The People's Court - General Discussion

[SRTouch]

12 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

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.

What a slimeball! Then in the hallterview he starts out saying he was going to give back the money, but didn't like their attitude/language when they wanted the money. Then he starts in again on how they were wrong for not waiting when they landlord wouldn't give them a lease. Hey, slimeball, your job was to find them an apartment they could lease, not find an apartment!

12 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

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.

I couldn't figure out what the case was about. Defendant had already gotten the thing fixed, so why not just give it back? I guess this way they got on TV. You're right though. I figure if you give an iPad to elementary and pre-schoolers as a toy, you're assuming some risk that they might damage it. Sounds like both employees and customers have their kids there. If the salon is acting as a daycare, get some coloring books and/or age appropriate toys.

[ElleMo]

16 hours ago, cattykit said:

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.

I assume someone who isn't Christian.  If you do not celebrate the holiday, it's probably just a day off for you and you can spend it moving your stuff

Edited June 10, 2016 by ElleMo

[ElleMo]

Did anyone see the ep. with the girl who was suing her dad for rent money and because he stole from her?  I wanted to reach through the screen and rip the man's throat out.  He wasn't paying rent because he was saving money so he can get a place on his own????  WTF.  What parent says that?? And he was upset because he was a grown man and his daughter dared to tell him to stop smoking pot.

For those who watch JJ, weren't these two on JJ too?  I think she threw the case out pretty quick, probably because the girl was getting welfare or something and she figured Byrd has already paid the rent.  JJ was not at all sympathetic but MM was very.sympathetic on this episode.  Unless, of course, there was someone else with the same issue, which knowing the crowd that comes on this show, I wouldn't be too surprised if two people  had similar stories.

If everything the girl said was true than I feel every sorry for her.  But if she is the same person who was on JJ, is it all a scam?

Edited June 10, 2016 by ElleMo

[wallysmommy]

The iPad case was a stupendous waste of time and oxygen.  I hate it when people tote their tribe of kids to the hair salon, nail place, or other places where I go to spend good money to be pampered.  It happened last week while I was getting a mani/pedi and the mom of a 7 year old boy was indulging in her pedicure.  He was bored to death, and ended up annoying most of the customers and staff in the salon.  He almost knocked over a huge rack of gel nail polish.  Of course, if he had, the mom probably would have said it wasn't his fault.  If it's so important to you to get your hair touched up to go to a funeral of a distant relative, or get your nasty toes polished, then find a baby sitter.  These two had nothing but first world problems and wanted their 15 minutes of fame.

[AngelaHunter]

I love shady contractor cases, and this was a doozy. Window contractors took 1400$ from plaintiff to install a window for her, and never deliver. The actual contractor, def's hubby, didn't appear in court. He had "personal business" and I have a feeling that business is being conducted in a room with bars on the windows, since he and his wife were charged with burglary to client's homes. After this case I'm sure neither of them will be in any business.

We had the kind of case I hate most - Pets belonging to people too dumb to have any living creature in their care. Plaintiff (smug asshole) goes off and leaves his 13-year old "cat/son" outside and alone for a whole weekend.(as an aside - I would never dream of doing such a thing with my cats)  I guess he'd leave his 13 year old human son alone all weekend outside too? I was let down that JM didn't question who was caring for the cat for those two days. Defs have seven children, so they thought what they really needed was to adopt two dogs who were skittish, escape artists and leave them outside alone all night to dig out of the yard (when they knew the dogs did this) and kill the plaintiff's helpless cat. They all made me sick. I feel so sorry for any animals stuck with most of the litigants we see.

I needed a break so haven't watched the last case.

[SRTouch]

Just to add my recap --- ANGELAHUNTER beat me to the first two cases. I was able to stomach the final case because I put the harness on Silly Cat and we went outside for an intermission halfway through the dogs-killing-cat case. If dumdum pet owners piss you off, just skip the second case.

FIRST CASE: Yet another case where I can't help but wonder why in the world a litigant agreed to go on TV. This case is about a homeowner who hires a business to replace a big picture window in her house. First red flag - there's no contract. Next problem homeowner paid two thirds up front ($1400 out of the $1900 price for the window). Then repeated delays start. Twice installation delayed because of deaths in the family, wrong window ordered, etc. Finally the homeowner is frustrated and threatens court action, and starts doing the research she should have done before contracting and paying a penny. Multiple arrests for burglary and possession of stolen property from other customers homes. So, now the defendant is on TPC trying to explain away things - and I'm left scratching my head wondering if she thinks it will make one iota of difference that she asked MM not to use her last name or the business name. Oh, and her husband who supposedly did some work and ordered the custom order isn'the in court because he's off taking care of personal matters (or maybe because he wouldn'the be able to testify anyway because there's pending cases on his multiple arrests).  Things look bad for the defendant, but her case really goes in the toilet when the defendant produces the form from when the order was ordered - 4 weeks after it was supposed to be installed. Turns out they didn't order the window until the lawsuit was filed. No way MM is going to let the defendant spin that, she orders a complete refund.

SECOND CASE:  Plaintiff says neighbors' dogs attacked and killed his cat. Defendants say it wasn't their dogs, but a bobcat ... no wait, it wasn't the plaintiff's cat, he's making it up to get money ... they're diligent about keeping their dogs in, but yeah the do get out repeatedly yada yada yada. Not sure why MM said the dog look like attack dogs, I guess just their coloring. They just look like australian shepherds to me, and I love the breed (to much work for me, I'll stick with my cats.) Only interesting part of case was that in that community you could register an outside cat as a "community" cat which can roam. Anyway, defendants were irresponsible dog owners with two skittish rescue dogs and a 2yo toddler. Plaintiff didn't bother to follow the rules of the homeowners associationnon    for registering his cat in the community, then acted like a jerk trying to get the defendant's bill for cremating the cat, buying a new cat, and a memorial. MM rules the two pet owners share the  blame, the value was $350, so plaintiff gets $175.

Once again we get an example of the law treating pets as property. A new kitten of this breed costs $400, but MM says the depreciated failure of the 13yo cat would be $150. Sorry, any animal I've loved for 13 years is worth more than the amount I paid when it was a kitten/puppy.

