The People's Court - General Discussion

[DoctorK]

Quote

Proof that he is still clueless about respecting

I got a clue about this based on his choice of appropriate courtroom attire. No doubt Mom saw nothing wrong with the colorful graphic T shirt for a (sort of) court appearance and national TV. I think JJ would have disintegrated him with her stare.

[SRTouch]

4 hours ago, CoolWhipLite said:

Waynetique definitely deserved to be in Judge Judy's court --- the mumbling, the grunting, the whispering, the looking away...  Snip...

OK just watched it again with my roommate. Anyone notice when Douglas tells them to raise their right hand the kid sticks up his left hand? 

[SRTouch]

FIRST CASE: neighbor feud, with pets involved. Plaintiff is feisty little lady, suffering from PTSD and with a big white service dog. Defendant is quite a bit younger, with a couple boys and 2 pit bulls. Place looks like an old farm house with a couple outbuildings and a second residence in a converted barn. Plaintiff moves into the old farm house, and starts having trouble with the defendant who already lives in converted barn. A couple weeks after moving in, the plaintiff and her dog are attacked - she says both pits attacked, defendant says just 1 attacked. Result of attack is plaintiff incurs vet bills, and plaintiff requires 2 hand surgeries, while 1 pit is put down and defendant is ordered to have other muzzled and leased whenever it's outside. Plaintiff has another, bigger, civil case ongoing seeking vet and medical bills. Today she's in court looking for damages arising from harrassment, saying defendant regularly ignores the muzzle order, and she's afraid every time she goes out. Defendant, who is imminently dislikable, admits she regularly ignores the order, but says plaintiff gives as good as she gets in the ongoing feud. Among other things she says plaintiff brought out her criminal record in front of her kids, and is regularly seen videotaping her and her kids through the windows. Yep, she has been taking video, as she presents as evidence video of the pit running around loose and unmuzzled. JM awards 2k to plaintiff, less than half what she's asking for. I think the award was cut because she felt the plaintiff did push back. Defendant shows no remorse, and  looked like she was about to laugh a couple times as plaintiff described how terrified she was of the remaining pit.

SECOND CASE:  Young couple suing home inspector who inspected their first house before buying it. They claim inspector missed problems which ended up costing them big money. MM gives us a short tutorial about how the home inspection companies in general limit their liability. Another lesson would be to hire your own inspector, not one from the realty company. The guy inspecting the house should be looking out for you first and foremost, not working to make a sale for the current owner or someone who will get a commission after the sale. According to JM, it's common for an inspector's contract to limit his liability to $350, so you need to find an inspector who will look out for you and do the best job possible - someone like Mike Holmes. This inspector did a half-assed inspection, but he wrote down what he did and didn't do. This inspector inspected the roof from the ground with binoculars - guess he was just looking for missing singles, because he surely wouldn't be able to tell if the flashing was good, or if the decking was spongy and about to fail - but he wrote on the report that he inspected it from the ground. Then the rusted out heating oil tank. He wrote down that he looked at it, but couldn't really see much because of it was surrounded by latice. Well, a good inspector would have spotted the fact that it was rusted and and the legs were collapsing. Bottom line is they hired the reality company's inspector, and the wife signed the copy of the inspection on behalf of the young home buyers, so case dismissed. The hallterview with the inspector really makes me want to see what he actually wrote. He tells us that he usually goes up on the roof, but didn't this time because of the condition of the roof, and he was afraid he might damage it if he went up. I'd like to know if he put his concerns about the roof condition on the report. From what was said in the court room it sounded like he inspected the roof with binoculars because he was lazy, but if he put in the report that the reason was that the roof was unsafe, well, I might have a whole other opinion. Ol' Harvey brings up a good point on the street. It's best for the buyer to be there looking over the inspector's shoulder while he's doing the inspector. Not only will the inspector be more apt to do a good, but as in this case, if the buyers had been there and the inspector said he'd normally go up and look, but this roof looked unsafe so he was staying on the ground and using binoculars - well, at that point, as a buyer, I wouldn't need the report to want a new roof before the purchase.

THIRD CASE:  case of buyers remorse. Plaintiff bought an old junker with lots of miles on it, paid twice what it was worth and now wants to undo the deal. Defendant says yeah, guy bought an old car with lots of miles, but hey he gave the guy a warranty and didn't hide anything, so he shouldn't be forced to undo the legit deal. This was one time when defendant was within the law, but I would have understood if he had asked TPC not to use his name. He ripped the guy off, but did it legally. Case dismissed.

[speac]

On the third case, I suspect the buyer had very poor credit so he was dealing with the type of car dealer that really pads the price of the car,  Also it wasn't clear how much of that price was the financing of the car.  

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

. Plaintiff bought an old junker with lots of miles on it

It's alarming to see someone this stupid having kids. A 12 year old car with 230,000 miles on it for 5K? Why sure, I'll take that, and then claim it's a "lemon." NO, it's not a lemon. It's a 12 year old car with 230K miles on it you idiot. Whatever he said in the hall, I couldn't make it out, but he still thinks he has zero responsibility for his own choices.

Same for the young couple buying the house. Wife says, in essence, "I was all by myself to sign the contract. I'm just a little girl (and we know how much JM loves the "I can't worry my pretty little head about stuff like that" excuse) and need Daddy or Hubby to do stuff, because if they aren't there I sign contracts I don't bother reading." I have to say that I'm alarmed at the incidence of major obesity in such young people. If you want to be a homeowner you need to grow up.  

Edited May 18, 2016 by AngelaHunter
Because: Grand Marnier

[SRTouch]

FIRST CASE:  landscaper suing entitled jerk for bounced check. Plaintiff does two days work (with a helper) trimming hedges and spreading mulch on large property. When he goes to get paid, he gets his $1350 plus a $150 tip. Problem is, check bounced. In intro we hear that defendant doesn't want to pay because job was sub par, but nary a word of that in court. Landscaper wastes a lot of time chasing the customer, waiting hours for the jerk to show as promised, and then jerk stops answering the phone/texts. Jerk is totally without remorse, tells JM he was too busy to show up at scheduled meetings, it was all a mistake, yada yada. Open and shut case, plaintiff gets his money. One of those time I wish MM had awarded punitive damages, if nothing else gave the plaintiff something for the wasted time chasing jerk. 

