I know about our usury laws so he knew what he was doing and not for the first time I'm sure.  I feel for his poor Auntie as I'm sure he's scammed her more than once.

I hated this guy from the get go. Plaintiff was smart enough to get a signed loan agreement, but I think Smiley never intended to pay her anything. He needs money for refiling papers for his patent on tires that won't blow out or go flat before he takes his invention to ODOT and/or WalMart. Ok.... what's ODOT? I'm assuming maybe Ohio Department of Transportation. And why take your patent for new and improved tires to WalMart and a Department of Transportation, instead of going to Goodyear or Firestone, or really anyone who actually makes tires and might pay you for your patent? And, hey, aren't there already run-flat tires? Anyway, he claims to need money, so he goes to Auntie, and she brings in her friend, who loans him $500. She makes him sign an IOU, with a date when loan is to be repaid, along with a $300 charge - so they agree he's supposed to repay $800 for the $500 loan. Original due date comes and goes, he says he needs a little more time, and he'll be happy to pay anything as soon as she gets the money. Plaintiff falls for the glib scammer's line, enters into a new agreement agreeing to wait for an additional $100, so now Smiley happily agrees to pay $900. Scammer Smiley couldn't be happier. Now, instead of having to pay up by a certain date, it's an open ended deal, which he knows will thrown out if it ever goes to small claims. Even better in his eyes, because I'm sure he knows his state law regarding permissible interest rates, he knows he won't even have to pay the principle if she takes him to court. MM already know how she's going to rule, as she says the law has tied her hands, but she tries to shame Smiley on TV. 'Course her scorn just rolls off Smiley, he's still laughing and having a grand time in front of the cameras. Plaintiff loses case, and gets back nothing.

[OhioSongbird]

Yes SRTouch....ODOT is Ohio Dep't of Transportation.  State dep'ts/offices don't deal with individuals (unnnnlessss it's...well you know). 

 

If you have such a life changing idea take it to Shark Tank.  They would eat you alive and Mr. Wonderful would spit out the bones.

[AngelaHunter]

They would eat you alive and Mr. Wonderful would spit out the bones.

 

Ah, Kevin. We miss him terribly on our "Dragon's Den". And yeah, he would have ripped Mr.Irresistable a new one.

[AZChristian]

Real life car purchase story.  My husband is looking at a used Toyota 4 runner that is posted for sale online.  Made an appointment with the owner to take it for a test drive to our mechanic to check it out.  Guy texts my husband this morning saying that someone else is coming to look at the veehickle and it might not be available long.  Being students of JJ's and MM's law schools, we wish him luck with the meeting and tell him to let us know if the truck is still available after the weekend (because only a moron would rush right over to proceed to purchase it because the guy is "pressuring" us).  Just heard back from the seller who claims that he's a mechanic and that he can assure us that the veehickle is in excellent condition and would be happy to talk to our mechanic on the phone.  We tell him that he's more than welcome to call our mechanic and that will help him to know better what to check out when we bring the truck to him for an inspection (because only a moron would claim "we trusted hiiiimmmmmm" because he claims to be a mechanic).  I'm just finding it hilarious that this douche is trying all of the cliched stunts that we see dumbass litigants fall for all the time and he's shocked that it's not working.  

 

Inquiring minds want to know - any update on your car purchasing decision?

[teebax]

I got the sense in the tire case (btw someone should tell them run flats have been around for a long time) that the defendant is the one who suggested the interest. I've had relatives tell me if I spot them a couple hundred they'll pay me back 300. I guess I'm a loan shark and didn't know it.

I really hated that defendant and his smug attitude in the hallway. He never intended to pay her anything and then acted all indignant about usury. I hope everyone he knows saw the show and nobody gives that asshole another dime.

Also, I suspect he'll need money again long before she will. And he's now burned that bridge for a lousy $500. Idiot.

Edited April 19, 2016 by teebax

[AngelaHunter]

I got the sense in the tire case (btw someone should tell them run flats have been around for a long time) that the defendant is the one who suggested the interest.

 

Of course he suggested it. He would offer anything to get the money from her since he knew he'd never pay it back. I loved his "She's an older woman.. " as though he were some young, hot stud she couldn't resist. Unless he's prematurely aged, he's no spring chicken himself.

