The People's Court - General Discussion

[SRTouch]

Well, our local TV channels continue to play with the schedule. You may remember last Monday I mentioned in passing they had moved Hot Bench to a different time slot (that's still messed up as the program info has the same info on back to back episodes, so the DVR only recorded 1 episode a couple days before I caught it.) Today I tune in to watch TPC and ... WTF! I get a Life Lock infomercial and Judge Faith. Luckily, before I threw a boot at the TV I checked the schedule. Yep, they've up and moved it to a different time slot and channel.

FIRST CASE: group of coworker/friends decide to go on a Puerto Rico getaway together. A week before the trip they have a kerfuffle fighting over who gets the master suite at the condo. Plaintiff, bails, finds separate lodgings for her and her friends, but not defendant and her friends. Problem is, she had already paid the defendants for her lodging, they had already spent the money on a non-refundable deposit, so they refuse to give her the $1200 she paid. Defendants have a countersuit, saying they're actually out $843 more than than what plaintiff already paid. Seems when the kerfuffle happened plaintiff canceled their plane tickets (without even letting them know),  and they want the difference they had to pay for a last minute flight and hotel for the extra night they had to pay for because of her canceling the flights. Hey, doesn't take long before plaintiff is rubbing me the wrong way. First off she doesn't like how MM pronounces her name ... no biggy, names can be pronounced pretty much however the person wants their name pronounced. Then she interrupts defendants as they're answering MM as she summarizes the case before she starts digging into it. Guess that's just the way she is, lots of hand waving and pointing to make her point, talking over people, including the judge, and at one point JM even asks if plaintiff is exasperated with being questioned. Anyway, seems their little kerfuffle expanded into their workplace, with an investigation taking place, ending with everybody getting fired.

Ah, that brings up why I'm still watching this case, the little scene shown in the preview. When MM finds out everyone got lost their job over the debacle, she asks if  they were fired. Plaintiff doesn't like that, and insists she did NOT get fired but resigned. Then she calls MM "Miss," which she changes to "Mrs" when  the judge asks what she called her. The judge asks what she would call a male judge, and she says "Mr". After a little back and forth MM finally tells her how to address a judge in court.

The kerfuffle started as a text war, which plaintiff printed out for the workplace investigation and then deleted before court - but defendant still has it in her phone. After reading the texts MM tries to talk to the defendant, and once again plaintiff interrupts, then rolls her eye after being told again to be quiet, which leads to a minor MM explosion. Longer the case goes the worse the plaintiff looks. Plaintiff gets nothing, defendant gets everything she asked for. In hallterview, plaintiff leans over the mic, says "only God can judge me!" gives a smirk and leaves before Doug can ask anything. Defendant finally got to talk in hallterview. She says they had a good time on the trip, but she still hasn'the found a new job ... I wanted to ask why she still went on trip after losing her job, but I guess she might as well go as the money was already spent and non-refundable.

SECOND CASE: tenant suing for deposit on a commercial lease he had for 5 years. Lots of double talk from plaintiff, but no evidence. He admits to subletting despite lease saying no subletting. Defendants, landlord, say he left without notice while owing for maintenance bills he had agreed to pay after putting space on Craigslist for another sublet. Ah well, defendants' case doesn't look too good because wife and husband don't agree on what he owes, oh and their ledgers were left at home. As JM is making the ruling saying it's a wash, no one gets anything and defendants can keep deposit, mouthy, no evidence plaintiff wants to argue and is told he's about to talk her into giving defendant's the additional 2k they asked for in snow removal and sewage bills they can't prove because they left ledgers at home. That shuts him up, case over.

THIRD CASE: Oops, dog case ... pitt killed puppy ... nope this post is too long already ... not something I want to write about.

Edited September 19, 2016 by SRTouch
Correction

[OhioSongbird]

Yeah trip pl was a trip herself.  I would hate to be stuck on a plane/hotel with her.  I have a hunch she's "Miss Butter Wouldn't Melt in My Mouth" on the surface but total bitch on the inside if you look at her wrong.  Glad she lost her job but sorry for the def.  Glad she got her money.