THIRD CASE:  Another section 8 tenant suing for return of deposit. This time section 8 is paying 2k and the tenant a couple hundred, based on the tenant having several kids. Then some of the kids move out, and now it's just the tenant and 1 kid in some 4 bedroom house. Section 8 cuts the amount they'll pay, and the tenant expects the landlord to eat the shortfall. There goes part of the deposit, and we're down to fighting about  $1900 in damages. Now the landlord almost gets away with pulling a fast one. She passes up receipts for cleanup and repairs to some dude, and when JM asks who this Mr Marshall is the landlord says he's the yard/handyman she uses. Defendant speaks up and tells us that's the defendant's husband. Defendant has no answer when MM asks if she doesn't think that was something she should have told the judge.This was a long time/7 year tenant with kids, and JM decides part of the damages were normal wear and tear, so defendant gets back 1k of the $2232 she wants.

[Cynna]

The dead cat case was awful to watch. In a dog group I belong to, an owner posted about his dog killing the neighbour's cat, and they decided never to tell the neighbour, hiding the cat's body while the neighbours spent months searching for the cat. I couldn't comprehend anyone doing this, but I'm pretty sure this couple would have done that, too.

The cat-dad just asked for cremation costs - why not just pay it and be done with it? The smugness on Clown-car-vagina-wife's face when the verdict came down was the final ick for me. I'm glad they don't have the dogs anymore, hopefully they don't get any again, especially with little kids who dogs are terrified of. Sheesh.

[AZChristian]

I don't think it was clear what he was asking for at first, but he ended up wanting cremation, the cost of a memorial, and the cost of a new cat.  I think the judge got it right . . . fairly decide what is owed, then split it.  The cat was out running free, so the plaintiff had some complicity.  I had two "cat/sons"; they were NEVER allowed out of our yard, and I would NEVER have left them out running free while I was gone for a weekend.

Actually, I probably would have given the plaintiff nothing.

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

Actually, I probably would have given the plaintiff nothing.

I agree. The only victims here are the animals. The poor cat, being neglected and left outside to be ripped apart by dogs, and the dogs who got doomed by being stuck with idiots not as smart as they are. Plaintiff wanted money to buy another purebred cat? No reputable breeder (yeah, I know - no one on this show knows what that is) would ever give him one upon hearing how this one died. The last thing he needs is another cat.

[ElleMo]

5 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

I love shady contractor cases, and this was a doozy. Window contractors took 1400$ from plaintiff to install a window for her, and never deliver. The actual contractor, def's hubby, didn't appear in court. He had "personal business" and I have a feeling that business is being conducted in a room with bars on the windows, since he and his wife were charged with burglary to client's homes. After this case I'm sure neither of them will be in any business.

We had the kind of case I hate most - Pets belonging to people too dumb to have any living creature in their care. Plaintiff (smug asshole) goes off and leaves his 13-year old "cat/son" outside and alone for a whole weekend.(as an aside - I would never dream of doing such a thing with my cats)  I guess he'd leave his 13 year old human son alone all weekend outside too? I was let down that JM didn't question who was caring for the cat for those two days. Defs have seven children, so they thought what they really needed was to adopt two dogs who were skittish, escape artists and leave them outside alone all night to dig out of the yard (when they knew the dogs did this) and kill the plaintiff's helpless cat. They all made me sick. I feel so sorry for any animals stuck with most of the litigants we see.

I needed a break so haven't watched the last case.

You got that wrong. It wasn't burglary.  Burglary is when you break in somewhere.  They were allowed to be there so it was only theft. The wife made that very clear. She was very indignant about it too.  And he had employees. . .

Is this them? http://patch.com/new-york/wantagh/seaford-contractor-burglarizes-several-local-homes-police

 If so, they were arrested after they cheated the plaintiff out of money, so at the time she originally hired them, there may not have been anything negative about them to find.  

Wife  forget to tell MM that she was charged with sale of stolen goods.

[SRTouch]

2 hours ago, AZChristian said:

I don't think it was clear what he was asking for at first, but he ended up wanting cremation, the cost of a memorial, and the cost of a new cat.  I think the judge got it right . . . fairly decide what is owed, then split it.

My only problem was I wouldn't give the cat owner anything based on the breed. He essentially said a neighbor moved away and gave him the cat, so why give him anything based on the breed ... just because the cat looked like a picture of the breed.

OTOH, I have problems putting a price on a pet. As I sit here Spotty, 13yo, and Frankie, 10yo, are both sharing the recliner with me. Both were strays, so in the eyes of the law I guess they're not worth much. I have no idea how much money I've spent on them over the years, but anyone who wants to buy them would find the value I place on them has nothing to do with what I paid for them a decade ago, or how much I've spent on them over the years.

According to MM view of the law, a cat's value depreciates with age. I think the opposite should be true. If I buy a kitten for 80 bucks (what our local shelter charges for a neutered cat with all its shots) and someone causes its death through negligence 13 years later, MM says the cat is now worth $20? I think the value should increase as time goes by and I pay for its care - never mind the sentimental value. Not really sure if the amount was what MM thought it should be, or if she awarded that amount based on what the law says the value should be.

2 hours ago, AZChristian said:

The cat was out running free, so the plaintiff had some complicity.  I had two "cat/sons"; they were NEVER allowed out of our yard, and I would NEVER have left them out running free while I was gone for a weekend.

In theory I agree that cats live longer, and I would hope happy lives indoors. All 5 of mine are inside cats, though I have two that I take outside on supervised walks. There are two big reasons for that here : 1) the rules of the trailer park; 2) and the biggy - open pasture/fields on three sides where we hear coyotes howling on occasion. That said, many people think cats who are kept inside are being deprived of their God given right to roam. Not so much in the US, back when I belonged to a couple internet cat newsgroups there was the occasional debate about indoor vs outdoor cats.

2 hours ago, AZChristian said:

Actually, I probably would have given the plaintiff nothing.

[SRTouch]

43 minutes ago, ElleMo said:

You got that wrong. It wasn't burglary.  Burglary is when you break in somewhere.  They were allowed to be there so it was only theft. The wife made that very clear. She was very indignant about it too.  And he had employees. . .