[SRTouch]

A case of an exchange of a 3yo boy for visitation goes bad. Plaintiff is current bf of baby momma. Baby daddy is coming to bf's house to pick up baby, but warns baby momma that there will a fight if bf is there. Of course bf is outside waiting for baby daddy (his story is he was outside to get the car seat out of his car, and then he stayed out talking to a cousin). Words are exchanged, finally baby is in daddy's car. Bf and baby momma go to get in his car to leave. Baby daddy says bf reached in car and pulled out a gun, pointed it at him and threatened him. Bf drives off with baby momma, and baby daddy gives chase (with 3yo in car), calling police to report bf for threatening him with a gun. Bf is suing for a multitude of things, false arrest, the bond, value of his junker, which was impounded etc etc for total of $5000. Not to be outdone, babby daddy is countersuing for $5000 worth of pain and suffering.

Whole case makes no sense, everybody's stories are so full of holes it's hard to know where to start. Evidence - nobody brought any to court. Well, not quite true. Sounded like maybe plaintiff's car broke down while baby momma was driving it, not when he was arrested. She left it on the side of the road with a blown radiator, and it was impounded. Defendant, aka baby daddy, has audio of her saying she junked car, while she's saying it's impounded. After lecturing everyone, MM awards everyone nothing.

Wouldn't surprise me a bit if plaintiff pulled a gun - it never makes a favorable impression when a litigant is asked how many times they've been arrested and they're unsure, this plaintiff says he's been arrested three or four times. OTOH, defendant baby daddy is an obvious trouble maker. His antics in the courtroom had me wishing JJ was around to tell him to stand still, uncross his arms, and stop with the faces. (Then Byrd and Douglas could give him a beat down - yeah I was a little upset hearing how he raced after dude he claims just pulled a gun while the 3yo was in car.) All these litigants are thugs and troublemakers unfit to take care of a goldfish, let alone a 3yo boy.

As long as I'm having Byrd cross over, Lady Sonya can come and tune up baby momma while Doyle from Judge Mathis referees. It's a whole new hit TV show, bailiffs vs litigants.

Edited April 20, 2016 by SRTouch

[SRTouch]

Once again, we have someone going coo coo for cocoapuffs (or an old lexus). This time lady finds 2004 lexus on CL. She empties her bank account, and takes money out of husband's account when she doesn't have enough. Lady looks like a grandma, except for the colorful tat covering her chest (I admit I hit the pause and tried to figure out what the tat was). Litigants all seem shady. Plaintiff is car dealer who says title was in his name, but paperwork is some company he was selling it through because he says he can't legally sell the car in a private sell (which makes me wonder about the old "dirty hands" principle). Anyway, he says granny really REALLY wanted the car, but even after swiping money from hubby was still $675 short. So, he has promissory note for the amount she was short. But, that's not what he's suing for. He wants the $675, but as long as he's asking he decides to round it up $9300+ and try to collect 10k. He may be shady, but defendant is just as bad. Nevermind that she took money from bank without telling hubby, she also has trouble answering the simplest questions. When asked for the title, she produces the contract - not sure why, I guess to bring out that seller was not the plaintiff but some company. He says the contract was his company, and he was selling it through the company to work around the rules forbidding him from selling the car opening. Buyer is working hard to convince us she's just a dumb woman who was blinded by the LEXUS and not thinking straight. Her story falls about, especially after MM starts looking at text messages. MM finally gives up trying to make sense of woman's story, and rules that plaintiff gets the $675 from the promissory note - but not the 9k for not paying on time. I was looking for some way not to give the double talking plaintiff anything, he just rubbed me the wrong way.

Last case is an almost tenant who wants back the deposit he put down for room he never moved into. Plaintiff found the room on CL met up with the landlord and put down the deposit, but then says defendant (landlord) never met up with him to give him the keys. He says defendant wouldn't answer the phone or respond to messages, and wouldn't answer the door when he went knocking on the door. Finally, he says he gave up on reaching the defendant and moved to a different apartment, and after months go by he's now suing for the deposit. Of course defendant has a different story. He admits he failed to deliver the keys the first time as promised, but says that was because of a family emergency. He says he texted an apology, and offered to give plaintiff the keys the next day, but the tenant stopped responding. Case is pretty much over once MM starts reading the text exchange. She finds enough to decide it was the plaintiff who disappeared, so defendant gets to keep deposit. However, defendant has countersuit for a couple month's rent - but the texts show he had already rented to someone. He can't collect rent twice, so countersuit is dismissed.

