The People's Court - General Discussion

[SRTouch]

FIRST CASE: Dad suing 50yo daughter over insurance money from car wreck. He says he bought the daughter the a couple cars. She wrecked the first car, so he bought her a second car. Cars remained in his name, while she paid insurance. When car #2 is wrecked, insurance pays off car loan and she pockets 2k insurance check. He feels that money should have come to him. He insists she was supposed to be making monthly payments to him all along, and never paid anything. She says it was a gift all along. MM forgets the case and goes off on tangent about how the daughter in question was the only one of his 4 kids that talked to the dad - now none of his kids talk to him because of dad's new gf after mom's death (mom had been dead for years before gf came along). Finally, after bunch of stuff that belongs on Dr Phil,  JM tells them they need family counseling, and oh by the way, car was a gift as dad never expected to get paid, so daughter gets to keep money.

SECOND CASE:  Homeowner suing over shoddy sidewalk repair. He says worker was supposed to clean cracks in walkway and fill them in. Worker was actually there to work on air conditioner, and says sidewalk was a side job. Turns out there was no contract, and of course they're in court now arguing about what was actually supposed to be done for the $1500 homeowner paid. Text messages do in the worker, as they show defendant's partner (partner conveniently unable to come to court) acting like he knew the job was sub par, and promising to redo it, making appointments and not showing up etc. Homeowner gets back the money, and Harv gives us the old "use a licensed contractor and get a contractor" speech.

THIRD CASE:  feuding roommates fight over rent and deposit after defendant moves out. Plaintiff says defendant was slob who had crush on her and peed on the carpet and smoked in his room. Defendant says it was plaintiff's niece/nephew/pets who peed on carpet, and he was uncomfortable with plaintiff and her bf (who BTW was the third roommate) having sex on living room couch. Defendant found room through facebook ad, and his church vouched for him. Took zero time for defendant to start getting on my nerves. He's one of those speed talkers, who not only talks fast, but starts to answer before judge is finished asking her question. He says he's no longer with the church, but he used to be a pastor or associate pastor. I can't imagine this guy counselling anyone on anything. When plaintiff confronts him about not paying rent, he claims the rent was paid, and besides some lawyer told him he could invoke squatters' rights and he would have two months to prepare a case to prove he paid the rent. He tells JM he paid, but didn't bring the proof to court. He starts to get wound and is going to educate JM on California squatter rights law, and she shoots him down. Squatter rights dude has to pay.

[AlleC17]

21 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

OMG, I was thinking exactly the same thing. She bugged the hell out of me - the theatrics, the exaggerated facial expressions, the "Boom!", the "Maybe... I suppose.. could have been." Making cracks about how the plaintiff's car is an old heap and the bumper was probaby dragging on the ground before? Not cute at all. Judge Judy would have shut that down pronto. The best part is that someone who has her own show (I didn't recognize her because I never watch reality garbage) doesn't pay for car insurance. It lapsed the day before the accident (we've never heard that before), and of course the ins. company never informed her. On top of everything else, she's a typical TPC liar. I don't even have my own show, but somehow I manage to have continuous coverage.

 

I couldn't stand her at all!  She was trying so hard to be oh so cute and failing miserably.  And what a bitch:  Z minus list celebrity not paying out when it was clearly her fault?  Methinks she wanted the exposure from an appearance on a show people actually watch.  Glad the plaintiff won.

[DoctorK]

Quote

MM forgets the case and goes off on tangent about how the daughter in question was the only one of his 4 kids that talked to the dad

I think you nailed it here. The actual case got lost when JM went off on a family therapy wild goose chase. To me it was obvious that the daughters were greedy manipulative parasites, living off of Dad, and just waiting for their inheritance from Dad so they could continue their slacker life styles. How dare Dad meet another woman after only three years of his wife's passing! How dare he try to be happy in the remainder of his life! Most importantly, how dare he spend money with his fiancé to enjoy life, money that the greedy pigs are just waiting to inherit.  I think Dad made everything clear in the hallterview when he said he was born poor, worked his butt off his whole life to support his family and raise his kids, who now want him to keep supporting them. He was just tired of it all and I don't blame him. I hope he and his fiancé do well and enjoy their life together, let the blood sucking pathetic parasites take care of themselves. Oh by the way, I didn't like the daughters in case anyone is wondering.

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

Oh by the way, I didn't like the daughters in case anyone is wondering.

 I think you made that pretty clear. Pretty, pretty, pretty clear. I haven't even seen this ep yet, and I hate her already. How dare anyone expect or demand an inheritance? It's a gift and you don't demand gifts. Well, I don't anyway.