Is this them? http://patch.com/new-york/wantagh/seaford-contractor-burglarizes-several-local-homes-police

 If so, they were arrested after they cheated the plaintiff out of money, so at the time she originally hired them, there may not have been anything negative about them to find.  

Wife  forget to tell MM that she was charged with sale of stolen goods.

Yep that's the Jacqueline who appeared in court, but she looked lots better with makeup than she did in the mugshot. She admitted to the weapons charge on TPC, but insisted that was dropped. And denied the theft and didn'the say anything of sale or possession of stolen property.

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

Is this them? http://patch.com/new-york/wantagh/seaford-contractor-burglarizes-several-local-homes-police

Nice find! Jacqueline's looking a little rough there. I see she sold the items hubby swiped. Lovely couple.

Quote

According to MM view of the law, a cat's value depreciates with age

Sad but true. Animals are property under the law, and just like a 10 year old car doesn't appreciate in value no matter how much you spent on new parts over the years, neither does an animal. As dearly as we love them, a 13 year old neutered cat has no market value. My cats are priceless to me, but no one else would pay a nickel for them.

[SRTouch]

5 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Sad but true. Animals are property under the law, and just like a 10 year old car doesn't appreciate in value no matter how much you spent on new parts over the years, neither does an animal. As dearly as we love them, a 13 year old neutered cat has no market value. My cats are priceless to me, but no one else would pay a nickel for them.

Yep, guess there's no way to quantify the value of your feelings for a pet - what really burns me is that I have to admit that Harvey and I agree on... anything!

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

 Harvey and I agree on

Is that what that little slimeball said? I don't know, since I hit "mute" every time I see his piehole flapping.

I had one little rescued feral ginger tabby who ended up costing me well over 1500$ in vet bills. If I were to try and adopt him out (not that I would dream of it) I couldn't ask anything over the 80$ - 120$ which is the usual adoption fee.

JM is a cat lover, but her hands are tied in these cases. In this case, someone who leaves his senior cat outside alone and vulnerable really doesn't deserve to be rewarded.

[Katt]

That Jacqueline chick is 34?! And the years she's slept...

The cat case: I throw serious shade on someone asking for anything (sympathy, money...) for his "cat/son" when he frequently refers to the cat as "it". I highly doubt he would call his human/son something so impersonal. 

[bref]

Or leave "it" to run around outside for a few days while he's away!

The fact that he owned six other cats raised my eyebrows a little, too. But the rescue dog owners were still a mess. Awful case.

[Katt]

That defendant said his 2 year old left the front door open. Oh, WELL! That's so much better. I'm so sorry for thinking you're a neglectful pet owner! Turns out you're a crap parent, too!

[SRTouch]

FIRST CASE: plaintiff foolishly cosigns for defendant gf with bad credit. Shortly after getting her new BMW she's rear ended, and there's $3700 in damage (oh, and once she has the car she's still going out clubbing with her friends, and they break up about the time of the accident.) She gets the insurance check from the other driver. This is where things get stretchy. She says she had some ridiculously convoluted plan to pay for the repairs. The insurance check was from Bank America, so she cashes that check and planned to deposit the cash in Wells Fargo in her son's account. Then she says the son was going to transfer the money from hid account to her bank account at some third bank. So, she says after cashing the check, she goes out clubbing with the $3700 cash in her purse, and it's gone when she goes to the bank the next day. (Oh yeah, good luck with that story when you get to court, lady. Even if it's 100% true, how is it anyone else's fault.) So, with the car in the shop, and no money to pay for the repairs, she stops making the car payments and pretty much abandons the car. When the plaintiff finds out he catches up the payments and pays the repair bill, oh and pays the spending ticket she's pretending to know nothing about. There's also a $600 storage charge, since the car has been sitting in the shop for awhile before he pays the repair bill. Woman has no defense, just a ridiculous story of disappearing money. She tries to say she would have eventuslly come up with the money and paid the bill, so if the pkaintiff stepped in instead of waiting that's on him. Yeah, never mind that his good credit is going downhill and would end up matching hers, he should have just let her handle it. Plaintiff is awarded $4k+.

SECOND CASE:    Plaintiff wants $1600 for stuff he says was stored in space he was renting from defendant. Plaintiff buys storage lockers, and was looking to store the junk he and is planning to sell at flea markets, yard sales etc.like the jokers from Storage Wars. Silly case with litigants whose only proof is their flapping gums. MM throws out suit and countersuit. 

THIRD CASE:  either there was no third case today, or I lost a case due to the weather as the satellite was in and out for a while.

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

plaintiff foolishly cosigns for defendant gf with bad credit.

I love how JM is getting more and more harsh on the fools and idiots here. Old Sugar Daddy agrees with his new squeeze that she needs a car to go work. A nice, used Honda just won't do for her. She needs a brand new "BNW" (plaintiff's description) to get to her job. (Makes me wonder how I got to work my whole life without a new BMW.) Anyway, she's a deadbeat with no credit, so he thinks it's a good idea to sign for the car. She smashes it up, gets a speeding ticket, collects the ins. money, but apparently spent it at the club and on that wig and bling. In spite of all her convoluted lies and dancing around, we know she couldn't deposit the check in her own account as it no doubt would have been seized by the gov, as she probably owes everyone and everything. "You deserve to be publicly humiliated," JM tells Sugar Daddy. How right she is.  She was only wrong in thinking he'd learned anything. He'll probably do it again.

Quote

Plaintiff wants $1600 for stuff he says was stored in space he was renting from defendant.

I can't believe so much time was spent on this nonsense that there wasn't a third case. I swear plaintiff had food stains on his enormous teeshirt. Probably from those pizzas he ordered.

[SRTouch]

FIRST CASE: feuding roommates. Apartment full of girls get to fussing at each other ending in one girl moving out with less than a week's notice. The girl who left, left a bunch of stuff to be divided amongst the others as they saw fit. The countersuit is because the plaintiff donated some of that crap. Nobody told the plaintiff they wanted anything, but then she didn't ask either as they weren't talking by that point. The defendant wanted some of the crap, so she has a hissy fit and throws some of plaintiff's clothes and makeup off the balcony. Now these "best friends" are in court. Plaintiff wants $650 for the stuff that was thrown off the balcony, and defendant wants to be paid $1K for the missing roommate's crap she decided she wanted after it was donated to AmVet. MM gives plaintiff half want she wanted, and defendant gets lecture for the hissy fit. The lecture didn't make much of an impact, defendant still blaming her ex-best friend for her hissy fit during hallterview.