Edited April 20, 2016 by SRTouch

[AngelaHunter]

A case of an exchange of a 3yo boy for visitation goes bad.

 

JM: "How many priors do you have?"

Plaintiff:"Ummm....three or four."

 

I will never stop being amazed by this. If I had ever been arrested for anything, I know that day would be burned forever in my mind. For our litigants, it's just ho-hum, arrested again. It's normal. I agreed with JM that plaintiff baby mamma likes what's going on, for some creepy reason. I think JM needed to use her as interpreter, but maybe I'm the only one who could understand only about every fourth word from her b/f's mouth.

 

Once again, we have someone going coo coo for cocoapuffs (or an old lexus).

 

"I was stuck on stupid that day." Why did I get the feeling she's stuck on stupid every day? One can have a momentary lapse of judgement, but that doesn't apply to an overly tatted-up woman past middle age who is having such orgasmic thrills over a 12 year old car that she gives over 8K (some of it sneaked out of her husband's account) to a total stranger and doesn't even bother to get a receipt of any kind. Plaintiff was kind of shady and def. was kind of dumb. I mean "very" - very shady and very dumb. Perfect meeting of the minds.

 

Little weasly twerp with the freaked out "baby mamma" (how I hate that expression)who bugs him thought he could get back his deposit for the room. Does he have evidence he tried to move in? Well, sure... oh, he didn't bring it TODAY, dontcha know.

 

 

[DebbieW]

Inquiring minds want to know - any update on your car purchasing decision?

We've decided to skip the pleasure of dealing with this douche.  Too many red flags.  Although I regret the fact that I'm giving up on an opportunity for MM to bitchslap me for being stupid.

[SRTouch]

First case of the day, woman suing pet store because her puppy is sick. MM had her hands full trying to get any litigant to answer any question. Plaintiff, the new puppy owner was one of those litigants who insists on telling their story "their" way. So when asked something she had to go through some long explanation of why her answer supports her case instead of a short factual answer. At least her non-answers were entertaining, up to a point then I just wanted to gag her. Defendant store owner and her witness, store manager, had their script memorized and that was all they wanted to say. Store owner, especially, was going to deliver her memorized statement in her flat monotone despite any questions MM tried to ask. At one point MM tries to interrupt to get an answer, and defendant just talks over her - not excited or loud - just continuing with her testimony. Finally, MM gives up on the owner and calls up the witness, he starts in on his prepared statement. She's able to interrupt this dude, and gets a copy of the sale contract, signed by the plaintiff, which shows the puppy was health checked by the store's vet, and the plaintiff is to take the puppy to a vet within 14 days. Despite a lot of hemming and hawing, turns out plaintiff did not take the puppy to the vet for at least a month. Since plaintiff breached the contract, defendant not responsible for puppy's vet bills from when the puppy did finally get to the vet.

The case did allow Harvey to hop on his soap box and tell us that the best dogs are rescues. I don't know that they are the best, but I believe they are at least equal to a dog from a breeder or store. Only reason I see to go to a breeder is if you are looking for a specific breed. The last place I'd go for a dog would be a pet store.

[SRTouch]

Next case is sue-happy plaintiff who wants defendant to pay twice what his old car is worth because defendant did him a favor in 2012 and cleaned snow off his car. Really nothing to say about the case, except that the guy could give lessons on how to get over on your landlord with bogus lawsuits. Plaintiff already has an extra year in the apartment from the time landlord wanted to evict him because of a settlement in an earlier lawsuit, and now he wants $2400 (?) for damages to a $1200 car. His mistake was coming to TPC.

Next up, another tenant who wants back a deposit he put down on an apartment that he never moved into. His story is he wanted the apartment, but it needed repairs. He put down $300 to hold the place while the work was being done, but he says work progress was to slow. He really has trouble making his case. He found the place in Sept, but it wasn't supposed to be ready either Nov or Dec, depending on which story you believe. Thing is, plaintiff bailed before either date, wanting his deposit back in Oct. Nope, even though plaintiff changed his mind a day after paying the deposit (after gf says she doesn't trust landlord to have place ready) he doesn't get back the nonrefundable deposit. This seems to me to be a case where the plaintiff honestly didn't know deposit was nonrefundable, so he thought he was in the right. I think that most landlord's would have returned the deposit, even though they may not have had to. Especially since the place wouldn't be ready to move in for another 6 weeks.