SECOND CASE:   ex-tenant sues for security. Section 8 tenant suing because she didn't get her deposit back. Defendants have pictures of damage, with receipts for the repairs which were made. Plaintiff in deny mode, doesn't see the damage in the picture, section 8 told her to remove closet doors, etc. Next, plaintiff supposed to be out Sept 30, so defendant set up inspector from section 8 on the 2nd. Inspection had to be rescheduled because plaintiff still had a storage pod in driveway and trash there, delaying new tenant's move in. Finally, plaintiff didn't leave a forwarding address, so the check for partial security refund never delivered, and of course, plaintiff never received the itemized list of why full security wasn't refunded. JM orders defendants to write a new check for the partial amount. In hallterview plaintiff feels wronged because she doesn't feel she should follow the rules and the world should support her. Defendants are glad she's gone, say she was always complaining and everything she paid in rent went towards repairs. 

Maybe it's just me, but I wonder why she was paying for a POD container. I have no idea how much those things cost, but don't think I would spent the money for myself. Seeing how she's getting section 8, I guess we are all paying for hers. Nothing new there, I often wonder about the section 8 people and their monster TVs, iPhone 10z, etc and all that stuff I wish I could afford. Once again, let me say I have no problem helping people who need it, but it really burns me to see people take that help and turn around and buy what I consider a luxury item.

LAST CASE:  Plaintiff suing neighbor over a vet bill, with a twist. Case is really about what the plaintiff claims is unauthorized use of her credit card. Seems plaintiff regularly sits out on the porch drinking, and she notices the neighbor crying because her dog needs to go to the vet. Somehow the plaintiff invites herself to go along on the big vet outing, why not, she's just been sitting since early in the day drinking beer and she's up for a road trip. When it's time to pay the bill, her card is either stolen or she passes it over to be used. She ends up protesting the charge (credit card investigation does not reverse the charges) saying her card was stolen. Plaintiff really has no evidence to support claim, just her bank statements which do their investigation did not support the stolen card story. Plaintiff losses.

[cattykit]

Probably the first defendant abandoned the crappy job defense because the plaintiff had pictures that showed the job was done just fine.

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

landscaper suing entitled jerk for bounced check.

That def. was such a puke and a pig. It took awhile to get from him the fact that the 5K sq.ft house isn't his, but his girlfriend's. He leaves signed, blank checks around? Not only a pig, but an idiot. Sickening. I really hope the g/f did give him the boot.

Quote

Section 8 tenant suing because she didn't get her deposit back.

I'm not familiar with all the ins and outs of Sec8, but it seems someone can choose to have four kids (which even couples with double incomes have trouble supporting without some sort of struggle) and when she can't house them, the taxpayers have to step up and fork over their money for her and brood. She can't pay her rent herself, but she can afford luxuries like extensive weaves and acrylic nail jobs and I bet lots more too.

Quote

 she doesn't feel she should follow the rules and the world should support her.

I would ask why the baby daddy(s) aren't supporting their kids, but oh, well.

Quote

Plaintiff suing neighbor over a vet bill, with a twist.

I think plaintiff was drunk even here. I believe she gave the credit card over. I won't bother to say what I think of people who get pets and then let them suffer and die because they can't afford to get vet care, or because they'd rather spend their money on more fun things than vet bills.

[SRTouch]

First case: Extremely stupid case. Couple who don't really live together, but have a 4yo daughter, fighting over a TV, and they can't even agree which TV they fought over. Plaintiff says she and the father of her daughter (see, I didn't say baby daddy) were fighting over swim flat screen that she bought for $98 at a Black Friday sale 2-3 years ago. She says she tried to physically stop him from carrying the TV out the door, and her phone was damaged in the tussle. Defendant disagrees with all aspects of her story. He says the TV was actually a 14yo old big butt TV  (I never heard that before, but I guess that's a good description for the old style pre-flat screen TV. He says the phone was damaged when she threw it at his face. Dad is really pitiful as a dad. He's taking the only working TV from the house where his 4yo lives. MM tries to get him to see how it maybe he should leave it for the daughter, but he claims it's his and he needs it to play his games. The only good thing is that it sounds like both mom and dad work. Dad doesn't know anything about the 4yo, and doesn't seem to care, but at least he works - may not know her name, but he does work. JM gives her $50 for the TV and nada for the phone.

Second case:  here we have lady claiming that the movers purposely damaged her furniture in the move, she says because they must have been jealous of her nice stuff. She's got several problems in my mind, and her move raises all kinds of red flags before we even get to the damage she claims. DHS is paying the bill and the movers are from their approved list of vendors. She tries to tell JM that she found the movers in the Penny Saver - I doubt when DHS is footing the bill she was looking in the Penny Saver trying to find the best deal for the tax payers. Then when the movers show up she's doesn't stay to show them what to move - she has to go move her car. Seems DHS only pays for stuff on the approved list and require everything to be boxed ready to move when movers show, and of course things weren't ready. Once she returns, the crew finally gets everything loaded and they take it to the new place. Couple more problems. First off, the crew is left waiting again, she had to make a couple stops on the way (defendant says she went shopping). When she finally shows, she expects crew to stay and arrange the furniture to her liking.

Defendant claims plaintiff actually physically stopped a couple men from bringing something big, couch or whatever, up the stairs, and a worker fell and the furniture landed on the guy. Defendant left the scene and went back to the office with the hurt crewman. Here's where defendant's case could have gone south. There's now no one who was there is in the court to testify for the defense.

Luckily for the defendant, the wackadodle story from plaintiff is so full of inconsistencies that JM doesn't believe a word she's sprewing. Plaintiff is claiming the crew is intentionly trashing her stuff. She says they left electronics out in the rain. But defendant has weather report saying no rain. Even claims a guy grabbed her keys and stole the key to her BMW. I'm wondering why DHS  is paying to move this lady's fine furniture when she has a BMW. Course maybe she's one of those people who is inordinately proud of an old junker that was once an expensive car.

Back to the case. JM points out that the lady signed that the move was completed satisfactorily, her furniture was delivered undamaged, and that even if she later found stuff damaged, her contract specified that she had to file a written claim and go through the movers insurance. Plaintiff's case dismissed - but there's a tiny voice in my head that says the movers might not have been as careful as they could have been because they were royally po'ed  at the bossy lady who repeatedly kept them waiting and hurt one of their guys. Especially if, as I understood, DHS pays a flat rate, so they were not being paid by the hour while she fiddle darted around arranging furniture and making them wait at both locations.