ETA:

Now that I've watched: Those sisters! How dare Dad's new woman (and how dare HE have a woman in his life?) object to them, along with the brother, charging into the home like renegade buffaloes any time they feel like it? Utterly disgusting. Def. should have used some of that inappropriately obtained insurance money to buy herself a bra that can deal with that massive load. Ugh. I can only hope Dad changed his will and won't leave a penny to those bloated, grasping horrors.

Then we had the amoral, lying, scamming, squatting and filthy "pastor". He's a creep, too! I'm sure he gave much spiritual guidance to the parishioners. Thanks, Rev. You, like all the litigants who go out of their way to flash the crosses on their necks and profess their faith even as they lie like rugs and cheat their fellow man, confirm that my long-held atheism has been the right choice.

Edited May 10, 2016 by AngelaHunter

[teebax]

On 5/9/2016 at 4:01 PM, SRTouch said:

She HAS to be a celebrity, after all her fender bender made TMZ.

That was the funniest part of the case. There's nothing that insults a so-called celeb more than being told nobody knows who the hell they are.

I once had a customer at a bar I worked at who was a big-time singer at the time. We're talking multiple number 1 singles. The problem was, I didn't care for the type of music she sang. When she pulled the do-you-know-who-I-am card, I could say with all honesty that I did not. She'd have been better off not telling me, because I shared the story of how horrible she acted with everyone I knew.

[cattykit]

I loved how MM used "Pastor" almost as an epithet.  She was not impressed by his piety and his fast talking.

I think I'd kill to see footage of MM when she was a prosecutor.  I want to see how she tore into those lying scumbag defendants.

I like MM family therapy cases like AngelaHunter likes dog cases, so as soon as I caught SRTouch's recap, I FFd past the case.  I would have been outraged at how sharper than a serpent's tooth it is to have a thankless child.  Hope DD realizes she's sucked out her last dime from Daddy.  And she looked old enough not to be the daughter, too.  I hope daddy and the fiancee go on a wild, world cruise and burn the money.  Or adopt some orphan and leave all the money to them.

[SRTouch]

19 minutes ago, cattykit said:

I hope daddy and the fiancee go on a wild, world cruise and burn the money.  Or adopt some orphan and leave all the money to them.

I think they said Dad was suing the good daughter, and he had already removed the others from the will. I think he should get one of those parrots that live 80 years, create a living trust leaving his vast estate to the bird, with gf in charge of trust. No, in truth I doubt there is any vast estate. I think he owns the house and that's about it. Daughter says the car belonged to his boss' wife at the car dealership. Soooo dad is still working and making payments on a car for 50yo daughter? When car is totaled, I understood dad is still making payments and part of the insurance money goes to car loan. Nope, I don't see a big windfall coming to the 4 kids when dad passes, whether he takes my advice about the parrot, or he leaves everything to kids and they're squabbling over the estate.

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

I think I'd kill to see footage of MM when she was a prosecutor.

I've often had the same thought, probably after she grilled a really disgusting lowlife scammer, saying, "Do you think you're a challenge to ME? I have cross examined murderers! YOU are nothing."

There must be footage somewhere.

Quote

I once had a customer at a bar I worked at who was a big-time singer at the time.

Teaser! Give us a hint... please? We won't tell anyone.

[teebax]

3 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

I've often had the same thought, probably after she grilled a really disgusting lowlife scammer, saying, "Do you think you're a challenge to ME? I have cross examined murderers! YOU are nothing."

There must be footage somewhere.

Teaser! Give us a hint... please? We won't tell anyone.

Her name rhymes with Mailer Pain.

[Brooklynista]

5 hours ago, teebax said:

Her name rhymes with Mailer Pain.

Rhymes with Mailer Pain? ??  She had one hit and had the nerve to be a diva? You need at least 2 hits for diva status.

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

Rhymes with Mailer Pain? ??

Ah! A name from the misty past popped into my head, (no face, no song,but just the name) I had to google it to see if I hadn't just made it up.

"Do you know who I am?" Ha. Even now that I do, impressed I am not.

[Bunnyhop]

18 hours ago, DoctorK said:

I think you nailed it here. The actual case got lost when JM went off on a family therapy wild goose chase. To me it was obvious that the daughters were greedy manipulative parasites, living off of Dad, and just waiting for their inheritance from Dad so they could continue their slacker life styles. How dare Dad meet another woman after only three years of his wife's passing! How dare he try to be happy in the remainder of his life! Most importantly, how dare he spend money with his fiancé to enjoy life, money that the greedy pigs are just waiting to inherit.  I think Dad made everything clear in the hallterview when he said he was born poor, worked his butt off his whole life to support his family and raise his kids, who now want him to keep supporting them. He was just tired of it all and I don't blame him. I hope he and his fiancé do well and enjoy their life together, let the blood sucking pathetic parasites take care of themselves. Oh by the way, I didn't like the daughters in case anyone is wondering.