SECOND CASE:  Plaintiff suing over stuff she stored basement that got wet and is now moldy. Her theory is that the landlord is responsible because sometime after she stored the stuff there the windows were opened. Nevermind that she left the stuff there knowing the windows were open, or that she moved in with her mom without ever being added to the lease (actually mom is a month to month tenant, so as MM points out defendant could give mom 30 day notice at any time). And of course none of the stuff that was damaged can be cleaned, and everything has great sentimental value, so of course she wants big money. Not sure why MM wasted all that time, there was never case and eventually it's thrown out. Of course in hallterview the plaintiff is whining that the judge never let her explain her case - despite the fact that the judge spent way to much time listening to her and looking at the junk.

THIRD CASE:  plaintiff suing because his car was at the shop, was put out on the street and was ticketed, and besides, he's not happy with the way the car was returned to him when he picked it up. He actually accepted the car and didn't complain until he received notice of the tickets in the mail. MM dismisses the case because the shop had signs saying they weren't responsible if cars are ticketed while in their possession, and of course the plaintiff didn't complain about how the car was returned until he was mad about the tickets. I agree about the no refund for the work part, but I feel the shop bears some responsibility for the tickets. I wouldn't have let them skate because of the sign - they knowingly broke the law parking the car with no plates on the street which resulted in the tickets. I have a feeling they have a practice of illegally parking their customers cars - which is why they have they sign, and then they hide the ticket when the customer picks up the car.

Oh, and while I'm on the subject of these guys needing to be put on notice for knowingly violating the law, why was the customer driving the car around unregistered when he had the accident? And then we have the shop owner say  he offered to let the guy test drive the car - still unregistered and now missing headlights and front end.

[SoapDoc]

Quote

I agree about the no refund for the work part, but I feel the shop bears some responsibility for the tickets. I wouldn't have let them skate because of the sign - they knowingly broke the law parking the car with no plates on the street which resulted in the tickets. I have a feeling they have a practice of illegally parking their customers cars - which is why they have they sign, and then they hide the ticket when the customer picks up the car.

I totally agree about the tickets. If the repair knows that that car does not have a tag, it shouldn't be parked on the road. Period. How can the owner be responsible when they didn't park the car? The repair shop could leave it there for days or get it towed. That bugged me. It allows the repair people to skate. If the shop does not have enough space to park an untagged car, they shouldn't accept them.

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

Apartment full of girls get to fussing at each other

I always wonder why landlords would rent to a bunch of babies who act like toddlers throwing tantrums. The def didn't throw ALL the plaintiff's stuff off the balcony. Give her a break! She actually carried some of it downstairs and threw it on the sidewalk. What's the big deal? Isn't that how people are supposed to act when they're annoyed?

Quote

Plaintiff suing over stuff she stored basement that got wet and is now moldy.

She was unbelievable - a head made of solid cement. She's not responsible for her own junk. She wants 1500$ to have her saxophone cleaned. What? Why no, she couldn't be bothered to find out how much it would cost. She used "her best judgement" and just pulled that figure out of her ass. So hard-headed is she that she continued to claim to the Hall Clown that caring for her property is someone else's responsibility. Oh, and she had no space in her room for a photo album, AND a foot cast she wore as a child is very valuable, like 500$. I so hope the landlord gave her mother and her a 30-day notice right away.

Quote

 why was the customer driving the car around unregistered when he had the accident?

That's what I was wondering - how he could be driving it to the client's house when it didn't even have a license plate?  From what I see around here, even classic or antique cars need plates.

[cattykit]

18 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

I so hope the landlord gave her mother and her a 30-day notice right away.

It sounded very much to me like MM was strongly suggesting the landlord do exactly that. 

[speac]

22 hours ago, SoapDoc said:

I totally agree about the tickets. If the repair knows that that car does not have a tag, it shouldn't be parked on the road. Period. How can the owner be responsible when they didn't park the car? The repair shop could leave it there for days or get it towed. That bugged me. It allows the repair people to skate. If the shop does not have enough space to park an untagged car, they shouldn't accept them.

I will respectfully disagree.  If a car owner doesn't have the car properly tagged, then they should take it to a repair place that can store the car off street when it was not being worked on. It is a car's owner responsibility to make sure a car is registered and tagged and it was the car's owner who selected the garage.  I suspect that if the car owner had looked around before he left the car, he would have seen there was limited area for car storage that would require the garage to move cars in and out of the garage to the street has they needed the space.  

[ElleMo]

23 hours ago, SoapDoc said:

I totally agree about the tickets. If the repair knows that that car does not have a tag, it shouldn't be parked on the road. Period. How can the owner be responsible when they didn't park the car? The repair shop could leave it there for days or get it towed. That bugged me. It allows the repair people to skate. If the shop does not have enough space to park an untagged car, they shouldn't accept them.

Plus I wouldn't think the sign would refer to me.  I would assume it applied to the people who had licenses plates on the car, employees shouldn't be responsible for reading every sticker on the car and making sure everything is ok w/the law.  But when it is obvious that the  car can't be parked on the street, it's common sense that you do not park there.

I bet this place pisses off other local businesses or residents nearby and the cops make it a habit to come by and ticket. 

I guess they must be tight on space, but I have never got to a shop where they have to park on the street.  They always have enough spots in the parking lot & repair bays.

Edited June 15, 2016 by ElleMo

[ElleMo]

20 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

That's what I was wondering - how he could be driving it to the client's house when it didn't even have a license plate?  From what I see around here, even classic or antique cars need plates.

He probably put another license plate on it temporarily.  Giving him the benefit of the doubt, if he is rebuilding it, he needs to test drive it somewhere so you put another license on it.  It sounds to me like the accident happened while it was still in his possession, otherwise the actual owner would have brought it to the shop and she would have paid for it.  So maybe the t-bone happened when he was test driving it?  