Last case:  tenant suing landlord over deposit. Girl lived there 13 months, but claimed she moved without notice because of roaches and electric was off for three days. Despite the generally accepted notion that a tenant has to give 30 day notice, JM reminds us that is not the case in NYC, where tenants can move with no notice on a month to month rental. Defendant tries to salvage her case by claiming the $750 wasn't a security deposit, but a non refundable move in fee - but has nothing showing it was a move in fee and MM declares it a deposit. Plaintiff admits she put a hole in the wall when a hammer fell off the bed or some such, so JM administers a little rough justice and awards $50 in damages, rest of 700 goes to plaintiff, with nary a word about the roaches complaint plaintiff lived with for 13 months.

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

. Couple who don't really live together, but have a 4yo daughter, fighting over a TV

I didn't understand why the audience and JM found anything amusing about this. Morons who decided to breed a hapless child then "tussle" and "scuffle" over a 100$ TV. Defendant must be attending clown school and decided to practice his trade here.

Quote

here we have lady claiming that the movers purposely damaged her furniture in the move

I understand. Even though I'm on welfare, I have so many exquisite items and a BMW that the movers got so jealous and hateful they just started smashing everything I own, then stole the keys to my (dead) BMW. Don't you hate it when that happens? I want 5K athough I have zero proof of anything I'm claiming. But yeah, when I've moved I made sure I was there at the right time because for some reason, I could never get the taxpayers to foot my bills.

Quote

tenant suing landlord over deposit.

Well, def did have all kinds of evidence, she just didn't have it with her at the moment.

[SRTouch]

FIRST CASE: Plaintiff went to work for defendant in insurance office as basically unskilled office help when she got divorced. Fast forward a couple years, she's now a licensed agent and wants to be paid commissions. Problem is, according to defendant, while she's passed the requirements to be an agent, she hasn't been certified to be an agent for the insurance companies sold in defendant's office. I really don't know enough to know if he's telling the truth or not, but it doesn't really matter since there wasn't an agreement in place when she supposedly sold the policies she wants commission for. Other paid of her lawsuit is she claims sexual harrassment created a hostile work environment. I agree with MM that the lady failed to prove her sexual harrassment case - but think he probably crossed the line. I can believe the dirty old man who felt it was fine to write about her big butt in too tight clothes is the sort who would drop papers on the floor to watch her pick them up. OTOH, she was sure showing a lot of cleavage in court for someone who would be reduced to tears listening to JM question defendant about writing about her butt in his statement. Nope, didn't buy her claim at all. In the hallterview she talked about how he touched her, but all she testified to was that he touched her hand, not grabbed or rubbed up against her.

NEXT UP:  Boat owner had some work done, and wants 5k from the marine shop because of faulty work. Turns out it's the boat version of a pile of crap. The defendant says that while he fixed the 3yo motor, but they didn't reconnect the controls because the boat was unsafe. Defendant says he had plaintiff sign a statement agreeing boat was unsafe. Plaintiff said he was going to fix the boat; defendant said once boat was fixed he'd reconnect everything, but it didn't make sense to reconnect the controls since the motor had to come off for the boat to be fixed. Lots of back and forth, he said - he said. Plaintiff says he fixed the boat, then paid someone else to reconnect the controls, and the motor blew the first time he used it. He took it to a different marine mechanic (the guy who reconnected the controls) and that mechanic said defendant's work was shoddy and/or just not done. Plaintiff didn't bring any receipts from from second mechanic, but had a statement and video of the guy pointing out defective work. Plaintiff wins, not the 5kind he wants, but gets back the 2+k he paid defendant.

[cattykit]

I'm calling the grammar police and arrests need to be made, now!  Second case in a week with a plaintiff talking about what they "brang."  I get it, sort of, when people say things like "I seen them" or "between her and I."  Don't like it, but get it, because all those words are actual words, albeit being strung together incorrectly.  "Brang" is not a word, has never been a word, and has no place in English discourse.  I struggle to grasp the internal decision-making to use a nonexistent word that only makes you look illiterate, when "brought" is common, correct, and easily incorporated into conversation.

I was prepared to roll my eyes at first plaintiff, because she reminded me of Miss Kraus on Benson, but she was just pathetic and the dirty old man was smirking the whole time so I felt sorry for her.  I can't believe his daughter came with him.  He claimed he got it, but he really, really didn't get it.

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

Second case in a week with a plaintiff talking about what they "brang." 

Just watched some of this. Dullard with his crappy 47 year old boat and his "brang." How can anyone grow up and go to school in the English language and still not know how to speak it?

Quote

Plaintiff went to work for defendant in insurance office as basically unskilled office help

I'm pretty sure he's a dirty old man, with his big jugs emails, but plaintiff must have been living in a bubble if that, and him taking her hand, is enough to reduce her to tears. She's lucky she didn't work where I spent my life. Then she'd know what "sexual harassment" really is.

[seacliffsal]

In the plaintiff's case about sexual harassment, I didn't understand why she opened the emails that were not addressed to her.  I do not condone those emails-especially when one is receiving them at work, but I wonder why she opened them.

[DoctorK]

Quote

I wonder why she opened them.

From this and her references to the sexual harassment training videos she has viewed, I wonder if this was all part of a plan. The boss was an old creepy jerk so he was vulnerable, so she may have set out to build her case using all of the hints and tips from the training videos (unintended consequences can suck) to get her complaints phrased properly and pulling together anything that might bolster her case. I may well be wrong, but her constant repetition of "hostile work environment" sounded heavily rehearsed. As usual, YMMV.

Edited May 24, 2016 by DoctorK
spelling is important

[AZChristian]

This guy owns an insurance agency, and she was the Customer Service Rep.  I think it's easily within the realm of possibility that there is an e-mail address for the office that may have contained his name ("johnsmithinsurance@gmail.com"), but was meant to be used for correspondence with policyholders/clients.  It would be her job to assist with questions that might be sent in from customers, so she would monitor that e-mail account as part of her job.  And he could be using that e-mail address for some of his personal stuff so his wife or daughter wouldn't see the garbage he was subscribed to.  Been there, done that.  And once you realize that you're in a hostile work environment, that's the phrase you would use to define your situation.

He was a jerk.  She should have gotten out sooner. 