[BubblingKettle]

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

Well, our local TV channels continue to play with the schedule. You may remember last Monday I mentioned in passing they had moved Hot Bench to a different time slot (that's still messed up as the program info has the same info on back to back episodes, so the DVR only recorded 1 episode a couple days before I caught it.) Today I tune in to watch TPC and ... WTF! I get a Life Lock infomercial and Judge Faith. Luckily, before I threw a boot at the TV I checked the schedule. Yep, they've up and moved it to a different time slot and channel.

I'm having similar frustration. I used to watch two back-to-back episodes of Hot Bench, but now they have been replaced by an episode of Judge Alex and an episode of Judge Hatchett. Those two shows are horrible. An alternative is a one-hour block of Divorce Court, but sometimes those litigants are too messy for my taste.

I could have lived without JMM's sarcasm about the plaintiff's pronunciation of her name. (I can't believe I'm defending the plaintiff about something.) Cepeda has the right to pronounce her name without the Spanish accent. For all we know, she's a product of multiple Americanized generations of her family. I have an Italian last name, but I'm not Italian. I'm American, and there's a mix cultures in my genealogy. Even if I was among people from Italy, I wouldn't change my pronunciation of my name.

The preview for tomorrow - Is the litigant pretending to be blind?! 

[Brattinella]

@OhioSongbird, I hope you are feeling better!  I can't imagine the pain you are going through and I hope they are giving you plenty of painkillers!

[OhioSongbird]

Thanks Brattinella.  Still feel like shit and I have never had something itch so bad in my life.  Poison oak or ivy is nothing like it.  The fatigue is what's killing me.  I haven't opened my shop in 2 wks.  Walking around the house is enough to wear me out.  I do not have shooting pain I read about, thank God.  As far as painkillers...the 12 oz kind work for me..;-).

I had to turn off the puppy case.  I just can't with those anymore.  I love dogs too much.

[BubblingKettle]

33 minutes ago, OhioSongbird said:

Thanks Brattinella.  Still feel like shit and I have never had something itch so bad in my life.  Poison oak or ivy is nothing like it.  The fatigue is what's killing me.  I haven't opened my shop in 2 wks.  Walking around the house is enough to wear me out.  I do not have shooting pain I read about, thank God.  As far as painkillers...the 12 oz kind work for me..;-).

I had to turn off the puppy case.  I just can't with those anymore.  I love dogs too much.

That sounds horrible, OhioSongBird. I hope you'll be feeling better soon. I'm with you regarding the dog (and other animal) cases.

SRTouch - I'm thankful for your summary. With your heads-up about the puppy case, I was able to change the channel before the narrator even described it. 

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

group of coworker/friends decide to go on a Puerto Rico getaway together.

Ugh. "Disinvite", "Zero toleration" - whatever. Plaintiff was a nasty, rough, insolent piece of work who made the defs look good by comparison. Doesn't anyone watch this show before appearing? If they did, plaintiff would have known that eye rolling and calling JM "Miss" might be a no-no. She might also have learned that JM is not interested in her breasts. Anyway, I can't understand why anyone would want to go on vacation with her. I see why everyone got fired from the deli jobs. Low-rent, all of them.

Quote

tenant suing for deposit on a commercial lease he had for 5 years.

These are all business people, yet they all deal in cash with no receipts issued. The property owner does have all her ledgers that prove plaintiff didn't pay what he should, but, gee - she didn't bother to bring them today, even though they would prove her case. She just didn't think that was relevant, but trust her - they would prove her case, if she brought them. Her husband basically called her a liar.

Edited September 19, 2016 by AngelaHunter

[ShadowSixx]

That plaintiff for the first case did have attitude problems. She had no right to cancel the defendant's flights because she was upset. As JM said she bailed on the arrangement they had and stayed at another hotel along with cancelling their flights. Then when the case is over she says "only God can judge her". Weak excuse to paint what a nasty human being you are when you don't get your way. She's the type of person you can't say no to otherwise she'll throw a hissy fit and do things she shouldn't be doing. She's impulsive and will keep using God as her excuse. 

With that case I do wish airlines would make it tougher to cancel flights if someone is calling in to cancel. Like verify last 4 digits of credit card that was used, the confirmation number or e-mail address or all the above. I worked customer service for travel and when calling the airlines to cancel a flight all they ask for is the name of the traveler and then they cancel the trip. There should be more to it. Because anyone can cancel anyone's flight out of spite. 

[cattykit]

I didn't quite get the part as to why they were all fired for having this disagreement.  Defendant was starting to explain about a zero tolerance policy but somebody--either MM or nasty plaintiff--interrupted and they never went back to it.  Zero tolerance for what?