[AngelaHunter]

Only reason I see to go to a breeder is if you are looking for a specific breed.

 

Rescues have dogs of all breeds. If you need to go to a breeder, make sure that breeder is reputable and not just using their dogs to pump out puppies and make money. I skipped this case as soon as I heard the idiot plaintiff say she bought a puppy at a pet store.

 

plaintiff who wants defendant to pay twice what his old car is worth because defendant did him a favor in 2012 and cleaned snow off his car.

 

Hated plaintiff and JM did too. I know his type since I grew up around people like him - loudmouthed, ignorant jerks. He had a chip on the paint of his 16 year old car? Well, of course def. should buy him a new ve-hickle.

 

tenant who wants back a deposit he put down on an apartment that he never moved into.

 

I"ve learned from these shows that if you want to a be a liar, being stupid as well is very detrimental. One or two questions from JM and he folded like a cheap suit. Little twerp. "I think I should get it back anyway."

 

 

[Cynna]

Ah, Kevin. We miss him terribly on our "Dragon's Den". And yeah, he would have ripped Mr.Irresistable a new one.

You might get to see a lot of him, he's apparently got Trump-envy and wants to run as leader of the Canadian Conservative Party. UGH.

[seacliffsal]

I just loved yesterday's episode, nicely summarized above. All three plaintiffs never had a leg to stand on and MM let them know that. I really hate the 'somebody else has to pay for my mistake/oversight/misjudgment' mentality that so many people have. And then they all seem stunned, stunned I tell you, because they are told that they are responsible for their 'mistake/oversight/misjudgment.' This episode was just really satisfying to me.

[SRTouch]

First case is handyman/contractor dude suing to get the rest of his money for work. Dude gave defendant great price because she was wife's coworker who complained she didn't have much money. It wasn't clear who was buying materials, but even if the $700 was just labor she was getting an awful good deal. Surprise, surprise, they actually have a contract. He's supposed to put in some hardwood flooring, retile bathroom, paint, remove/install backyard fence. She expects a professional remodel, while paying for a friend/coworker's hubby to do some work. She complains about guy bringing 12yo son to help. That's a no-go on professional worksite, but perfectly fine for a friend's hubby doing a little work. I SO wanted MM to ask what construction equipment she thought was unsafe for kid to use. Best guess would be dad was having kid use power saw to cut floorboards. I think she got exactly what she paid for - but not what she wanted. Despite the fact that they agree in text messages that balance owed is $130, guy wants 3k. MM gives him the $130.

Next up baker with ridiculous suit. Customer ordered a $70 cake, but never picked it up. Now he wants defendant to not only pay for cake, but $88 in storage and court costs. He tells MM he's spent almost double the cost of cake on the lawsuit ($65 to file case and $40 to have defendant served). MM says it's obvious not the money but the principle. Defendant says he went back and canceled order, but has no proof. MM orders him to pay court costs and price of cake. Defendant is a jerk, laughing about stiffing bakery in the hallterview.

Sidenote: hmmmm, maybe not so ridiculous. Having once worked at a pizza place, I hate, hate, HATE guys like the defendant who think it's funny to order food, then refuse to pay. Even worse for us, our delivery people worked strictly for tips, delivery fees and sales commission - so when some one stiffs the store the delivery person not only doesn't get paid, but loses time and cost of gas (our drivers got nothing by the hour). So, on second thought I'm glad bakery dude sued and MM made the jerk pay.

Last case was something about a junker that was impounded. Defendant was one of those guys who shouts instead of talking, so he's shouting over the judge when she tries to ask him something. I got tired of listening to guy yell, so FF'ed to hallterview - nothing worth hearing there either.

Edited April 21, 2016 by SRTouch

[AngelaHunter]

Defendant is a jerk, laughing about stiffing bakery in the hallterview.

 

Hated that slimy creep. There's something so small and jerky about stiffing someone for that amount of money. People don't work for nothing. Not sure if I'd so it, but I don't blame plaintiff for suing him. At the very least, he was revealed as a petty scammer on TV.