It's not legal but not uncommon to do.  

[speac]

45 minutes ago, ElleMo said:

Plus I wouldn't think the sign would refer to me.  I would assume it applied to the people who had licenses plates on the car, employees shouldn't be responsible for reading every sticker on the car and making sure everything is ok w/the law.  But when it is obvious that the  car can't be parked on the street, it's common sense that you do not park there.

I bet this place pisses off other local businesses or residents nearby and the cops make it a habit to come by and ticket. 

I guess they must be tight on space, but I have never got to a shop where they have to park on the street.  They always have enough spots in the parking lot & repair bays.

Having enough spots for cars isn't a problem for most of the country.  I know I'm used to taking my car to dealerships or repair places that have acres of space, However space can be a major problem for repair shops in large cities where real estate is very expensive. 

[SRTouch]

FIRST CASE: all kinds of stuff wrong with this case. First off girl decides to breed her gf's dog, without telling the gf, to a co-worker's neighbor's dog. Why? To teach the gf a lesson about having the dog spayed, oh and she wanted a puppy. In what way does that make sense? At the same time she's supposedly trying to convince her gf to spay the dog, she's sneaking around making deals to breed the dog so she can have a puppy? The deal she makes (without the knowledge of the dog's owner) is that both the co-worker and her neighbor will get pick of the litter at 10 weeks.

At 10 weeks, actual owner of the mama dog refuses to honor the deal. She says her co-defendant had no right to go behind her back, breed her dog, and then promise to give away two of the puppies. MM agrees, so case against mama dog's owner is dismissed. Now the only defendant is the little girl with glasses, big eyes, and ruby red lips that lies and cheats whenever the mood strikes.

And what was the owner of the male dog going to do with the puppy he didn't get? He wants a female puppy so he can go into dog breeding and make money with all the cute little inbred future puppies. That's actually part of his lawsuit, he's suing because he didn't get a puppy, and he wants to be paid for the future sale the puppies he could have sold after the puppy was old enough to breed. We're not talking purebred registered puppies with papers here, just cute little chihuahua/shihtzu/poodle/? lapdog mutts that he wants to inbreed and sell.

MM spends a lot of time heaping scorn on the dishonest defendant, but, if I heard the plaintiff correctly he is worst than the lying little defendant. In the end, MM awards $200 to each plaintiff. The one plaintiff, the coworker, just wanted a puppy, so she can take her money to the nearest shelter and pick one out. Maybe, just maybe, she'll prove to be worthy of having a dog, as she supposedly was out getting all the puppy supplies and anxiously awaiting her new puppy's arrival. Unfortunately, the male dog's owner can also take his $200 bucks and get a cute little female mutt and start his puppy mill operation without having to wait for a puppy to grow up.

SECOND CASE:  tenant wants deposit back after moving out of New York apartment. She tries to pull a fast one by suing in Connecticut instead of New York, hoping to use Connecticut's more tenant friendly laws - nope MM caught that. Plaintiff started out asking double for the $3400 security, or actually the 5k max, because she didn't get the itemized list of damages as required by Connecticut - so right off the bat the suit is now for $3400 not $5000. There were no good guys in this case. Plaintiff caused obvious damage and doesn't deserve all $3400 back. Defendant filed countersuit for 5k asking for inflated damaged costs. MM, after examining the pictures both sides presented, give back half the security, or $1700. I'm happy with that, because half of the $3400 was a pet deposit for her cat, and the cat appeared to be a perfect tenant, unlike the skateboarding son.

THIRD CASE:  plaintiff says she bought a hoverboard from defendant for her 12yo son for Christmas. She wants the judge to undo the sale because her son isn't old enough to ride in her state, and she claims the defendant knew how old the kid was when they made the deal. Defendant argues that while some states require riders to be 16yo, it IS legal for her 12yo son to ride in her state (and MM says her research agrees). Besides, he says, it clearing states on the receipt that there are no cash refunds, only store credit. Plaintiff can't seem to get it through her head, even as MM repeatedly explains it to her, that her deal was for exchange/store credit, not a cash back satisfaction guarantee, and that in her complaint she wrote about exchanging the hoverboard if her son didn'the like the color, not getting a cash refund. In hallterview as she's leaving she still insists the judgement was unfair.

[cattykit]

5 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

FIRST CASE: all kinds of stuff wrong with this case. First off girl decides to breed her gf's dog, without telling the gf, to a co-worker's neighbor's dog. Why? To teach the gf a lesson about having the dog spayed, oh and she wanted a puppy. In what way does that make sense? At the same time she's supposedly trying to convince her gf to spay the dog, she's sneaking around making deals to breed the dog so she can have a puppy? The deal she makes (without the knowledge of the dog's owner) is that both the co-worker and her neighbor will get pick of the litter at 10 weeks.

At 10 weeks, actual owner of the mama dog refuses to honor the deal. She says her co-defendant had no right to go behind her back, breed her dog, and then promise to give away two of the puppies. MM agrees, so case against mama dog's owner is dismissed. Now the only defendant is the little girl with glasses, big eyes, and ruby red lips that lies and cheats whenever the mood strikes.

And what was the owner of the male dog going to do with the puppy he didn't get? He wants a female puppy so he can go into dog breeding and make money with all the cute little inbred future puppies. That's actually part of his lawsuit, he's suing because he didn't get a puppy, and he wants to be paid for the future sale the puppies he could have sold after the puppy was old enough to breed. We're not talking purebred registered puppies with papers here, just cute little chihuahua/shihtzu/poodle/? lapdog mutts that he wants to inbreed and sell.

MM spends a lot of time heaping scorn on the dishonest defendant, but, if I heard the plaintiff correctly he is worst than the lying little defendant. In the end, MM awards $200 to each plaintiff. The one plaintiff, the coworker, just wanted a puppy, so she can take her money to the nearest shelter and pick one out. Maybe, just maybe, she'll prove to be worthy of having a dog, as she supposedly was out getting all the puppy supplies and anxiously awaiting her new puppy's arrival. Unfortunately, the male dog's owner can also take his $200 bucks and get a cute little female mutt and start his puppy mill operation without having to wait for a puppy to grow up.