31 minutes ago, CoolWhipLite said:

SRTouch - I'm thankful for your summary. With your heads-up about the puppy case, I was able to change the channel before the narrator even described it. 

Ditto here. 

[ShadowSixx]

Maybe it's 0 tolerance on threatening another co-worker because it really couldn't be anything else. They didn't say it got physical so it seemed that it was around threatening each other.

[SRTouch]

2 hours ago, ShadowSixx said:

Maybe it's 0 tolerance on threatening another co-worker because it really couldn't be anything else. They didn't say it got physical so it seemed that it was around threatening each other.

As I understood things, there were two confrontations at the deli. Plaintiff says defendant and her friend waited after defendant's shift just to confront her. Defendant says she was at work and plaintiff comes in and wants to speak to her, and when she takes a break to talk with plaintiff has backup waiting in the hall. Hey, if I were the shift leader in would have written them up the first time and warned them not to do it again, then fired them for the second time. 

 ADDED let me just add, if I were the defendant and plaintiff was not answering any of my texts as I'm trying to work things out, then I find the the B*TCH has up and canceled the my flight I might wait around to have a few choice words after my shift - especially with that big non-refundable charge on my credit card for the condo.

Edited September 20, 2016 by SRTouch
Added comment

[Art Vandelay]

When did the Doug episodes start? I'm still getting Curt episodes every day. Odd.

Edited September 20, 2016 by Art Vandelay

[califred]

I watched the dog case and the male plaintiff was a moron.  He sent new puppies with someone he knew drank to a home where as he put it there was a "bad" pit bull.  And it was his step sons MIL he was suing.  And he evicted her over this nonsense.  Wife evicted the other lady who was actually responsible:

 

Miss eye roller was a real piece of work.

[NYCFree]

The plaintiff husband was a real jerk.  He was simply convinced he was right.  It didn't matter that JM explained to him how he was suing the wrong person, it didn't matter that his wife agreed with JM, he KNEW he was right.

[SRTouch]

18 hours ago, CoolWhipLite said:

I'm having similar frustration. I used to watch two back-to-back episodes of Hot Bench, but now they have been replaced by an episode of Judge Alex and an episode of Judge Hatchett. Those two shows are horrible. An alternative is a one-hour block of Divorce Court, but sometimes those litigants are too messy for my taste.

Lol with our new schedule here I could watch a solid hour of Divorce Court, wait an hour, then have a solid hour of Paternity Court followed by an hour of Hatchett. Missing from the local schedule is what I consider the worst court tv, Christina Perez, replaced by Hatchett. Ah, but I have Direct TV, so if I want bad court TV I can watch the Justice Central Channel.

[ElleMo]

13 hours ago, NYCFree said:

The plaintiff husband was a real jerk.  He was simply convinced he was right.  It didn't matter that JM explained to him how he was suing the wrong person, it didn't matter that his wife agreed with JM, he KNEW he was right.

I loved this case.  I've started to stay away from dog cases but once I saw that they were in-laws (Plaintiff's son married to the defendants daughter) I had to stop and watch the train wreck.  I feel bad for the poor puppy but it was very clear that the defendant was not at fault.  After  judge made her big speech she asked the plaintiff's wife if she wanted to say something and wife said she agreed with the judge and has been telling him this all along.  It was great.  I agree with you;  I get the feeling that he is always right about everything and that  more than one family member will be happy that he got a smack down on national TV.  

I got the impression that he was not the father of the son.  Defendant said the kids had been married 7 years and plaintiff wife said she & hubby had been married for 21.  Now they could have lived together for a while before marrying, but I didn't get that vibe. So I wonder if any of this is because he is resentful of the son and his in-laws. Both women agreed when MM said it was awkward.  Husband did not react.

The suit was just a way to prove to everyone that he his right  I am happy he was proved wrong instead. 