[cattykit]

I must live in an alternate universe, the one where people don't call the cops to report a missing dog.

I have to wonder about the first plaintiff who paid $35 a week in fees for a job that she could, if she were qualified and certified, have easily gotten through any home health agency without being charged.  The only thing I can think is that the defendant didn't bill the client and didn't receive fees from the client, but that the plaintiff was paid directly, unlike home health agencies that bill the clients and pay their employees out of the billing.

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

I must live in an alternate universe, the one where people don't call the cops to report a missing dog.

I share that universe with you. The case of the missing "sisu" perplexed me. I've had a few dogs, and never did I farm them out to anyone on a regular basis. Actually, I never farmed them out at all. I hope the doggie found a good home!

Quote

I have to wonder about the first plaintiff who paid $35 a week in fees

I thought she looked like she was going to perform in Las Vegas after the show - the glitter, the bling, the eyeshadow. The hubby who was "away?" In the world of court tv, "away" is usually a euphemism for "he got his ass put in the slammer." Of course I could be wrong.

The Columbians: He, little muppet, seemed just a wee bit shady and the def had a voice like nails on a chalkboard. She "was going to pay him", but oddly never did. Same old story.

[SRTouch]

FIRST CASE: case summed up in hallterview - these litigants just wanted to take a day off and go on TV and meet MM.  Case very simple. Plaintiff going to El Salvador to visit friends, who just happens to be his gf's family - but she's not going, he's traveling alone. As long as he's heading south, defendant - who has some convoluted relationship to the gf - gets him to take along an extra bag filled with goodies for grandma. For show and tell, she brought along the extra luggage, and went and bought duplicates of what grandma got. When it was time to come home, the folks in El Salvador filled the bag with colorful hammock. Problems arise when plaintiff wants to be reimbursed for the fee airline charged for an extra bag. Turns out he was charged $150 extra on each flight, so $300+ for crap that could have been purchased at each destination. I mean I can understand sending personal stuff, but not the junk they were supposedly sending back and forth? Anyway, right after plaintiff gets back he's texting defendant looking to get reimbursed, has a fight with gf (MM seems to think there might have been something more going on between the litigants which led to fight with gf) and within a couple weeks they're on TPC. Like I said in the beginning, they couldn't care less about the case, it was all about getting on TV and meeting the Judge.

SECOND CASE:  weird home care provider case. Plaintiff signed a contract promising to pay defendant's agency $35 a week for work the agency found for her. After a year, defendant wants to retroactively renegotiate her contract, wanting all those weekly $35 dollar fees returned. She comes to court claiming the agency is taking advantage of the workers because they're immigrants who don't know how things are supposed to work so she shouldn't have to pay, that the agency fee is illegal, that she shouldn't have to pay because the fee should have a time limit, and I think she might have felt she shouldn't pay because the defendant uses a sharpie to put on her eyebrows. MM enforces the written agreement, the plaintiff has to pay back the $35 weekly fee.

THIRD CASE:  Plaintiff suing because her friend either let her dog run away, or got attached and is hiding it. Defendant regularly kept the dog several days a week, but one day the dog goes missing. Plaintiff goes off on defendant for letting the dog out, calls the police, etc, and defendant is countersuing for slander and defamation. I think MM had it pegged, someone probably found the shih tzu and has it. Ruling is defendant was responsible for the care of dog when it went missing, so she has to pay - not the jacked up price plaintiff wanted, but the original $500 purchase price. Defendant gets zip. 

[Rick Kitchen]

Quote

defendant - who has some convoluted relationship to the gf

 

She was his ex-girlfriend's brother's wife's sister.  No, really.

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

 I think she might have felt she shouldn't pay because the defendant uses a sharpie to put on her eyebrows.

A sharpie and a stencil. They were put on crooked though.

Quote

 I mean I can understand sending personal stuff, but not the junk they were supposedly sending back and forth?

Yeah, K-Mart final sales. I think JM looked at it because she's nosy, just as she always wants to know why the whacked-out "relationships" ended and who cheated, even when it has nothing to do with the case. Not a criticism. I like that she's a little nosy that way!

[cattykit]

4 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Yeah, K-Mart final sales. I think JM looked at it because she's nosy, just as she always wants to know why the whacked-out "relationships" ended and who cheated, even when it has nothing to do with the case. Not a criticism. I like that she's a little nosy that way!

I had to wonder if there was something else tucked away in the Depends that would justify going through the airport at that price, rather than just throwing the unmentionables into a box and sending it via snail mail.

I think MM gets nosy that way because the merits of some of these cases could be disposed of in under three minutes, and even with the commercials and padding from Levin and Curt, there just isn't enough to fill the 20 minutes.  I'll bet she has instructions to max out any drama and/or salaciousness.

Today's first plaintiff--I thought it was despicable of her to try to influence the case with the "oh, I don't want to say" arrest of the defendant.  Fortunately for the defendant, she was very open and honest about it and actually brought everyone, including MM, around to sympathize with her.  I just don't know on what planet the plaintiff (who needs to go to one of our many hairdresser defendants--really, just a brush would do wonders) thought she could collect when the stove was working when she bought it.  It's not like the defendant sold her a warranty.

[SRTouch]

Ah, first two cases are silly people suing with no case.

FIRST CASE: Lady buys wood pellet burning stove off eBay because it's so much cheaper than a new one. Once she gets it she finds it needs work. Now she not only wants the purchase price back, but transportation and installation. Nope, MM tells her when you buy used stuff you don't get a warranty - just like a used car, you don't get your money back unless you can prove seller committed some type of fraud. Case dismissed.

Once we get to the street Harv tells us the buyer can negotiate a warranty/guarantee.

SECOND CASE:  traffic accident. Silly plaintiff wants second bite of the apple. He's already negotiated and settled with the defendant's insurance company. Now that he's got one check, he wants to reopen negotiations and get more money. Nope, MM tells him. On top of losing the case, since the defendant is being sued he's filed a countersuit, and plaintiff ends up paying $1500.

While case was going on we learned plaintiff has another case going on, but we don't find out any more about that - my guess is he may be looking for medical damages. He seemed to think it significant that the ambulance put him on a back board and c-collar. Seems pretty standard, patient hit from side and air bags deployed, I expect he'd be treated like he had neck/back injuries until proven otherwise. Then he was released a couple hours after he got to the hospital. Not saying he might not have run up a big medical bill - doesn't take long. I just hope he didn't sign away his right to recover medical damages when he made his settlement for the property damage. There's a reason why you don't sign settlement papers without consulting someone who will look out for your interests.