 

Tthe contractor case made me realize just how useless witness statements are. Upon hearing just the facts and before watching, I completely thought the plaintiff was in the right. After hearing the answers to JM's questioning, I saw he wasn't. Yes, the def. was arrogant and mouthy with a severe listening problem, but if someone working in my home asked me if I were on my period, I'd throw him out. Plaintiff's attempt to say that he was basically doing a good deed by lowering his price was total BS. He needed the money obviously. He must have a hard time getting jobs when the people who hire him see a child helping out. I wouldn't like it if I were paying for skilled work.  

[teebax]

If someone had the audacity to ask me if I were on my period while trying to get my business, it'd be the last conversation he ever had with me. I know Harvey said it doesn't rise to the level of being able to breach, but I'd have breached the hell out of that contract and tossed him out on his ass. And Harvey is a pig who wouldn't know any better anyway.

Sorry for the rant. That's one of my many pet peeves. I hate when people say that shit.

The defendant wasn't my favorite litigant by far, but I could understand her attitude toward him if that's how he behaved. I thought the verdict was perfect, since she did let him continue to work.

I'm enjoying this week of new episodes. I hope we get more new ones next week. TPC tends to take weeks off at a time.

[AngelaHunter]

If someone had the audacity to ask me if I were on my period while trying to get my business, it'd be the last conversation he ever had with me. I know Harvey said it doesn't rise to the level of being able to breach, but I'd have breached the hell out of that contract and tossed him out on his ass. And Harvey is a pig who wouldn't know any better anyway.

Sorry for the rant. That's one of my many pet peeves. I hate when people say that shit.

 

I hate it too. Harvey? The shyster troll who makes vulgar, degrading cracks/ancient dumb jokes about women every single frickin' day? Yeah, of course he wouldn't see anything wrong with that - probably thought it was funny. I think if I were walking in and heard him say about me, "POKER?? He hardly knew' er!" I'm march outside and punch him right in his face. 

 

I"m sure def. was difficult to deal with, but that's what can happen when you're dealing directly with clients. He seemed jealous that she has a BMW and a bunch of expensive purses, as though that's any of his business. Did he think he could quote her a figure and then say, "Oh, wait - you have expensive stuff so I'm raising my price."?

[DoctorK]

 

He seemed jealous that she has a BMW and a bunch of expensive purses, as though that's any of his business. Did he think he could quote her a figure and then say, "Oh, wait - you have expensive stuff so I'm raising my price."?

Actually to me it was just the opposite. She told him how broke she was and how hard her life was and she had a lot of trouble just keeping her family fed, so he knocked down the price several times. When he found out that she was living well and collecting designer purses, he felt mislead. She definitely did not raise my opinion of her in the hallterview when she was asked if she really has 50 purses, and she siad no, only thirty, I donated 20 to Salvation Army (?) and then smirked about it. I would feel the same way if a panhandler talked me into donating by telling me he was broke, homeless, hungry, no transportation, etc. Then I saw him get into a car worth four times as much as mine and drive away.

Edited April 22, 2016 by DoctorK

[teebax]

Actually to me it was just the opposite. She told him how broke she was and how hard her life was and she had a lot of trouble just keeping her family fed, so he knocked down the price several times. When he found out that she was living well and collecting designer purses, he felt mislead. She definitely did not raise my opinion of her in the hallterview when she was asked if she really has 50 purses, and she siad no, only thirty, I donated 20 to Salvation Army (?) and then smirked about it. I would feel the same way if a panhandler talked me into donating by telling me he was broke, homeless, hungry, no transportation, etc. Then I saw him get into a car worth four times as much as mine and drive away.

I can certainly understand his irritation with her. However, we don't know that she's living well. If she has a newer BMW and an expensive purse habit, she could very well be living check to check. She's probably like most litigants we see and living way above her means.

 

I think the contractor just learned a hard lesson; don't let anyone's hard luck story influence your pricing. You quote the job in a way that will cover your expenses and allow for a reasonable profit, or you walk away from the job. Let the next guy work for free if he's willing!

[AngelaHunter]

I hope the HallClown got gassed out by slumlord plaintiff with the gigantic armpit sweat marks. I'm glad JM gave both sides hell. Defendants didn't mind letting their children live in that disgusting hovel, filled with mold and leaded peeling paint for two years, until they couldn't pay the rent anymore. Everyone got what they deserved  - nothing.  