[SRTouch]

FIRST CASE: first impression - not a working brain cell between them. Plaintiff is legally blind guy who met defendant on a chat line, and quickly moves in with her. She's just out of an abusive relationship and living in a safe house. Huh, living in a shelter for abused women, supposedly with trust issues with men, yet is active on a chat line to meet guys. Then, within a week or two of meeting online, she's moving a stranger into her home with her kids. According to both sides, just housemates, no sex involved, with dating a future possibility. First time they actually meet, dude is buying her 10yo son video games. Couple weeks later he buys a car and puts it in both their names. He says he put both their names on the title since he can't get a license. When they go to register the car he ends up paying her back taxes and traffic fines .... oh, and he claims he let her draw money from his account at the ATM to pay those taxes, and she withdrew a couple hundred extra without his knowledge. Course once she starts talking we hear about a totally new side of him. First, though legally blind and acting like he needs his witness to lead him into the courtroom, he ends up admitting he sees well enough to play video games. Then we hear when he moved into her house there were visible bedbugs crawling on him and his stuff. She denies he paid anything for the car. Oh wow, she sure hurt her credibility with that. She says the reason car is in both names is because he lived in her house. Oops, this means all of us who rent out a room to someone should go out and add their names to our car title!?! Nope, don't think so, and now I'm ready throw out her "he brought bedbugs into my home" story... course with her trolling for men on a chat line while living in a shelter I wasn't believing her much anyway. MM has heard enough, and starts going through the plaintiff's claim to figure what to award him. He wins on the car, but really that is a small part of the claim. Thing only cost $550, and since she drove him around he doesn't get back any of the insurance money. He can't prove she kept any of his stuff. And, the big ticket item, over $3 grand,  is pain and suffering - which, of course we all know from our extensive study of court TV shows, you can't get pain and suffering  without some actual pain and suffering. Oh, he also gets a little something for the illegal eviction where she abruptly threw him out after he paid rent (she tried to deny he paid rent, but slipped up and admitted he did).

SECOND CASE: 'Nother tenant vs landlord. As litigants walk in I think to myself that I didn't realize a beard would make Mr Clean look so short. Then when defendant walks in I realize that the reason he looks short is that he's standing next to Diana Prince, and both those puny males look small next to the Amazonia superheroine. Hmmm, maybe not, as Wonder Woman's alter ego has really gone downhill. OK ok, I know... really stretching.

Anyway, plaintiffs move in to a ground floor apartment while landlord is still renovating second and third floors. They say whole building is condemned by city two months after they moved in. Plaintiffs want all they spent on the apartment, rent, moving expenses, etc plus penalties for violating Connecticut laws pertaining to habitabiliy,  for total of almost 5 grand. Defendant says hold on, the inspector the whole building was not condemned, just the unfinished floors, just a minor hiccup, really never a reason for them to move. Uh, how many of us would voluntarily rent and move into a place with major renovations going on upstairs? Could it be these people didn't know what they were moving into and were thankful the inspector gave them an excuse to break the lease? In this case, landlord let them move in two weeks early. Course he says he told them work was still going on in their apartment, electric still in his name, and no rent for those two weeks. Ah, but they complain of gas leaks, open sewer line, exposed wiring, no heat, improper exhaust. They say after living there for two months, with place still not ready they called in complaint to city, which led to the condemnation. When asked about their complaints, defendant tries the age old "deflection" defense, where instead of answering judge's question he points to something plaintiff did... in this case he says he agreed to their having a cat, and a dog showed up. As he's doing his little song and (almost literal) dance, I can't help but notice him looking all over the court, and shifting back and forth. Wow, I used to question why the judges want litigants to stand still and look them in the eye when testifying, and now I'm right there saying this dude is making his testimony up as he goes. Ah, lucky for him MM actually reads the condemnation order the plaintiffs presented (don't litigants know literacy is a prerequisite for law school and judges actually read that stuff they pass up) and guess what, landlord was correct, their apartment was not condemned. 90% of what they complain about and give as reasons for why building was condemned aren't in the condemnation order. Quick turn around, plaintiff's evidence torpedoes their own case, they get nothing and defendant keeps deposit since their broke the lease.