And how dare he live in his own home. The 50 year old "children" kept referring to it as "my mother's house" as though their father was a squatter. I lost both of my parents within a few months of each other and, happily, one of my brothers bought the family home.  While we were always welcome at Mom and Dad's house, it's my brother's house now and we would never dream of coming and going as we did when our parents were alive.

[teebax]

4 hours ago, Brooklynista said:

Rhymes with Mailer Pain? ??  She had one hit and had the nerve to be a diva? You need at least 2 hits for diva status.

It looks like she had a few top ten hits, but I didn't recognize her nor was I into her music. I assumed they were number 1's but what do I know?

You're right though, not big enough for that diva card. On second thought, I don't think anyone is important enough to be able to treat service staff like shit.

Edited May 11, 2016 by teebax

[teebax]

25 minutes ago, Bunnyhop said:

And how dare he live in his own home. The 50 year old "children" kept referring to it as "my mother's house" as though their father was a squatter. I lost both of my parents within a few months of each other and, happily, one of my brothers bought the family home.  While we were always welcome at Mom and Dad's house, it's my brother's house now and we would never dream of coming and going as we did when our parents were alive.

I think it's so sad that they seemed to resent his moving on. It had been three years. I guess they thought he should just build a shrine to her and live out his years alone. They hadn't even bothered to meet the new woman. If my father or mother passed on, I would be thrilled if the remaining parent found someone else to love.

When they were going on and on about their mother's house and their mother's bed, I wished JM would point out that their mother is dead, and those things are no longer hers.

i can't imagine just barging into a house as if I owned the place, especially if there's a new wife or fiancé there. And a 50'ish woman should buy her own fucking car. I found it outrageous that she kept the insurance money. It may have been legal, but it was immoral and rude.

I suspect his ungrateful children will need him before he needs them. He's better off without them, in my opinion.

[SRTouch]

FIRST CASE:  more family squabbling over an estate. Extremely arrogant defendant shows disdain for JM and TPC by showing up with lame story of nonappraisal of artwork from the estate after dad dies. I'm know nothing about artwork, so don't have any idea what something like that would be worth. MM ruled it was worth 5k, either because she does know, or because Douglas is unarmed and she thought he might get in trouble if she had him beat the dude upside the head with all of America watching. Just for me, I would have been happy to look the other way - dude deserved a beat down. Let me rephrase that, I would have watched, but seen nothing.

SECOND CASE:  Poor plaintiff chewed too many lead paint chips as a kid and he's a wee bit slow. He appears to have trouble figuring out how to come into court, what with those confusing batting gates. He rents an apartment, and a couple months into the year lease he wants out. Defendant landlord agrees to let him out of the lease if plaintiff forfeits part of the deposit and finds replacement tenant. New tenant moves in, and defendant returns $500 of the deposit even though plaintiff hasn't paid last month's rent. Plaintiff sues anyway. MM questions why landlord gave $500 back when last month rent hasn't been paid. I see two possibilities. #1 it's like plaintiff says, they had a verbal agreement that a bunch of work was supposed to be done and 1st month's rent wasn't due while the work was being done. Or #2 defendant figures it's worth $500 to not have to deal with troublesome tenant for the year. Poor plaintiff remains lost after hearing verdict like he can't figure out if he's won or lost.

LAST CASE:  Party girl says she paid twice for the party venue, and wants a refund of the $400 overpayment. Defendant has different story, she says party girl didn't overpay, and in fact still owes $300. I take instant dislike to smiley plaintiff - just something about the big open mouth smile with all those white teeth as defendant is being introduced. Loosey goosey arrangement, and I don't see how either side can prove much of anything. Plaintiff sold tickets, but doesn't know how many she sold, and besides some of her guests didn't buy tickets. Defendant owns the bar, but the bar was open to the public so doesn't know how many were her guests. After breaking out the calculator for some rough justice, MM orders defendant to return $220.

Edited May 11, 2016 by SRTouch
Correction

[BubblingKettle]

That second case made me cringe, with Benjamin Button on one side and a guy who non-verbally said FML in every way on the other side.

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

more family scrambling over an estate.

Nice. Once again, hyena-like siblings ripping apart a parent's corpse. Nothing new there, but I always enjoy seeing useless, incompetent and shifty lawyers get a tear-down from Judge M. She's especially virulent when said non-lawyers think she's stupid. "I brought a copy of this thing. That's proof positive I don't have it anymore, right? What, you expect me to prove I had it appraised? I know that's my whole defense, but it's not relevant." I see why he's not practicing any longer.

Quote

Poor plaintiff chewed too many lead paint chips as a kid and he's a wee bit slow.

I don't know what was wrong with him, but that was painful to watch and listen to.

Quote

Party girl says she paid twice for the party venue

Business people who have no idea how to conduct business. Nothing new there either.