SECOND CASE:  tenant wants deposit back after moving out of New York apartment. She tries to pull a fast one by suing in Connecticut instead of New York, hoping to use Connecticut's more tenant friendly laws - nope MM caught that. Plaintiff started out asking double for the $3400 security, or actually the 5k max, because she didn't get the itemized list of damages as required by Connecticut - so right off the bat the suit is now for $3400 not $5000. There were no good guys in this case. Plaintiff caused obvious damage and doesn't deserve all $3400 back. Defendant filed countersuit for 5k asking for inflated damaged costs. MM, after examining the pictures both sides presented, give back half the security, or $1700. I'm happy with that, because half of the $3400 was a pet deposit for her cat, and the cat appeared to be a perfect tenant, unlike the skateboarding son.

THIRD CASE:  plaintiff says she bought a hoverboard from defendant for her 12yo son for Christmas. She wants the judge to undo the sale because her son isn't old enough to ride in her state, and she claims the defendant knew how old the kid was when they made the deal. Defendant argues that while some states require riders to be 16yo, it IS legal for her 12yo son to ride in her state (and MM says her research agrees). Besides, he says, it clearing states on the receipt that there are no cash refunds, only store credit. Plaintiff can't seem to get it through her head, even as MM repeatedly explains it to her, that her deal was for exchange/store credit, not a cash back satisfaction guarantee, and that in her complaint she wrote about exchanging the hoverboard if her son didn'the like the color, not getting a cash refund. In hallterview as she's leaving she still insists the judgement was unfair.

I really thought that when MM caught the filing in the wrong state, that she would toss the case and tell her she has to re-file.  I just wonder what's to stop her from filing a new suit in NY and try to catch the defendant twice, if that would be legal.

Puppy case was so strange in that it was mutt on mutt, and after all, why would the lying defendant not want to give up one of the eight puppies she now needs to find a home for?  It's not like, as MM pointed out, they have any real financial value.  Wronged defendant was awfully calm considering how she'd been lied to and manipulated, and now dragged into court when she did nothing wrong.  Wish there was a three-way suit where she could have sued her GF just for the aggravation (yeah, I know).

Hoverboard case was also weird, in that even if hoverboards were made totally illegal and banned from the planet, that's not the store's problem after plaintiff paid the money and got the terms in the receipt.  Next thing mom ought to be looking into is why the usage is being restricted and maybe, just maybe, DS should find another hobby that carries a lower risk of pulverized brain until he's old enough to manage those risks somewhat carefully.

[patty1h]

My cable guide says this is a new episode, but I swear I've seen some of the people in the dog breeding case before.  The black girl and guy both made me go "hey, wait a minute".  Is this a case of court show jumpers - popping up to get a free trip to wherever the show is taped?   Or I've just been watching too many judge shows.

EDITED TO ADD:  Just watched the hoverboard case.  WTH was going on with the plaintiff's head?  It looked like she had hair loss/no edges, but that wig was really askew and too far back.  My guess is she had one of these wigs where you use some of your hair in front to soften the look of the hairline, but she didn't realize she was missing that element.

Edited June 15, 2016 by patty1h

[SRTouch]

2 minutes ago, cattykit said:

Hoverboard case was also weird, in that even if hoverboards were made totally illegal and banned from the planet, that's not the store's problem after plaintiff paid the money and got the terms in the receipt.  Next thing mom ought to be looking into is why the usage is being restricted and maybe, just maybe, DS should find another hobby that carries a lower risk of pulverized brain until he's old enough to manage those risks somewhat carefully.

I agree with the store owner, there had to be something in his store the kid would like. Mom was experiencing EPS (empty pocket syndrome) and wanted that $450 bucks back from her ill advised impulse purchase once the bills started coming in after Christmas.

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

She tries to pull a fast one by suing in Connecticut instead of New York

That was sneaky, but dumb. Start off by annoying JM. That's always a good idea. I wonder if we'll ever see a landlord who has a clue about tenant/landlord laws. So far, it's zero. Tenant's son is obviously some kind of destructive wild animal, but Mama seemed to think that him kicking in doors and wrecking walls with his skateboard is normal. First I thought he was probably around ten, but it seems he's grown. Yeah, the boyfriend witness was really helpful - "I don't remember it being that bad!"

Hoverboard:

Quote

WTH was going on with the plaintiff's head?

I don't know, but I just wanted to reach through the screen and straighten out that wig. I was afraid it was going to fall off. JM wasted her breath with this one. Plaintiff doesn't care what the store policy is, or what the law says, she feels JM was wrong in ruling against her. And get your son a haircut!

Quote

there had to be something in his store the kid would like.

Seriously! There's nothing in an electronics store that an 11-year old would want?

[Broderbits]

I feel like there should be a guardian ad litem appointed for all the animals involved in the 1st case. Those people aren't fit to be trusted with a cockroach.

[OhioSongbird]

• Quote

   

  Why does the quote box pop up when I want to reply?  I can't get rid of it. Don't use it.....

• I got a kick out of plaintiff not even getting the store credit she was offered 'numerous of times'.  Yeah that wig was all kinds of wrong.  Looked like she may have alopecia or (hopefully not) undergoing chemo.  I have better looking wigs in my costume shop.  Kid was cute but totally bored out of his mind.

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

I feel like there should be a guardian ad litem appointed for all the animals involved in the 1st case.

As soon as I saw the litigants and heard the word "dog", it was FF time. Gotta watch the ol' blood pressure. Thanks for confirming I did the right thing.

[SRTouch]

FIRST CASE: Mom suing adult daughter over loan and broken lease. Adult daughter moves in with mom, signs the lease, then moves out with no notice 4 months before lease was up. Daughter also borrowed $1200, again signing an IOU, but hasn't paid anything on the loan. 23yo daughter doesn't have any defense. She tries to say the loan was forgiven because mom said "don't to worry about" when they had a fight. And besides, she contributed towards expenses while she lived there, and even bought gifts for her nephews and let mom say there were from her. I think the truth is what she said in the hallterview, she knew she owed for the rent and loan, but never expected mom to go through with taking her to court to get her almost 4k back.