THIRD CASE: Plaintiff wants back all her money she put on a sofabed. Defendant says, hold on, there's a restocking fee, she's not entitled to everything back when she's the one breaching the contract. Her answer (actually her witness' answer, since plaintiff evidently isn't telling the story to her satisfaction) is that defendant kept raising the price. Hey, lady, when you buy something that cost hundreds of dollars and you're paying $32 a shot, finance charges eat you alive... I just hope that card she was using to make those payments was a debit card or she might have been racking up interest and transaction fees on top of what the store was charging. Ah, but defendant's story is so at odds with plaintiff's, and neither side seems to be able to talk in understandable English, I'm ready to just say there was never a meeting of the minds. Only way I'd say he can keep the money is if there's a written contract - and hey, a written contract would trump all the jaw flapping from both sides every time. MM asks everybody, over and over, for something in writing, but nobody has anything. Oh, and this guy's restocking fee... 30%!!! Good grief, what justifies keeping 30% when, at most according to what I understood of his broken English testimony, he made a couple phone calls - 1 to get her approved, the second when she comes in after taking too long and approval has changed to denial. The scary part is that if he had anything in writing the judge would have had to let him keep that 30%. Since he didn't, plaintiff gets all her money back. 

Edited September 20, 2016 by SRTouch
Wording changed

[AlleC17]

21 hours ago, cattykit said:

I didn't quite get the part as to why they were all fired for having this disagreement.  Defendant was starting to explain about a zero tolerance policy but somebody--either MM or nasty plaintiff--interrupted and they never went back to it.  Zero tolerance for what?

Ditto here. 

Moronic stupidity?  I think they caused a huge distraction with their discussion and got the boot.  Seeing how the ahole plaintiff acted in court, she probably was threatening the defendant.

[AngelaHunter]

Just have to add my voice to that of CoolWhipLite and says thanks to SRTouch for the previews. Not only are they helpful so I can avoid a single word of dog cases, but they're entertaining as well!

Quote

Then, within a week or two of meeting online, she's moving a stranger into her home with her kids.

I haven't watched, but have to say in general that these kinds of shenanigans drive me mad. If some ridiculous fool of a woman wants to move a strange man into her home and chance he's not a serial killer, that's her perogative. I just HATE it when they have kids and subject them to a parade of men without even bothering to find out if any of them are abusers, drug addicts or pedophiles. The needs of the kids are last on their lists. These women should have their kids taken away pronto and permanently. Their judgement is too skewed and they aren't responsible enough to have children at their mercy.

[cattykit]

I've never heard of a restocking fee on non-custom/special order items that the customer never took from the store.  Restocking is supposed to cover the expense of either repackaging and restocking something, or the loss the vendor takes on something that was originally new and now has to be sold as used/pre-owned because it left the store in the hands of the customer.  Try as I might, I could not follow the discussion about credit lines but I don't understand why no one had paperwork on the original sale showing either the price the customer claimed or the price the vendor claimed.  And all that shit about monthly payments vs actual total cost is why I hate sales people (like car salespeople), who obfuscate the actual cost by focusing on monthly payments.

[SRTouch]

6 minutes ago, cattykit said:

I've never heard of a restocking fee on non-custom/special order items that the customer never took from the store.  Restocking is supposed to cover the expense of either repackaging and restocking something, or the loss the vendor takes on something that was originally new and now has to be sold as used/pre-owned because it left the store in the hands of the customer.  Try as I might, I could not follow the discussion about credit lines but I don't understand why no one had paperwork on the original sale showing either the price the customer claimed or the price the vendor claimed.  And all that shit about monthly payments vs actual total cost is why I hate sales people (like car salespeople), who obfuscate the actual cost by focusing on monthly payments.

Totally agree. Unless the guy actually pulled something from stock for delivery I don't see a restocking fee. The most I can see letting the store keep would be a credit check fee, maybe 5 or 10 bucks... but I'd probably write that off as the cost of doing business. I also can't see giving or accepting a $250 deposit with nothing in writing, and then coming to court to argue about that $250 without a copy. 

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

According to both sides, just housemates, no sex involved, with dating a future possibility.

This was worse than I thought it would be. I was eating my dinner when I was forced to hear about Mr. Williams' erectile dysfunction and picture his flaccid penis. Where's the eyebleach when you need it? Ugh, yuck, blah! Doesn't anyone have an internal censor? Did we really need to hear that? Who pays for these "safe houses"? Are they supposed to pay for women like this to sit on a computer all day, trolling for men? Much ado about a $500 car. Bedbugs? I doubt it. More likely roaches.

Quote

 Her answer (actually her witness' answer, since plaintiff evidently isn't telling the story to her satisfaction) is that defendant kept raising the price.

Plaintiff needed an interpreter for her tale of the "sofer." I couldn't understand what def. said, for the most part but at least he, unlike plaintiff, has the excuse of English being a second language. I turned this one off.