Edited May 11, 2016 by AngelaHunter

[Jamoche]

23 hours ago, teebax said:

She'd have been better off not telling me, because I shared the story of how horrible she acted with everyone I knew.

Mom was a US Customs Inspector who nearly had a football player deported for line-cutting. He'd have been better off not telling everyone who he was too.

OK, technically not line-cutting, but that's what drew her attention - he kept cutting in line, claiming he was an oh-so-important Dallas Cowboy, and getting sent to the back. Finally it's his turn, and Mom, frustrated with the BS, takes an extra close look at his paperwork. Oops, it says he's the one and only person who can do one specific job *for LA*. And if he hadn't been broadcasting it she wouldn't have known, or if she had, well, paperwork lags when your job changes, the agents have discretion. In this case - back to Immigration with you, and the Cowboys lawyers have to get out of bed at 3AM.

[OhioSongbird]

Ok...y'all drivin' me crazy here.  Can't for the life of me figure out who the diva was.....and I'm a musician and collect/sell vintage LP's!

Getting caught up on eps.  The mooch niece was infuriating.  45 and she hasn't accomplished anything except marriage and kids (whom she doesn't take care of).  Medical ass't/tech my ass......  Loved Auntie.  I wanna be her when I'm 81 (actually sooner than I care to admit)....;-)

ETA....oops--got my shows mixed up.  JJ had the mooch niece, not JM.

My bad...

Edited May 12, 2016 by OhioSongbird

[cattykit]

1 hour ago, OhioSongbird said:

Ok...y'all drivin' me crazy here.  Can't for the life of me figure out who the diva was.....and I'm a musician and collect/sell vintage LP's!

Teebax can blink once for yes and two for no, but I thought the clue was for Taylor Dayne.

[DoctorK]

Quote

a football player deported for line-cutting.

I was amused the first time I went across the atlantic in business class, I got to Gatwick and was looking at the long customs lines when a pleasant lady from Delta came up to me and looked at my luggage tags  and walked me over to an unmarked doorway to a special customs gate and I was through in about two minutes.

Edited May 12, 2016 by DoctorK
cut out extraneous stuff

[OhioSongbird]

Thank yooooou cattykit.  

  *face palm...duh*

[Rick Kitchen]

That guy who was suing his landlord was ... squirrely.

 

And the lawyer/executor/brother was dirty as could be.  I wonder how he and the other brother worked things out.  Maybe they split the value of the painting.

[Jamoche]

14 hours ago, Rick Kitchen said:

That guy who was suing his landlord was ... squirrely.

 

And the lawyer/executor/brother was dirty as could be.  I wonder how he and the other brother worked things out.  Maybe they split the value of the painting.

Probably headed right back to court over it.

[Rick Kitchen]

Well, they did say there was still litigation going on over another painting, but that was probably worth more than People's Court's $5000 limit.

[AngelaHunter]

Today's first case was uplifting. We had Father of the Year... oh wait. What we actually had was one of the worst, most low-life, disgusting, and despicable pieces of shit ever seen here. So revolting was he that JM had to order him out, lest she vomit just from looking at him. I was so revolted I can't even go on.

Guy with carpet problems - If you're going to lie you need to be a quick thinker:

JM: Has an exterminator been in your apartment?
Plaintiff: I don't have bugs!

JM: Has an exterminator been in your apartment?

Plaintiff: Uhh.... umm... no?

The discolouration certainly looked to be right where an exterminator would spray. BTW, who the hell pays to get wall-to-wall carpet in a rented apartment?

I shouldn't be surprised, though. Someone I worked with paid to put all hardwood floors in her rented duplex. Boggled my mind, it did.

Last case of the incoherent little dipshit who wants all his money back for a used car after defendant offered to do whatever would make him happy. Don't think so. Buh bye!

[SRTouch]

First case is new contender for deadbeat dad of of time. 20yo is raising her three younger brothers. Dad hasn't been around for 5 years, and drugged out mom left kids alone 2 years ago. Dear old dad shows up looking for a place to live, after a fight with his gf. The 20yo daughter let's dad move in, but tells him he needs to pay $550 a month rent. (Right off the bat, dad gets in trouble interrupting testimony.) Dad moves in, doesn't contribute towards the bills or rent. In court dad insists there was never an agreement to pay rent, that yes he works, but he's saving his money so he can get his own place (and buy his pot). His daughter has no right to tell him he can't smoke pot in front of the minor boys, or that he needs to turn off lights when not needed etc, gosh darn it, he's the father, who does she think she is anyway!?!

MM asks the girl about the mother leaving, and then asks daddy if he know where mom went. He says he doesn't know or care. Whoops, that sets off MM, not that she really needs a reason to go off on dad. Dad tells the judge all that is irrelevant to the case. As we all know, judges love having litigants educate them on the law, and tell them what is and isn't relevant.