SECOND CASE:  convoluted case - I still don't know what was going on. When the case started I was worried the defendant might have passed there in the courtroom in her wheelchair - but no I guess she was just napping. The way I understood it, home care "nurse" is hired by elderly homeowner to help her get back on her feet when she is released from a rehab center after surgery and pacemaker installation. Almost immediately, the "nurse" brings in a crew of scam artists to remodel the old lady's house. Don't know if "nurse" was in on the scam, or just happy to take a "finders fee" for finding people to scam - she admits her "realtor" friend paid her $1000, and that she has convinced 2 or 3 other nursing clients to take out loans and hire these con men. The "nurse" tells JM that the repairs had to be done to avoid the city condemning the house. Despite JM repeatedly asking, we never learn if someone from the city ever inspected the house and threatened condemnation, or if it was just leverage to scare the old lady into going into debt to make unneeded repairs.

I really think MM should have refused to hear this case and referred it to another court - or the DA. The case in TPC was the "nurse" suing because she wanted $1000 from the homeowner as a fee for arranging the "loan/reverse mortgage" and MM threw that out. Sounds like the homeowner needs to be referred to someone to find out if she was scammed - and maybe determine if she is competent to run her own affairs.

THIRD CASE:  Plaintiff suing landscaper, saying he didn't complete the agreed upon work after being paid in full. Plaintiff is yet another in a long line of foolish homeowners who hires a casual acquaintance to do work, pays in full, and ends up in court when things don't work out. Defendant is also another in a long line who doesn't want us to know his full name and his business name. Sounds like he probably did a good job with the landscaping portion of the contract, but then was over his head redoing her driveway. Hey, I used to do landscaping, and I know I would have never taken on driveway/hardscape job - different skillset than creating flowerbeds etc. Anyway, over months the dude nickel and dimes her until the end he's been paid an extra grand over the estimate, and he never touches any of the hardscape work. Not only that, but he has a countersuit for 5k because she has been telling everybody about his not doing the job, and he says she threatened to tell people dirt on his now deceased fiancee. MM gives the lady the $2400+ she's asking for and gives the dude nada.

Only reason to watch this one is the faces and sound effects from the plaintiff while the defendant is trying to spin his story.

[AlleC17]

On 6/15/2016 at 8:59 AM, SRTouch said:

FIRST CASE: all kinds of stuff wrong with this case. First off girl decides to breed her gf's dog, without telling the gf, to a co-worker's neighbor's dog. Why? To teach the gf a lesson about having the dog spayed, oh and she wanted a puppy. In what way does that make sense? At the same time she's supposedly trying to convince her gf to spay the dog, she's sneaking around making deals to breed the dog so she can have a puppy? The deal she makes (without the knowledge of the dog's owner) is that both the co-worker and her neighbor will get pick of the litter at 10 weeks.

At 10 weeks, actual owner of the mama dog refuses to honor the deal. She says her co-defendant had no right to go behind her back, breed her dog, and then promise to give away two of the puppies. MM agrees, so case against mama dog's owner is dismissed. Now the only defendant is the little girl with glasses, big eyes, and ruby red lips that lies and cheats whenever the mood strikes.

And what was the owner of the male dog going to do with the puppy he didn't get? He wants a female puppy so he can go into dog breeding and make money with all the cute little inbred future puppies. That's actually part of his lawsuit, he's suing because he didn't get a puppy, and he wants to be paid for the future sale the puppies he could have sold after the puppy was old enough to breed. We're not talking purebred registered puppies with papers here, just cute little chihuahua/shihtzu/poodle/? lapdog mutts that he wants to inbreed and sell.

MM spends a lot of time heaping scorn on the dishonest defendant, but, if I heard the plaintiff correctly he is worst than the lying little defendant. In the end, MM awards $200 to each plaintiff. The one plaintiff, the coworker, just wanted a puppy, so she can take her money to the nearest shelter and pick one out. Maybe, just maybe, she'll prove to be worthy of having a dog, as she supposedly was out getting all the puppy supplies and anxiously awaiting her new puppy's arrival. Unfortunately, the male dog's owner can also take his $200 bucks and get a cute little female mutt and start his puppy mill operation without having to wait for a puppy to grow up.

I was so infuriated by pretty much everyone in this case.  Poor dogs.  :-(  Don't these morons know there are thousands of unwanted mutts in shelters that die. and here they are making more.  And moron plaintiff with the male dog wanted to inbreed too.  grrrrrrrrrr  I hope the lady who owned the female dog dumps her lying, dumb ass GF pronto.

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

The way I understood it, home care "nurse" is hired by elderly homeowner to help her get back on her feet when she is released from a rehab center after surgery and pacemaker installation.

What I don't understand is why that so-called "nurse" isn't in prison. She's a predator, preying on the elderly and infirm, along with her partner in crime, "Craig."  This amoral hustler/scam artist didn't get enough of a beatdown from JM. I would have liked this case on JJ, who would have broken her down into tiny little pieces.

Quote

I really think MM should have refused to hear this case and referred it to another court - or the DA.

Agree. The most amazing thing is that this scammer had the unmitigated gall to appear on national TV and try to get yet more money from the defendant. Def was far from senile, but understandably confused about all the goings-on instigated by this vile POS. Plaintiff? Take some of your ill-gotten gains and buy yourself a new wig, because the one you were wearing is ridiculous.

Quote

Only reason to watch this one is the faces and sound effects from the plaintiff while the defendant is trying to spin his story.

JM had to chastise her for the gasping, which was annoying but the def was such a weasly, chinless petty con artist with his silly lies that I can almost understand plaintiff's over-the-top reactions to the nonsense spewing from his piehole.

[Cynna]

2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

What I don't understand is why that so-called "nurse" isn't in prison. She's a predator, preying on the elderly and infirm, along with her partner in crime, "Craig."  This amoral hustler/scam artist didn't get enough of a beatdown from JM. I would have liked this case on JJ, who would have broken her down into tiny little pieces.

JJ would have definitely sent this to the Attorney General or someone. I was horrified at the scam, the 'nurse' earned at least $2500, nevermind the missing $15,000 from the initial loan. Horrible situation, I think JM wouldn't be able to sleep at night if she didn't send this to someone.