 

Tree cutter had one hell of a nerve. If I saw that giant rig parked on my property, I'd have a fit. The fact that plaintiff's yard looked like hell anyway is not the point. Anyway, it's like JM said: Plaintiff was only asking for 260$ - not exactly a BOE-NANZA - yet def. who, was clearly in the wrong, went through all kinds of gyrations to avoid paying that nominal sum.

 

Oil filter brouhaha: Yeah I agree with JM. Someone who thinks a car should make a loud knocking sound as the "oil settles" after an oil change probably is pretty clueless. I believed the def. mechanic who said the old POS was already knocking before he worked on it.

[DoctorK]

 

pretty clueless

That pretty much described the plaintiff and his pitiful excuse for an expert witness. I was afraid that JM was going to fooled by the outside dimensions of the two filters and not see what the defendant mechanic was pointing out, that the sealing ring was the same size on both filters. The worst part that went by without anyone noticing was when the plaintiff and his "mechanic" claimed that installing the "wrong" oil filter caused coolant to get into the oil and that destroyed the engine. There is no liquid pathway from the cooling system into the oil system unless something is seriously wrong, either a blown head gasket or even worse a cracked head. I was relieved that JM was not dazzled by the pretty FRAM filter with its big diameter, pretty paint, and ritzy gripping surface on the end (which is actually a nice feature especially if you have very little space around your oil filter).

[teebax]

We had one of the most obnoxious litigants in history and I couldn't log on to post about him! The defendant in yesterday's first case was such an asshole. He started up before they even began the case. What a jerk. And then he kept making nasty comments about the plaintiff and calling her names. It's funny how horrible you become when you have the audacity to ask to be repaid money. He didn't think all those things about her before he asked her for money though. I wanted to punch him through my TV screen!

[AlleC17]

1 hour ago, teebax said:

We had one of the most obnoxious litigants in history and I couldn't log on to post about him! The defendant in yesterday's first case was such an asshole. He started up before they even began the case. What a jerk. And then he kept making nasty comments about the plaintiff and calling her names. It's funny how horrible you become when you have the audacity to ask to be repaid money. He didn't think all those things about her before he asked her for money though. I wanted to punch him through my TV screen!

I could not stand that guy...he came in rolling his eyes at just about every word, and his last comment  about 'This is the People's Court and should be about the people and not about the judge'.  WTF?  Jerk...I was so glad she tossed him out.

[SRTouch]

Quote

Note: man I change. Had a terrible time getting this posted in the new system, ending up going old school because I couldn't get the buttons to quote the message I wanted quoted. Now, without a preview button, I'm just hoping this will turn out

Edited April 28, 2016 by SRTouch
3rd times a charm

[SRTouch]

23 hours ago, AlleC17 said:

I could not stand that guy...he came in rolling his eyes at just about every word, and his last comment  about 'This is the People's Court and should be about the people and not about the judge'.  WTF?  Jerk...I was so glad she tossed him out.

I'm with you. Defendant was a classic narcissit. 

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/what-mentally-strong-people-dont-do/201511/7-things-only-narcissists-do

Note: man, I hate change. Had a terrible time getting this posted in the new system, ending up going old school because I couldn't get the buttons to quote the message I wanted quoted. Now, without a preview button, I'm just hoping this will turn out---hmmm, didn't work right first time, maybe #2

Edited April 28, 2016 by SRTouch
3rd times a charm

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

The defendant in yesterday's first case was such an asshole. He started up before they even began the case. What a jerk.

I'm not violent, but I really wanted to punch him.

Quote

He didn't think all those things about her before he asked her for money though.

Exactly what I was thinking -  he didn't mind her craziness, mock her clothes or call her "Big Bird" then. What a hateful little bitch he was and so not as hot as he thinks he is.

Chiming in here about how much I hate change too!

[SRTouch]

First case: bf suing gf for treating herself to fancy hotel stay with his money after an argument. Really not much of a case. Gf admits she spent money belonging to plaintiff, and in the end MM tells her to pay him back.