Now JM asks daughter about her accusation that he stole from her. She says she had saved and bought Christmas presents for her brothers. Big blow over dad smoking pot one day, and Dad moves out (without notice) Dec 19 while she was at work and boys are at school, taking the boys' gift wrapped presents and jewerly given to her by an aunt.

Finally, it's dad's turn to give his side. Pretty much everything he says accelerates his downhill slide to deadbeat dad-hood. The crowning blow is when he says it's not his fault their mom bred 4 kids. That really gets MM going, and she tells him about the latest thing that men can use to prevent becoming a father - a condom. When he left, he went to live with his mom - guess he's still saving for his own place. Once again, dad interrupts, and MM is fed up and kicks him out, saying she can't stand to look at him another second. Dad hangs around for Hallterview and tells us he's willing to do anything to mend fences and have a relationship with his kids, even give up reefer.

My questions afterwards: how many other kids does dad have in the wings? He says he's working, and she says she gets housing assistance. Is the State making him pay child support?

[Jamoche]

She doesn't need to have an agreement for the sperm donor to pay rent; he should be paying *child support*.

Props to the camera crew for getting every eyeroll and smug look.

[Brooklynista]

I wanted JM to ask Father of the Year if he was taking his kids with him to the new imaginary apartment he was saving up for.

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

 doesn't contribute towards the bills or rent.

Well, what 40 year old man whouldn't expect his 20 year old daughter to support him AND the carelessly spawned fruits of his loins? Bitch should have shut up about his drugging. None of her business, is it? He's a grown man. Gotta do his thing!

I think if JM could have ordered Douglas to go over and beat the shit out of him she would have.

[arejay]

Quote

14 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

I think if JM could have ordered Douglas to go over and beat the shit out of him she would have.

Thaaaannk you, Douglas!

Edited May 13, 2016 by arejay

[Katt]

Those litigants have been on JJ. The daughter was suing for the cost of the Jordans she bought for her brothers, IIRC. Pretty sure she didn't get it. 

[NYGirl]

I could have sworn that father/daughter one was a rerun.  I kept checking if it was a new episode.  I definitely remember her buying Jordans.  Now it makes sense that it was on JJ, Katt.  The reason is I thought the judge said something about the Jordans, almost admonishing the daughter.

[Katt]

It was something like she bought the Jordans for Christmas but the brothers got them earlier so JJ didn't believe they were Christmas gifts, but I don't remember what the deal about them was. She had no receipt, either, I think. Something is definitely iffy about those 2. 

[momtoall]

Quote

I could have sworn that father/daughter one was a rerun.  I kept checking if it was a new episode.  I definitely remember her buying Jordans.  Now it makes sense that it was on JJ, Katt.  

Thank you!!  I thought I was losing it.  On JJ she had her brothers with her and when one of the brother's testimony didn't jibe with her story JJ dismissed her case.  She didn't bring them to PC. I guess they are making the rounds of the court shows.  Now I don't believe any part of the story is true and the whole thing is a scam.  I don't watch Judge Mathis, but I sure they will show up on his program too.  He will have a ball with the "supposedly" deadbeat dad.   

[Katt]

Yes, Momtoall, that's right! She did have the brothers with her. JM gave her almost 3 grand, and to quote JJ, "They're HUSTLERS!" 

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

I could have sworn that father/daughter one was a rerun.

Thank you. That case had an air of the familiar to me, but I thought it was just my faulty memory.

I had to turn off the first case, but not before noting that if you hook up with some weird guy (who needs his mommy to speak for him) getting knocked up might not be your first priority. She had a miscarriage, which in this case was nature's way of saying, "NO WAY are you subjecting an innocent baby to your stupidity."

What about today's Kenyatta? Revolting, ugly, worthless POS, who - unsurprisingly - some woman wanted to breed with. Yeah, I'm sure he pays his child support faithfully, which precludes him paying his debt to the plaintiff, who foolishly bailed him out of the slammer. Home invasion, warrants, jail time - a good risk, I guess. He did wear a very impressive and large cross around his neck though and I'm sure he though that would be in his favour. "It would be BOFE." I was waiting for JM to said, "Do you mean BOTH?"  I really hope the plaintiff doesn't bail anyone else out of jail. Let them rot. Maybe it will teach them a lesson, although I doubt it.  

The car dealer creeps were too much. Ten year old Altima craps out shortly after plaintiff buys it, and def (who gave her a warranty) refuses to fix it because, well, SHE caused the problem, according to their hearsay of what some guy supposedly told them. Proof? Sorry, we don't have that, but trust us. Love that JM gave plaintiff all her money back.