LAST CASE:  guy rents room in house with a couple adult women, mom and daughter. It's not a good fit, he's not neat enough, defendant says he sometimes walked around in his underwear. He gives the proper notice and moves, but defendant is keeping deposit. First problem for defendant is that she's coming in with zero proof of damage. She offers pictures of what it looks like after it was cleaned up, but MM points out her pictures could be how he left things. Bigger problem for defendant is that this is one of those states which require certified letter with itemized list of charges, or double if withheld in "bad faith" - this guy is greedy and wants triple, plus interest. MM decides there is no proof of damages, but also no bad faith. So he gets the deposit, but not double.

[teebax]

5 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

A sharpie and a stencil. They were put on crooked though.

They were ridiculously crooked, so much so that I couldn't listen to anything she was saying; I was mesmerized by the placement of those eyebrows!

[AngelaHunter]

3 hours ago, cattykit said:

 

Today's first plaintiff--I thought it was despicable of her to try to influence the case with the "oh, I don't want to say" arrest of the defendant. 

I couldn't stand her! Her annoying huge grins and her, "I had no idea what I was doing." And whose fault is that, you idiot? You buy a hugely discounted used item on CL, have no clue what you're doing, yet expect that item to have a lifetime guarantee? You want that, go buy a new one for 5K. And yeah, it was despicable of her to try and intimate that the def. had been arrested for some kind of felony. OH, and find out the meaning behind the words, "As is."

Little weasel who thought he could settle the accident, get overpaid for his 15 year old car, and then sue? Don't think so.

Third case, we saw yet again (as always) that people who want to be landlords never bother finding out one little thing about landlord/tenant laws beyond taking money each month.

[patty1h]

Going back to the dog stealing case of two days ago, I was sure that the plaintiff was transitioning from male to female until I heard the voice.  Then all I could see is her resemblance to the character Geraldine that Flip Wilson did back in the 70's.  

[SRTouch]

1st case: Mohawk dude, trying to get in the record book for most frivolous lawsuits at any one time, is suing the manager of his rent control apartment. Why? Because he can. He's one of those people who think rules are for other people, and today he's suing the property manager because the manager is doing his job. He claims harrassment, unlawful entry, etc. JM shoots him down every time he tries to present his evidence. He passes up a copy of what he says is a ruling from Housing Court - nope, MM says the letter is not a ruling, and does not say what he's claiming. Oh, he says the ruling was in an email - which of course he can't produce. (Don't these fools think the judges can read! We see it time after time. Someone says yes, here's proof positive, and passes something up, only to have the judge read it and tell us it doesn't support the claim. Even better are when a litigant's proof ends up helping the other side.) Anyway, case is thrown out. Likewise, countersuit, which was basically filed out of frustration at being sued, is dismissed. Too bad this wasn't a JJ case, I would have liked to hear fool try to present his non-case there and talk over JJ.

2nd case:  caterer suing customer, claiming the long time over being fired at the last minute, after buying supplies and hiring extra staff. Lots of bloated claims and counterclaims. All in all, waste of TV time. Plaintiff is awarded $300 of the bloated 5k she wanted. Defendant still trying to argue in hallterview, and losing there as well.

[DoctorK]

Moussed Mohawk Hair construction guy was a lying manipulating jerk. It is all about him improperly hanging on to a rent controlled apartment. He lied about the notices on his door, he lied about his girlfriend (plus her child and her dog which she walks in the public area and doesn’t clean up after it) being “on the lease” as some sort of authorized person, he flat out lied about the housing court decision (then he lied that he had an email confirming this, then admitted he had no such email).  How well prepared was the defendant? He had documents, he had pictures, and he had security camera footage of the plaintiff sneaking up to put condom wrappers on his doorstep. Smart enough to take pictures of the inspection notice since he finally realized the plaintiff was a conniving, lying POS. The plaintiff’s lying smirk while he was trying to explain away the condom wrappers on the doorstep made me want to not evict him, but tar and feather him and ride him out of town on a rail.

(I posted this earlier, before SRTouch's post and saw it appear, now that is gone. Fortunately, I still had MSWord open where I compose and spell check before posting)

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

Mohawk dude, trying to get in the record book for most frivolous lawsuits at any one time

Another creepy, troll-like little shit that I'd love to see beaten to a pulp by Douglas. Can anyone explain to me what is meant by "rent-controlled apartment" and what is the criteria to get such an apartment? Anyway, their 20K suits ended up in a big, fat zero.

Quote

caterer suing customer

Def. was very weird, the way she was creeping on JM and Douglas (who I"m sure was praying he wouldn't have to approach her for any documents lest he get hooked by her nasty, talon-like fake nails). Sad to see business people "texxing" such nastiness and vile language to each other.

[cattykit]

So it's weirdo tenant day on TPC.  I took my almost-17 year old Tommy for his shots today and he's a little cranky, so I was waiting to hear how weird plaintiff #1 killed his cat so I could reach through the screen and kill him myself, but it wasn't that weird.  I also mention Tommy because the picture you see here was taken by the dentist when I took him in 2012 to have his teeth pulled.  Grabbing him by the throat and trying to swab dental gel in his mouth would not have helped--and yes, the stupid plaintiff probably cut off his cat's carotid artery in the process, giving him a stroke.  Plaintiff was a real winner anyway, already being evicted with mom from his first place, then moving into a shithole and trying to game the system.  Another case that could have been done in two minutes.  JJ runs two cases in 1/2 hour and MM runs three cases in 1 hour so of course there is padding.

Second tenant needs to be bitchslapped, and I don't like landlords.  And then she gets rewarded for being a whiny little monster.  You would think that when the landlords apply for their CoO, they'd be reminded by the town of some of the rules.

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

I took my almost-17 year old Tommy for his shots today and he's a little cranky

At first I thought you meant your son. Hee! I too have a Tommy(cat). He's 15. Thanks for the heads-up. I'll skip that episode.

[cattykit]

31 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

At first I thought you meant your son. Hee! I too have a Tommy(cat). He's 15. Thanks for the heads-up. I'll skip that episode.

Silly, Tommy is my furry boyfriend, not my son!  LOL  Funny that we both have teenage Tomcats.  Mine is the light of my life and he's been given strict instructions to live forever.