Quote

'Nother tenant vs landlord. As litigants walk in I think to myself that I didn't realize a beard would make Mr Clean look so short. Then when defendant walks in I realize that the reason he looks short is that he's standing next to Diana Prince, and both those puny males look small next to the Amazonia superheroine.

Haha, hee hee!

[AZChristian]

Thanks for the "heads up."  I'll watch with closed captioning turned on.

[califred]

I was glad the second lady started taking Bc I couldn't understand anything the first one said.  They couldn't use her card Bc it was one of those preloaded ones from what I could gather.  30% restocking fee for anything especially something in your possession is outrageous.

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

I'll watch with closed captioning turned on.

I'm afraid your CC just might self-destruct trying to deal with this.

[hisbunkie]

Has anyone else noticed there is something going on with Judge M's mouth?  Not sure if it's caps/dentures or if she has Botox on her lips. It's just annoying 

[SRTouch]

FIRST CASE: Break up case where gf is suing ex bf for stuff that happened during their six year relationship. Plaintiff says she borrowed $3000 from her brother to loan the ex back in 2011 or '12, $300 of which has been paid back. Seems way back then, nephew of the ex needed bail money, no one in his family had the money, so she ended up borrowing the money from her family to get the good father of three out of the hoosegow. Wow, this lady is another litigant that isn't making any sense... she says it's because she's so nervous, but I just think it's a story that makes no sense. On and on able this 4 or 5 year old loan, and how the nephew was on disability so there was no big push for repayment. Near as I can figure out, her brother loaned the money to the nephew of her ex, but money passed from bro to plaintiff to ex, finally ending up with the disabled nephew jailbird father of three. We need Bachman from Hot Bench to tell this lady her brother needs to sue the nephew, but the loan is too old to collect. (Oh, and bro is sitting there in court.) Then JJ can ask if plaintiff ever slept with defendant since 2012...

Oy, I can't take this lady and her convoluted story. This is just messy breakup drama... I skip to next case. 

SECOND CASE: plaintiff suing tow company for illegal tow and scratched bumper. Sort of unusual tow case, everybody in suit and tie. Yep, instead of normal burly looking tow guy, dude comes to court wearing a suit and tie, oh and with his service dog, a staffordshire bull terrier.

Ok, when someone insists their dog is an American staffordshire bull terrier, I know they may be telling the literal truth, but to me it's still a pit bull called by a different name because Pits have a bad rep. Far as I know, an AKC American staffordshire bull terrier would be an American pit bull terrier to most of the world's kennel clubs, including the United Kennel Club, which is the second oldest kennel club in the US, and many say the largest dog registry in the world.

Car owner plaintiff claims his car was parked for 4 hours at his gf's place in private parking. Says he got a call his car is being towed, hurry come get it. When he gets there he's stuck on the wrong side of the fence watching the home owner association dude pointing out the car, and the tow truck hooking it up. Someone opens the gate, and he gets in and gets into verbal fight with driver. Driver refuses to unhook the unregistered car, saying law says he can't release an unregistered car. Major silliness ensues, driver starts to tow away the car and idiot owner jumps inside and steps on the break. Driver isn't stopping, so owner eventually jumps out of what he claims was a moving car. Says as he watched car be towed away his bumper was being scraped over bumps. Next day he goes to DMV, renews the registration, and picks up car. Course, he's now in court claiming his bumper needs to be fixed, and he shouldn't have to pay the tow and impound charges since he was there. JM disagrees, he doesn't get any damage and has to pay the fees. All except the aggravation fee... seems driver tacked on a fee for every minute he says he spent arguing with the dude as he was driving away... MM makes him give back that $90.

THIRD CASE: Silly case. Lady wants her 3 year old granite counter tops replaced because she says it's changing colors. Counter guy says the color changed because she needed to reseal it every six months, and it's never been resealed. Says she could solve her problem by applying mineral oil, but she refuses because it would darken her counter and she like it a lighter color. She says the color change is fault of counter dude, he should have told her it needed periodic sealing to retain its color. MM sides with counter dude, says she could and should have checked on what she needed to do to maintain the counter, and I think it was really reaching suing for full replacement cost after 3 years. 

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

Break up case where gf is suing ex bf for stuff that happened during their six year relationship.