Next case: Extremely bad breakup leads to gf getting restraining order against bf, bf getting beaten with baseball bats, bf spending a week in jail for breaking restraining order, and finally gf's car is chopped with an ax. Now they're both suing each other for 3k. Nobody's story makes any sense to me, and I believe not a word from either of them. The only good thing is that, despite 9 year relationship, no children are involved. Case shouldn't have been on today, since there are pending charges against bf. MM totals car out and gives gf 2 grand, but nothing for pain and suffering. Bf gets nada.

Last case is longtime tenant vs landlord over deposit. Rough justice results in tenant getting part of what he wanted.

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

bf suing gf for treating herself to fancy hotel stay with his money after an argument

I guess I have no sense of humour because I didn't find Mr. "I got a 10K settlement I had to hide from the government and blew the money in two months of fast food and new threads and I have FIVE kids" nearly as amusing as did the audience or JM.

 I mean, couldn't he have skimped on a few Chucky Cheese/Waffle House runs and bought some teeth for his wrecked grill? I wonder how much went to those kids, since he mentioned them as an afterthought. I'm sure he's been paying his child support faithfully though.

Quote

Extremely bad breakup leads to gf getting restraining order against bf

Oh, dear. "He was a drug addict who choked me and hit me and pulled my hair so I only stayed with him for NINE years. I LOOOOOVE him, even though he got a bit stabby with his cousin."  Lucky she had some "gentlemen" just hanging out with baseball bats when Romeo returned to woo his Juliet. What a blessing they didn't breed. A blessing and a miracle, although I have a feeling it wasn't due to any diligent birth control, the concept of which is a total mystery to most litigants here.

. Plaintiff: "Yes, I have evidence with a police report and lots of witnesses, but I couldn't be bothered bringing the police report and the witnesses aren't here."

Quote

Last case is longtime tenant vs landlord over deposit.

Hmm. Hubby, who did the dealings with plaintiff, just couldn't make it. I'm not sure if JM believed the husband when she called him, but wasn't prepared to give defendant the value of  brand-new chair and stuff. I wonder if any other landlords watch this show and if so if it ever occurs to them that learning basic landlord/tenant laws just may be a good idea. Nope, I don't think so.

[Bunnyhop]

On ‎3‎/‎25‎/‎2016 at 5:14 PM, AngelaHunter said:

Please raise your hands if you've forked over $9000 to some co-worker and her brother (or whoever) - mature people who cannot get their own loans because of "bad credit" = they don't pay their debts.  No one? I figured. Plaintiff is either a loan shark or a complete idiot. Not sure which.

 

 

The best part was they thought JM was going to reward them for their behavior. Plantiff - a well past middle-aged law student - doesn't seem to think that driving drunk, getting his license suspended and circumventing the law to get his old POS car registered in someone else's name might be a problem for someone hoping to be a lawyer. The fact that he caved so easily and admitted to his lying ("I let him drive my car and register it because I'm such a wonderful person. Oh, okay. I did it because I like to drive drunk and can't keep the car in my name.") is tragic.  Def seems to be unable to drive a car without racking up tickets. It's a good thing he lost his coaching job. Who wants someone so amoral, stupid and irresponsible teaching kids?

 

I was just mind-boggled that someone would pay that much to rent a place. Even with my terrible math, it comes to something like 38K  year to pay someone else's mortgage. I guess plaintiff has the money and doesn't mind spending it that way, but it just hurts me terribly.

Years ago, before he retired, Mr. Bunnyhop worked for the police department in an office.  He worked with a woman who, after a lifetime of bad decisions, decided to get serious and add drug addiction to her resume-heroin and meth...at age 52.  When she and hubby inevitably nearly lost their house, she found a co-worker who loaned her $7,000!  This lady was just a very nice woman, naïve to be sure, who thought she was doing a good deed for a woman whom she considered a friend..  Naturally, meth head started avoiding her the minute she got the dough.  Meth head eventually lost her job because she told the lieutenant in charge of that office that she was missing a lot of work because she and her husband were drug addicts.  He had to explain to her that she worked for the police department and he really couldn't accept or ignore that explanation.  Well meth lady did have a retirement acct. to which she was entitled at the time of termination.  Mr. Bunnyhop immediately called Nice Lady to tell her that Bad Lady was headed to City Hall to pick up a large check right now.  Nice Lady popped up at the retirement office and drove her former "friend" directly to a bank.  Nice Lady treated everyone in the Traffic Unit to 100 pcs. of Popeyes's chicken with all the sides.  Sometimes the good guys win!