[ElleMo]

14 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

What I don't understand is why that so-called "nurse" isn't in prison. She's a predator, preying on the elderly and infirm, along with her partner in crime, "Craig."  This amoral hustler/scam artist didn't get enough of a beatdown from JM. I would have liked this case on JJ, who would have broken her down into tiny little pieces.

I am hoping that  producers did and the footage from the show will help convict tjos scammer.  Anyone get the woman's names?  I never remember to do that and I would love to google her. 

Edited June 17, 2016 by ElleMo

[SRTouch]

First case: thought we were going to be treated to another crooked contractor case, but this case turned out to be different. Homeowner remodeling a bathroom, goes down and picks out her tile and waits two weeks for it to be delivered. When it comes in the installer installs the tile while the homeowners are at work, but it turns out to be the wrong tile. Problem is tracked back to the manufacturer, who mislabeled the boxes of tile. It's going to cost $4k to rip out the just-installed tile and put in the correct tile. Plaintiff is suing the store where they bought the tile, even though they really did nothing wrong. Kind of sad, since non of these litigants did anything wrong, but MM explains that the plaintiff in this case is right to sue this defendant. She says now this defendant should turn around and get the money from the tile manufacturer. Sounds like the manufacturer has already agreed to pay back the store, but it will take awhile because their plan is to give discounts on future orders rather than writing a check. 

SECOND CASE: plaintiff feels defendant overcharged for a tow after an accident. The tow sheet which the defendant's company gave the plaintiff when towing the car has one set of charges, but when he goes to get the car he's given a different set of charges, along with a big storage fee because he left the car there for weeks for a total bill over $2200. The defendant says they discount the bill to $1k, but the plaintiff has a receipt showing he paid the  $2200.

Another case of a defendant representing a company in court who really doesn't have any first had knowledge. All the plaintiff's dealings were with some other department manager, who isn't in court. So, MM gets the guy on the phone who actually dealt with the plaintiff. Whoa, the dude on the phone blows everything the defendant in court said out of the water. He says the charge was $3k, and they graciously discounted it to $2200, which the plaintiff paid. When MM questions him about how it could possibly have been 3 grand, more double talk which contradicts the written evidence already presented. 

Plaintiff awarded the difference between what he paid and the correct amount - so he gets some grand. MM also tells him he should let the police know what the tow company is doing, because they are an approved vendor for the city ripping off customers.

THIRD CASE:  Plaintiff wants deposit returned from a realty deal that fell through when the bank refused his loan application. Defendant says deposit was nonrefundable, and besides the loan was denied because the plaintiff didn't disclose his ongoing divorce on the application. MM tells us the only reason the defendant would have to give back the deposit would be the financing fell through through no fault of the plaintiff. Plaintiff has nothing, case dismissed.

[cattykit]

Third plaintiff shouldn't have spent his money on a house--get some dental work, please.  I can't imagine a contract offer without a financing contingency.  Plus I don't understand why the seller would "take the house off the market" for two months.  It should go into a pending status but not completely off the market.  Buyers and realtors know properties fall out of escrow all the time.  I think the plaintiff got bamboozled by the realtor into applying for a mortgage he couldn't get rather than going for the rental property he'd asked for.  I think that because I hate realtors.

[bref]

Last week, Judge MM dropped another one of her lovely Spanish proverbs, something about the Devil and being ancient? Did anyone catch the whole thing? I love that stuff :)

[cattykit]

1 hour ago, bref said:

Last week, Judge MM dropped another one of her lovely Spanish proverbs, something about the Devil and being ancient? Did anyone catch the whole thing? I love that stuff :)

El diablo sabe más por viejo que por diablo.

The Devil knows more because he is old than because he is the Devil.

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

plaintiff feels defendant overcharged for a tow after an accident.

More towing sleazebags. "Red" didn't have the balls to show up, but JM did a phone "Gotcha!". Did wormy little def. really think that telling her, "Red said this and Red said that," was going to fly?

Quote

 Homeowner remodeling a bathroom

I enjoyed this case. Both litigants could speak English properly, and there were no fistfights, car keying, rock throwing or any of the other barbaric behavior we hear about too often. Def is being repaid by the manufacturer, so should have returned plaintiff's money, instead of deciding to keep it all.

Quote

Third plaintiff shouldn't have spent his money on a house--get some dental work, please.

I was thinking the same thing! I loved how he had his new squeeze in tow. Probably hoping the ex-wife was watching and seeing that another woman thinks he's  a prime catch.

[bref]

Thanks catty!

The tow yard case was great. I loved the plaintiff's son and how abashed he was about messing up Dad's truck. Dad was wearing some nice threads too. :) I LOVED when Judge Milian got on the phone with Red and was just like "how much did the plaintiff give you?" "$2200". "Thank you!" The guy Red sent to stand in for him owes him a punch in the nose for making him embarrass himself like that.

Edited June 17, 2016 by bref

[quarkkm]

On 6/17/2016 at 7:43 AM, ElleMo said:

I am hoping that  producers did and the footage from the show will help convict tjos scammer.  Anyone get the woman's names?  I never remember to do that and I would love to google her. 

God, I hope so.  What a slimeball.  Her name was Martha White-Smith so it won't be easy to google.

[cattykit]

On 6/18/2016 at 1:39 PM, quarkkm said:

God, I hope so.  What a slimeball.  Her name was Martha White-Smith so it won't be easy to google.

She claimed to be a nurse so she should be listed on the state nursing registry, or be cited for practicing nursing without a license.  I thought they were in NY, and there is no LPN or RN listed under that name.  She's also not listed on the NY nursing assistant registry under that name, in case she was a CNA pretending to be a nurse.  Did I get the state wrong?

[AngelaHunter]

I enjoyed today's case with the auction house. The ghastly, beastly, mouthy plaintiff kept rolling her eyes at JM until dared to do it again. She also could not STFU and was ordered to "sit" like a dog. JM had the gall to expect her to have read a contract. Who does that? I forced myself to listen to creepy old Levin and was pleased to find out def. was able to produce the right evidence and plaintiff lost her case.