Edited May 13, 2016 by AngelaHunter

[SRTouch]

2 hours ago, momtoall said:

Thank you!!  I thought I was losing it.  On JJ she had her brothers with her and when one of the brother's testimony didn't jibe with her story JJ dismissed her case.  She didn't bring them to PC. I guess they are making the rounds of the court shows.  Now I don't believe any part of the story is true and the whole thing is a scam.  I don't watch Judge Mathis, but I sure they will show up on his program too.  He will have a ball with the "supposedly" deadbeat dad.   

Absolutely right! Like others I thought I was seeing a rerun at first. Now I remember. On JJ the brothers were escorted out while big sister told us how dad was a scumbag. I was buying the story, then JJ brought the brothers back and they contradicted the lies. IIRC there was lots of discussion about poor broke big sister working at fast food, yet spending big bucks on sneakers for brothers. Also, why didn't 17yo brother get a part time job to help outhe struggling big sis. Guess JJ was a rehearsal, they got it right this time and cashed in.

[momtoall]

Quote

Guess JJ was a rehearsal, they got it right this time and cashed in.

You would think these show could have some sort of check and balance system to prevent scammers from double-dipping.  This is the second or third case I can remember that has been of different court shows. 

[BubblingKettle]

13 hours ago, momtoall said:

You would think these show could have some sort of check and balance system to prevent scammers from double-dipping.  This is the second or third case I can remember that has been of different court shows. 

I wonder if they became aware of JMM's "every family should be close" beliefs and thought that would work in their favor (which it did). I guess double jeopardy doesn't apply to TV court/mediation. I also wonder why the brothers can't have part-time jobs, especially since she says she's so concerned about keeping them on the straight-and-narrow. 

[starri]

On 5/13/2016 at 5:28 PM, AngelaHunter said:

The car dealer creeps were too much. Ten year old Altima craps out shortly after plaintiff buys it, and def (who gave her a warranty) refuses to fix it because, well, SHE caused the problem, according to their hearsay of what some guy supposedly told them. Proof? Sorry, we don't have that, but trust us. Love that JM gave plaintiff all her money back.

Angry JM is the best JM.  She's usually so measured, and when she finally gets to the point where she just releases the kraken, it's like an explosion of justice.

[SRTouch]

first up:  'Nother tenant wanting his security back. Plaintiff says when his live-in gf of 10 years died he could no longer afford the rent, so he moved. Defendant says her daughter died about the same time (nope, not the gf) and she needed him to pay his rent to make her mortgage payments. Both sides are more than a little put out that the other wasn't more sympathetic about their respective personal loss. Lot of nonsense from both sides with people who feel because of their situation they can just ignore the rules. Plaintiff is breaking his lease and staying a week into the month for which he hasn't paid. Defendant kept the security without giving the required written itemized letter, and lives in a jurisdiction where she has to pay double if she doesn't provide the letter. Lots of he said/she said, but everybody is in the wrong. Defendant is elderly black lady who really gets going as she tells about the trials she had to go through to get the utilities back in her name so she could get in and clean the mess he left behind. After unpaid rent and clean up are deducted, JM says defendant wrongfully withheld $350 of the deposit, which is doubled because defendant didn't send the required itemized list, plaintiff gets $700.

Defendant provides a laugh after the ruling complimenting JM on her earrings. Then again another laugh in the hallway, saying she has nothing to say and then has a tough time leaving, first going the wrong way, and acting like she wanted to confront the plaintiff.

Second:  strange case of plaintiff who thinks she was hired to do some decorations at a wedding reception, and defendant who is unhappy and wants refund because she hired plaintiff to be the event planner. Things do not look good for the plaintiff when she describes how she was just supposed to decorate, but then provides a written contract which says she was the "event planner". She insists she should be paid because there were no problems. Perhaps she believes there were no problems because she didn't actually show up - she set up, left, then came back to clean. Not what I would expect if I were footing the $1700 bill. Actually, I think plaintiff got her nose out of joint because she thought to was going to plan and coordinate the wedding. Then, in her opinion, the bride got to involved, changing things (like going from glass to paper plates) and she, the plaintiff, just threw up her hands and decided to collect her money and let the bride fumble through on her own. Listening to the defendant I sort of sympathize with the plaintiff. In one breath she's saying she planned the wedding because she knew what she wanted, then in the next she's complaining the plaintiff wasn't involved in planning. In the end, MM decides to dismissed the case., 

Third case: plaintiff says he was supposed to get paid to collect signatures on a petition, and defendant is holding out. Problem is, defendant didn't have an agreement with the plaintiff. Defendant hired plaintiff's son, who in turned hired his father and a friend. So, if plaintiff wants to be paid, he needs to sue the person who hired him, his son. Case dismissed.