Actually, the first case only ran about 12 minutes, which was at least ten minutes too long, so you could FF through it to get to female obnoxious complainer tenant.

[Jamoche]

Ha! A case where the defendant is actually going to have to pay money! Plaintiff schedules two limo rides for her daughter's wedding - one early one to get the bridal party there early, and a later one for the guests. First one goes off fine, second is a no-show. Limo company owner is also a no-show; he's sent the first driver, the one who showed up, and not even prepped him very well. During the testimony the driver mentions not getting a tip - oh, but that's in the contract, it's already been paid! So in addition to the show paying the $1000 JM awards to the plaintiff, she gleefully informs the driver that he needs to go tell his boss that he's owed $140, and it's definitely illegal for him to have kept it.

[ElleMo]

I am watching the episode with the tenant who supposedly killed his cat .  So far I have only heard the plaintiff and I believe he killed his cat.  There is something wrong with this guy.

[DoctorK]

Quote

There is something wrong with this guy.

Oh, I don't know. Other than the quart of olive oil he soaked his hair with, his complete butchery of the English language, his repeated use of the word "like" as a filler and his accent straight out of a 60's high school play about NY/NJ mobsters, I think he was fine. Except that even through the accent he was almost completely incoherent. The defendant was no Shakespearean himself but at least I could understand most of what he said.

Edited May 27, 2016 by DoctorK
added snark

[BubblingKettle]

The landlord who didn't want to fix anything was a complete dick. I'm not sure why JMM let him yammer on and crack jokes. His voicemail message was very aggressive...but the judge seemed to think it was just fine (then again, I think JMM is rude too, so maybe that's why she wasn't fazed). When the plaintiff told the story about him wanting to tinker with the electrician's work that was in progress, I realized the plaintiff had made a massive mistake --- she had tried to tell him what to do. Godforbid, even when someone's trying to keep him from getting hurt.  What a fat-mouthed jerk. And blaming bad behavior on the ethnicity of your ancestors -- that habit needs to go away. "Oh, I'm Italian..." That is so overplayed and offensive.

[SRTouch]

52 minutes ago, cattykit said:

Actually, the first case only ran about 12 minutes, which was at least ten minutes too long, so you could FF through it to get to female obnoxious complainer tenant.

Geez, what a waste of airtime. 12 minutes and finally MM tells dimwit he can't sue for rent he's already paid. I can only guess they producers picked that case because of the cat and the dude wearing a towel when walking out of the bathroom after his monthly shower. Couldn't believe defendant acted like dude was weird because his cat slept with him. Hell, I feel lonely if only two kittys are on the bed with me at night. And, I'd feel for the plaintiff if he was truly homeless living in a van, but managing to care for his Dad's 17yo cat. With 4 cats over 10 I know about vet bills for bad teeth. But, from the way he told his story, I don't buy it - he's a second generation weirdo who gets kicked out of a series of flophouses - probably killed the cat while high.

[Bunnyhop]

On ‎5‎/‎26‎/‎2016 at 1:39 PM, DoctorK said:

Moussed Mohawk Hair construction guy was a lying manipulating jerk. It is all about him improperly hanging on to a rent controlled apartment. He lied about the notices on his door, he lied about his girlfriend (plus her child and her dog which she walks in the public area and doesn’t clean up after it) being “on the lease” as some sort of authorized person, he flat out lied about the housing court decision (then he lied that he had an email confirming this, then admitted he had no such email).  How well prepared was the defendant? He had documents, he had pictures, and he had security camera footage of the plaintiff sneaking up to put condom wrappers on his doorstep. Smart enough to take pictures of the inspection notice since he finally realized the plaintiff was a conniving, lying POS. The plaintiff’s lying smirk while he was trying to explain away the condom wrappers on the doorstep made me want to not evict him, but tar and feather him and ride him out of town on a rail.

(I posted this earlier, before SRTouch's post and saw it appear, now that is gone. Fortunately, I still had MSWord open where I compose and spell check before posting)

When I saw Mohawk Dude I thought of that other Mohawk Dude who went crazy on the security guard at a concert.  He worked construction too and had a serious problem with the most basic rules of conduct, as well.  MM suggested that he might be getting a bit long in the tooth for shenanigans.  Is it a Mohawk Dude "Thing"?

[cattykit]

56 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

Couldn't believe defendant acted like dude was weird because his cat slept with him. Hell, I feel lonely if only two kittys are on the bed with me at night. And, I'd feel for the plaintiff if he was truly homeless living in a van, but managing to care for his Dad's 17yo cat. With 4 cats over 10 I know about vet bills for bad teeth. But, from the way he told his story, I don't buy it - he's a second generation weirdo who gets kicked out of a series of flophouses - probably killed the cat while high.

Just from the intonation, and the way they went to commercial as it was said, it was clear we were supposed to infer he SLEPT with his cat.  That's a new low, even for Levin.

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

That's a new low, even for Levin.

I don't listen to a single word from that creep-pig, but nothing he comes out with would surprise me. Sicken and anger me, yes - but surprise, no.

Watching and listening to the unintelligible Fonzie was too painful. As soon as I heard mention of a cat I hit the FF button.

Even though the Archie Bunker landlord ("terlet") was irritating, the plaintiff was worse. She's a social worker yet is so traumatized by "Get the hell out" that she thinks those words are worth $500? I wouldn't want her around either.

Tee-shirt Captain Ahab knock-off was obviously just wanting the money back because he couldn't sell those dopey tee shirts. Def was right, but his voice was so annoying I had to mute him.

Quote

 Funny that we both have teenage Tomcats.  Mine is the light of my life and he's been given strict instructions to live forever.

OMG, same here. I love this little ol' cat so much it's ridiculous. He has kidney failure and is hyper-thyroid and I will do whatever it takes to keep him around even though he's a super bad boy.

Edited May 27, 2016 by AngelaHunter

[Rick Kitchen]

Screw that audience for laughing at the cat's death.

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

Screw that audience for laughing at the cat's death.

Reminds me of the def. that peddled a macaw to the plaintiff  and the poor bird died. POS Levin: "The case of "Bye bye birdie." Because an animal suffering and dying just cracks him up.

You're so funny, Levin. Actually, you're a scumbag and proud of it.