Marathon talker gave me a headache. Even when she knew she was taping herself, she couldn't control her big, foul mouth. But probably that's the way she always talks, so if she used no four letter words, the boyfriend might get suspicious. Yeah, I'd ask my brother to give me 2700$ so I could bail out my boyfriend's niece's husband, who is disabled but not disabled enough to prevent him from committing a crime.

The hedgehog-headed little shit who thinks he can just park and leave his car any old place if it's inconvenient for him to move it suing for his hooptie getting towed and scratched: Another lying loser who says "Wowwww!" when he predictably loses (except for a 92$ judgement). Tow guy seemed like an complete asshole, but his job is to tow illegally parked cars, which he did.

Granite lady: I installed a Travertine backsplash in my kitchen (did it myself - yay!) I know this is natural stone. A very quick check told me I needed to seal it. I did so. No problems.

[califred]

Suing three years later over a counter you should have sealed is ridiculous.  And honestly how much darker is mineral oil going to make your counter?

[SRTouch]

FIRST CASE: Quite the contrast between these ex-coworkers and friends. Plaintiff is putting out a sort of slow, pot head vibe, doesn't say much and pauses to say "uh" halfway through every sentence. Defendant is the opposite. She's a mile a minute yappity yapper... saucer sized earrings, pierced cheeks, long pink talons, tats showing on arms past her long sleeves ... MM asks if she has an "off button" at one point trying to slow her down. Plaintiff says he sold the defendant his 73" TV for $400, she paid $200, and was supposed to have the rest the next week. MM asks him what happened then, and he gets a laugh saying it's been a year. Defendant laughs, and MM asks her to tell her story since she thinks his is funny. First, she argues the price, saying she was supposed to pay $350 not $400. Then she says he's lieing about how long they've been friends. Then he was selling TV to someone else for $800, but was going to let her have it for $350. She admits she never paid the $350... MM asks her why she never paid the $350 when her friend was willing to sell it to her for $350 and he was asking $800. Lots of animated hand waving and telling MM to "Let me finish!" She tells us someone else was suing her for $3,500, and when he heard that he just gave her the TV. Yep, she's one of those people who hears "take it! It's a gift." when a friend hears she's a little short right now and says "Don't worry about it." Now it's plaintiff's turn. Still doesn't say much, and defendant wants to cross talk and interrupt, but what he says is pretty good, "Uh, I got text messages where I kept asking for my money." Defendant just keep yapping, trying to argue with MM as she reads the texts. As she yaps we learn she considers herself a rapper/musician, and says the only reason he sued was because he used to produce her music, and now she has someone else. Oh wow, I need a nap after this girl... she and MM get into a yelling match when MM calls her crazy (MM wasn't mad, more laughing in disbelief.) Anyway, texts reveal he never forgave the debt, but also she was right about the TV was $350 instead of $400. He admits his memory is a little foggy ( yep, pothead). I would have given him the $400, because in one of her texts she offers him an extra $50 because she's taking so long to pay ... and of course she stiffed him again and he ended up having to sue.

SECOND CASE: Odd couple roommate case (just roommates again, no sex, but no ED like in big bed bug dude case).  Plaintiff suing ex-roommate over silliness. Lease ended the third of the month, but plaintiff was there paying the bills til the 12th. Defendant moved out before the lease ended, but didn't pay those 3 days between the end of the time he paid for and yhe end of ghetto lease - course plaintiff wants him to pay 12 days worth, even though he was obligated for 9 of those days. Ridiculousness ensues as MM down plaintiff's list adjusting the 12 days of water, trash pickup, ultilities, rent etc plaintiff sued for back to the 3 days he actually legally owes. She ends up getting a hundred and change. Oh, more silliness, she actually went to a lawyer about this case, and wanted him to pay for that. Hmmmm, MM ruled against her collecting that fee... I wonder how much that was. If more than $100 she'll finish in the red even though she won the case.