[BubblingKettle]

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

Defendant provides a laugh after the ruling complimenting JM on her earrings. Then again another laugh in the hallway, saying she has nothing to say and then has a tough time leaving, first going the wrong way, and acting like she wanted to confront the plaintiff.

And during her hallway confusion, I swear I saw her look back towards the courtroom and mumble, "that son of a bitch." Then, when Douglas finally corralled her and her confused-looking friend, she said she wanted to get away from that "chump." What a piece of work.

She was lucky JMM liked her so much -- if it was anyone else, she would have been clobbered many times for interrupting.

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

I swear I saw her look back towards the courtroom and mumble, "that son of a bitch."

You're right. She did say that. I was getting a headache listening to this case - the interruptions, the high-pitched rambling, the inability to directly answer any questions. I'm sure we were all relieved when Def, looking like she stepped out of a 1940s melodrama, said, "I ain't sayin' nuttin' more." GOOD!

JM asks if she, as a landlord, has any knowledge of the tenant-landlord laws in her state. Of course not. Why would she? No other landlord we see here ever has a clue about such trivial matters.

The third case, with Daddy and Baby Huey son suing defendant was ridiculous. Daddy plaintiff had no agreement or contract of any kind with def., yet thinks because he, sonny and some other guy managed to collect 30 signatures between the three of them that def owes him money. The funniest part is that it was Huey who ripped off his own dad and kept the $500 for himself.

[starri]

2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

The third case, with Daddy and Baby Huey son suing defendant was ridiculous. Daddy plaintiff had no agreement or contract of any kind with def., yet thinks because he, sonny and some other guy managed to collect 30 signatures between the three of them that def owes him money. The funniest part is that it was Huey who ripped off his own dad and kept the $500 for himself.

Apparently, it's hard to collect Republican signatures in Kings County (Brooklyn).  Which is interesting, because the neighborhood Defendant mentioned has both a Republican member of Congress and a Republican state senator.  

Apparently they didn't want to bother walking over to Bensonhurst.

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

Apparently they didn't want to bother walking over to Bensonhurst.

Probably couldn't bother crossing a street.

[DoctorK]

Oh boy, a precious snowflake has always dreamed of running a boutique. She has never owned one before or even worked in one. So she buys one with an owner who agreed to mentor her. A disgruntled (because in a confused multi-person fill-in situation the seller sent her a mean text) ex-employee of the seller moves to the new owner’s store and poisons the well. Now precious snowflake refuses to pay the balance on her purchase because the seller (among other things) didn’t come over and teach her how to use the store software. Precious snowflake collects nothing but in the hallterview says that she is happy that she got a chance to say her piece in court, confirming the precious snowflake diagnosis because feeling good about what happened is the important thing, not the fact based results.  I don’t know if the plaintiff is a jerk or not but it is clear that the defendant is not equipped to run a business.

[SRTouch]

FIRST CASE: Straightforward contract case. Plaintiff sold defendant a women's clothing store. Couple months before last payment is due, plaintiff's ex-employee, Stacie, quits plaintiff and starts working for defendant. Staci tells defendant all kinds of stories about how plaintiff, who by contract agreed to up set up/train defendant, has actually been undermining defendant and bad talking her to customers and suppliers. Defendant checks with the other employees she inherited when she bought the store, and finds several others who agree with Stacie. Defendant has nothing to prove the claims except Stacie, who quit the plaintiff, as a witness and several affidavits from other employees. I take an immediate dislike for Stacie, who had a fight with her boss the plaintiff, quit and then immediately was hired by defendant. As soon as she got the new job, she couldn't wait to start trouble between old and new boss. She wasn't telling her new boss, the defendant, anything because she was trying to do the right thing, she was bad-talking her ex-boss because she had a fight and quit. I didn't care much for the smug plaintiff, either. She may have just been confident because she knew she was going to win, but the way she just shrugged off hearing how numerous employees dislike her made it easy to believe she pretended to help while sabotaging the defendant. Anyway, plaintiff proved defendant owed the money, and defendant failed to prove the sabotage. As long as I'm disliking folks, defendant comes in for her share as well. I might accept the other employees not stepping forward to support their new boss, but would not want backstabbing Stacie around to cause trouble.

SECOND CASE: Dude suing longtime friend for $1700 plus, saying he paid to remodel a room he rented from her. Defendant has a countersuit for over 4 grand to undo his remodeling. He, plaintiff, recently moved back to the state, and she, defendant, hires him to manage her 79 unit real estate property. Part of the deal includes renting a bedroom suite in her house for $300, and he'll be able to work out of an office in the house. Everything sounds great, he just wants to paint and do remodel the bathroom a little.