Edited May 29, 2016 by AngelaHunter

[SRTouch]

Ah, rerun season. First case: DJ/Photographer suing party planner for non-payment for services rendered. Simple case, dude is hired by party planner to DJ a Sweet 16 party for $500. When he talks to the customer, he talks them into an add on, where he provides a photographer for an additional $250, so now the total is $750. They could show the pix at the party on a big screen, and have pix to remember the event by. Problem was, his salesmanship bypassed the party planner, who threw a fit because she wasn't getting a cut of the action. DJ negotiates with planner to pay - 10 or 20% - not sure which.

Anyway, party went off with DJ doing the music (though he admits he didn't follow the agreed upon playlist) and photographer took the pix. Customer pays planner the $750, but the planner is still pissed because DJ is still dealing directly with the customer and hasn't given her the copy of the pix, so refuses to pay DJ. Planner so busy fighting with DJ she loses any chance of future business with the customer. Somehow she thinks the best way to run her business is to stiff both the DJ and her subcontractor.To get their pix, customer pays an additional $250 to the DJ, but planner keeps the $250 they paid her for the pix.

DJ gets the rest of his fee, planner loses both her customer and her ridiculous $5k counterclaim but gets to keep the extra $250 the customer paid - at least until the customer sues for it.

Second case:  silly traffic accident case. Plaintiff claims teenage defendant swerved as he was passing, causing him hit the curb. Case worth watching just to see the defendant's 13yo sister give her well scripted testimony. Despite everybody appearing so clean cut and wholesome, I imagine at the time there was cursing from both sides. I believe the girl when she says plaintiff claimed to be a cop, and find it suspicious (as did the judge) that police report only gives his version (he's not a cop, but does work for the police dept.). In the end, plaintiff has no pix of $2k damage or receipts of repairs he claims to have done to his old caddy. No proof, no case, case dismissed.

Third case:  silly case where plaintiff is suing for property he left behind when Hurricane Sandy flooded his illegal apartment. Of course there's no renters insurance, but FEMA did help with temporary housing. After the illegal apartment has been dried out and repaired, after 2 or 3 months, he moves back in despite landlord telling him not to return because the city inspectors are onto him now. Defendant, landlord, has to get the marshals to get the guy out, which takes hiring a lawyer and 8 months of eviction proceedings. Of course, plaintiff is living rent free, on the one hand, saying it's an illegal apartment so he shouldn't have to pay, yet at the same time he's refusing to move out. JM tells defendant he can't keep the thousand dollar security deposit or anything for renting the illegal apartment. She let's him keep the deposit to offset his legal fees and the cleanup for the trash plaintiff left after he moved out the second time. Too bad this wasn't on JJ so she could call him SQUATTAH!

[SRTouch]

First case: This is mom suing entitled adult daughter over a 3k loan and damage to TV and laptop that occurred in a shoving match as they fought over the loan. Mom gets 4k in long past due child support, and offers to loan spoiled brat of a daughter 3k to help her and the 4 little grandkids move to a new apartment.

BACKSTORY mom was supposed to receive $23 a week child support for the adult daughter and her 3 siblings. Deadbeat daddy never paid, so he still owes $42k after the tax man sends his $4k refund to mom. The adult daughter needs 3k to move, because her credit is bad and to get into the new place she has to come up with double deposit, 1st and last month rent.

Now that daughter and her 4 kids are in the new place, mom has the audacity to expect her to repay the 3k. Daughter says she should be entitled to keep the back child support, after all she was the child. MM explains that this was not actually child support, but was money to repay mom for money she spent raising the ungrateful brat years ago - and besides, even if the money were to go to the adult children, she would only be entitled to a quarter of the money. Up to now, mom has seemed pretty reasonable, but according to what I heard she wanted daughter to repay 150-200 bucks a week (maybe she meant monthly rather than weekly). That's a lot for anyone, especially a single mom with 4 little ones - even if, as mom said, the daughter makes good money at her job at the school. (We never heard what the adult daughter does at the school. My bet is she shovels the gruel in the cafeteria.) Daughter refuses to pay, and stops responding to mom's calls and texts. Mom shows up uninvited for the grandkid's birthday, bringing food and gifts for the grandbabies. Spoiled daughter makes a big deal about mom showing up with gifts from the Dollar Store. (Maybe her credit wouldn't be so bad if she shopped at the Dollar Store.)They argue and she asks mom to leave the party. Few days later, daughter goes to mom's place to fight about the money, and TV and laptop are damaged in ensuing shoving match. JM orders daughter to pay mom $3500.

SECOND CASE: Plaintiff says defendant damaged her car bumper. She says she was visiting defendant, and defendant bumped her car in his driveway. I take an immediate dislike to the defendant. Instead of trying to say he didn't hit her car, he has to go into a long explanation of how everyone knows not to park behind him, implying that even if he did hit her car, which he denies, it was her fault for parking where she shouldn't have. Stupid case, defendant convinced no one that he didn't back into her. But, since there was prior damage JM gives plaintiff $750 instead of yhe $1200 she's asking for.

THIRD CASE:  silly tenant rents room on month to month agreement and wants her money back. Silly case, not worth watching.

Edited June 3, 2016 by SRTouch
Crazy keyboard

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

This is mom suing entitled adult daughter over a 3k loan and damage to TV

Wonderful when children follow in their parents' footsteps. Mom had a bunch of kids with an absent, deadbeat baby daddy, and I assume darling daughter did the same thing - having four kids in what must have been short order -  since there was no mention of her baby daddy. Too bad daughter didn't emulate something useful, like speaking proper English the way her mother does. Who knows who broke the TV, with those two Sumos wrestling around.

Quote

Plaintiff says defendant damaged her car bumper.

Def. was such a slimy little spineless weasel, trying to talk his way out of his responsibilities. Plaintiff was annoying as well. What's with putting "had" in front of every single past tense verb? I had said, I had told, I had gone, I had bought, I had thought, and my favorite, I had went.

Quote

Silly case, not worth watching.

The only thing that caught my attention was the bizarre smirking/smiling of the plaintiff, as though she were trying to seduce JM. And yeah, her whole case rested on hearsay, so goodbye.

[DoctorK]

Quote

Wonderful when children follow in their parents' footsteps. Mom had a bunch of kids with an absent, deadbeat baby daddy, and I assume darling daughter did the same thing - having four kids in what must have been short order -  since there was no mention of her baby daddy.

I was pretty disgusted with daughter who can't afford a place to live without scrounging from her mother but keeps popping out babies to increase her benefits paid for by us. Just following Mom's example who can't teach her daughters to either keep their legs crossed or use birth control, it is a career for many of the scum we see on these shows.

Edited June 4, 2016 by DoctorK

[Blissfool]

On 5/25/2016 at 11:47 AM, SRTouch said:

 

SECOND CASE:  traffic accident. Silly plaintiff wants second bite of the apple. He's already negotiated and settled with the defendant's insurance company. Now that he's got one check, he wants to reopen negotiations and get more money. Nope, MM tells him. On top of losing the case, since the defendant is being sued he's filed a countersuit, and plaintiff ends up paying $1500.

While case was going on we learned plaintiff has another case going on, but we don't find out any more about that - my guess is he may be looking for medical damages. He seemed to think it significant that the ambulance put him on a back board and c-collar. Seems pretty standard, patient hit from side and air bags deployed, I expect he'd be treated like he had neck/back injuries until proven otherwise. Then he was released a couple hours after he got to the hospital. Not saying he might not have run up a big medical bill - doesn't take long. I just hope he didn't sign away his right to recover medical damages when he made his settlement for the property damage. There's a reason why you don't sign settlement papers without consulting someone who will look out for your interests.

 

So the accident was whose fault? Im thinking it was the defendant's fault. The judge even asked the plaintiff if he might have run a yellow light...so what? if his is yellow, then the defendant's is still red. 

I don't think the defendant should have gotten any money for her car because i think it was her fault.

[SRTouch]

FIRST CASE: feuding neighbor case. Plaintiff lives above defendant in condo building, and they take turns calling cops on each other. Defendant says plaintiff purposely provokes his German Shepherd by banging on the walls when they go up and down the stairs outside his condo. Could be, plaintiff doesn't seem like she would be a quiet neighbor concerned with her neighbors, or it could just be one of those buildings where it sounds like a drum when somrone walks on the stairs. Plaintiff claims he's been been sneaking up to her condo leaving presents - like urine poured on her doormat. Then one day when they meet outside, an agruement erupts. Plaintiff says his dog lunged at her. He says it was after she kicked at the dog while they were standing yelling at each other, so she provoked the dog. The dog ripped her $800 down jacket. Starts out as a typical she said/he said case. Smiley defendant is smirking because he just knows there's no way for plaintiff to prove anything. Ah, unbeknownst to smug defendant, plaintiff installed a camera outside her apartment and she has video of him sneaking up the stairs with a cup of "something". He doesn't know what's on the video, so he makes up a story of going up to check on phantom workers. Course his story doesn't match the video, which makes me wonder just how many times he went upstairs. His credibility is out the window, so judge rules for plaintiff. MM must really dislike the dude, as she awards the replacement cost instead of trying to figure out the fair market value.

SECOND CASE: Homeowner wants refund on his kitchen granite counter top, as he says the defendant botched the job when he applied the sealer. Silly case which should have never appeared in court. We don't see any of the texts, but plaintiff gets a lecture on being nasty on the phone and texts. Contractor gets lecture on customer service. Plaintiff wins, but only gets $200 to add more sealer instead of the $2200 he wants. Nobody learned anything from MM's lecture, everybody still insisting in hallterview they handled it correctly and did nothing wrong. (SIDENOTE: back when I worked for a pizza delivery store I hung up on customers more than once if they called to complain. If they started cussing, I warned them I was hanging up with the next curse word I heard. Then I'd watch caller id, and make sure I picked it up if they called back. If they cussed again I'd hang up again and tell the manager to watch for the number and get it if they called. Occasionally we'd get notes posted that we were not to take orders from certain numbers - usually pranks or bad checks, but sometimes because of rude customers.)

THIRD CASE:  Long time tenant suing because she didn't get her deposit returned when she moved out 4 1/2 years ago. This has to be one of the strangest, most ridiculous cases in a while. Plaintiff was month to month tenant for almost 10 years, never had a lease. When she broke up with her then husband things got violent between the tenant and her husband, cops got involved, multiple restraining orders, etc. Tenant was living in guest house with little old lady landlord living on the property, and landlady decided she wanted tenant gone. Tenant fought the eviction, but eventually case was settled in housing court. Now 4+ years later, tenant is back in court suing landlady's son - little old lady has passed away. Tenant wants to undo the settlement judgement from Housing court and wants a deposit back - which she can't even prove was ever paid. MM dismisses the case.

Couple of thoughts on the case. This is what the silly litigants we see all the time are going to turn into in 40-50 years. SQUATTAHS still trying to game the system. Plaintiff shows up with an armful of the Connecticut statutes, all with tabs and memorized, ready to school the judge on the law. Course it doesn't help that she knows the words, but doesn't really know what they mean in the law. Years ago in the settlement, the plaintiff got to live for months rent free, and now wants back a deposit that she can't prove was ever paid, or even how much the deposit would have been. I wonder what a judge would say if the landlady's son came in, agreed to set aside that settlement from 5 years ago, agreed to give back 1 month's rent as a security deposit, but turned around and countersued for the unpaid rent that was forgiven in the settlement.

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

Homeowner wants refund on his kitchen granite counter top

You just know that instead of calling like a normal person and reasonably asking the vendor to come and take a look/fix what's wrong, the plaintiff immediately went ballistic. I have no doubt he cursed and screamed in spite of his calm demeanor in court.

Today's slimy, smug, smirking, shifty, shyster of a real estate agent - he may have asked his last name to not be used, but you know anyone in the area who watches this show is going to be sure never to hire him. He was arrogant as hell too. The contract he's being sued over? Oh, well - he couldn't be bothered to bring it.

The pod people: Def. was nasty old curmudgeon. I feel sorry for people whose business requires them to deal with the public. I could never do it. At least plaintiffs learned that it's a good idea to get contracts in writing.

IPad: Who lets a bunch of kids alone to play with expensive electronics? These people think it's fine until something gets broken. Duh. Def had one of the worst wigs seen on this show. It looked like a cheap cap stuck too far back on her head.

[cattykit]

Ipad case was total filler, since the defendant had the repaired ipad with her.  No way did anyone need to hear the whole story, just hand it over.  Had to be for the "appearance fee."

Who moves on Christmas Day?  Just sayin'.  I loathe realtors, and even by my standards of hate this one was hideous.