Well, things don't work out. He has been a corporate coordinator used to running things his way for years and his style antagonizes the contractor and subs she has long time working relationships with. To top it off, he's a yeller and screamer type manager and yells at her, his boss and landlord, in their weekly business meetings with her business partner, who just happens to be her son. She doesn't like his style, her son doesn't like him yelling at his mom, so son fires him.

Now the whole hiring/renting to a friend thing becomes a problem. In a normal situation, both sides would demand a contract for employment and a lease, with a written agreement concerning the remodeling. Here, because it's just between friends, nothing's in writing. He was in effect a month to month tenant who spent almost 6 months worth of rent making changes to a room with no agreement to be paid if she gave him 30 day notice to get out.

Originally, when the son fires him, it's agreed he can still live in the room. But, in an email exchange, he tells the son he's seeking "counsel", which he now says just meant he was talking to other friends about the situation. The son interpreted "counsel" to mean legal counsel, so he decided to go ahead and give the dude 30 day notice to vacate. Seeing as how they're in court today over a nonsense case, son's assumption seems pretty reasonable.

Now plaintiff wants to be reimbursed for his time and money for the changes to the room, and defendant wants more than twice as much to return it to the way before he moved in. Neither case makes sense. He had no agreement that he would be repaid for the changes, or guarantee about how long he could stay - she knew about and approved the changes before he made them. JM says nobody gets anything.

THIRD CASE: Plaintiff suing neighbor and her son because son was playing in street and damaged her brand new car. Of course, initially defendants apologized and said they'd pay, but changed their mind when they found out the price. Besides, defendants say, there were three kids playing, so why should they get stuck with the high bill.

It's a simple fact is that you should automatically double or triple what you think something should cost to fix when fixing a car. It's even worse with today's cars - you may not see any damage at all, and it might cost mucho Dinero to fix. I agree, my first thought was plaintiff is asking way too much, but she had the documentation showing what she's out of pocket. (Part of the reason it cost as much as it did is that it was a new car, and she took it to the dealer.)

Now, JM takes the time to school the defendants (and us). First off, she dismisses the case against neighbor, saying the parent of a 14yo is not legally responsible unless the parent did something negligent. Here the mom did nothing except let a 14yo go outside to play - case against her is dismissed. Next, the kid is old enough to be sued, so his case continues. Despite the fact that he goes back and forth about causing the damage, judgement goes against the kid for the most of the claim - the lost wages that litigants automatically add to most suits is thrown out. For some reason there was no claim for pain and suffering - I mean it must have been extremely traumatizing to see her brand new car's windshield with a crack. And no countersuit for harrassment when the crazy lady with the brand new car went to her neighbor wanting her car repaired. Last bit of schooling from JM is that plaintiff can pick and choose who to go after to get her car fixed, all three, any one or a combination of the kids playing. Since she found one kid who admitted and apologized for damaging her car, that's who she sued. Now, the kid can sue the other kids if he wants to get them to pay the damage. 

Really, the neighbor lady is doing the right thing. She offered to make her son pay, and went to the parents of the other kids to try to get everyone to pay their share. Unfortunately, the other parents are teaching a different lesson about doing your responsibilities and sticking it to the boy who apologized. Too bad the plaintiff didn't sue all three boys. Course, if she had the other two would have denied being there, and the boy who apologized would still be left holding the bag, or even worse face peer pressure and bullying to deny everything.

[BubblingKettle]

Waynetique definitely deserved to be in Judge Judy's court --- the mumbling, the grunting, the whispering, the looking away. And when Waynetique's mother said, "He knows better," does she mean that he knows better than to throw a football at someone's car (stupid claim, since an errant throw while playing near cars can hit a car), or he knows better than to ignore a neighbor's request to stop messing around near her car? JMM said the mother was not negligent. In reality, the mother IS negligent for not teaching her son to listen to adults. If the kid didn't want to follow the neighbor's request, he should have at least had the sense to go inside/make a call to mom to say, "that lady wants us to stop throwing the football near her car." Proof that he is still clueless about respecting other people's property/following instructions given by an adult: the hallterview, in which Curt asked him what he has learned, and he (nearly inaudibly and with comatose affect) said, "Don't play ball."  Wrong answer, moron. This gave me high blood pressure probably because I had a Waynetique-like group of siblings on my street -- thankfully, they moved.

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

Waynetique definitely deserved to be in Judge Judy's court

Sorry, but it was "Wayn-Tiq". Which is even better, IMO. Why, oh, why couldn't Mom have stopped at "Wayn"?

This case shows us why people are willing to appear on TPC ( I mean besides wanting their 15 minutes) Plaintiff would never have collected a dime had she gone to small claims court. Somehow I doubt "Wayn-Tiq" would have gone and gotten a part-time job to pay for his negligence.

Was the 30-year "Project manager" homeless? I didn't get why he needed to live in a room in def's house. Anyway, those two seemed like very odd friends.