LAST CASE: Contractor case where homeowner wants back deposit she paid guy she found off Home Advisor site online. Plaintiff homeowner in big rush to get her deck built, and fires contractor before he finishes filing for permits. Another one of those cases which need "TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE" in the contract - yes they actually had a signed contract. Plaintiff says she lost confidence in contractor because she tried to call for three days and kept getting the "FULL MAILBOX" message, so she fired the guy. Contractor says he tried to tell her he had the drawings and everything needed to turn in for the permit, but she just wanted the deposit back. Also, homeowner complained to the Home Advisor site and contractor got booted from the site. MM ruled homeowner breached contract by firing guy after three days, so case dismissed. Don't know if MM might have given her any of the deposit back, but she pointed out that he lost business because of her unrealistic expectations and complaint to the Advisor site. Couple things came out in hallterview. First she said after she fired the guy he offered to return part of the deposit. Also something about not only was his mailbox full, his phone was disconnected. The phone being disconnected certainly looks bad, if true, but the offer to return money probably just a settlement offer that the contractor later thought about and decided against.

[cattykit]

Never mind the merits of the case--those things sticking out of that woman's face were so horribly distracting.  They looked like something you need to be vaccinated against.

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

Never mind the merits of the case--those things sticking out of that woman's face were so horribly distracting.

I was thinking, "Is this the trashiest, mouthiest, rudest little troll we've ever seen here?" I was getting frustrated when JM didn't squash her like the squat little bug she is. OTOH, there's something almost admirable about looking and sounding the way she does and thinking she's a hot property, as though she thinks "I'm so fine, the plaintiff should be happy to pay for the privilege of my company."

Quote

 Plaintiff suing ex-roommate over silliness.

Here we had a plaintiff who seemed reasonable and spoke very well, but turned out to be a little nutty. 0.39$, 1.05$ etc, and she even got a lawyer to help her get those amounts. She was awarded 100$, (which is usually the cost of a lawyer's letter) so went though all this for nothing.

Quote

 Also something about not only was his mailbox full, his phone was disconnected.

If your phone is disconnected, that's the message a caller would get, not that the box is full, right? I think that was just thrown out in the hall and it was probably plaintiff's witness who told her to get her money back. I had the feeling def was one of the few reasonably honest contractors we've seen here and felt bad he got booted off the site for no reason. I've dealt with my share of contractors and know there's no "same day" service there. Break a contract, pay the price.

[DoctorK]

Quote

I think that was just thrown out in the hall and it was probably plaintiff's witness who told her to get her money back.

I think you nailed it, the plaintiff was unreasonable and I think the witness trumped up the MIA contractor story because she thought that she could get a better price from someone else. The contractor really got screwed because he lost his referral service and the jerk plaintiff's unreasonable complaints will probably remain available for all to see, and no one will bother to look up this episode of PC to see that he didn't do anything wrong.

Edited September 23, 2016 by DoctorK
typos are not good

[BubblingKettle]

On 9/20/2016 at 11:09 PM, hisbunkie said:

Has anyone else noticed there is something going on with Judge M's mouth?  Not sure if it's caps/dentures or if she has Botox on her lips. It's just annoying 

Yes--I commented on this too! (http://forums.previously.tv/topic/6835-all-episodes-talk-time-for-a-little-rough-justice/?do=findComment&comment=2550882) I noticed it last season, but it has gotten worse this season.

[Brattinella]

Ill-fitting dentures are no joke.  If it is full dentures, meaning all natural teeth are gone, it is NOTHING like having real teeth. Pain, discomfort, slippage, to goo or not to goo, bad breath, people noticing (when you don't want them to notice at all, that's the point). I would recommend anyone who has this option in your future, a) keep all your teeth as long as you can.  b)If you can't, at the very least get a couple implants to anchor them.

Back on topic: I think MM is still likable and mostly fair (much more so than JJ). 

[SRTouch]

17 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Here we had a plaintiff who seemed reasonable and spoke very well, but turned out to be a little nutty. 0.39$, 1.05$ etc, and she even got a lawyer to help her get those amounts. She was awarded 100$, (which is usually the cost of a lawyer's letter) so went though all this for nothing.

Another case I wish we could see again ... but next time of JJ. I usually like that MM seems to try and follow the rules where the litigants filed their case, but also enjoy watching JJ go off when she feels a case is beneath her. MM did the whole "divide by 30" then "multiply by 3" for each item to emphasize to the plaintiff how silly her claim was, oh and to entertain the viewers. Well, it was entertaining, but didn't phase screwball plaintiff, who was probably fuming about not getting the full amount of the claim.

[cattykit]

12 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

I usually like that MM seems to try and follow the rules where the litigants filed their case, but also enjoy watching JJ go off when she feels a case is beneath her.

For me that's almost the whole difference between MM and JJ.  I think JJ does a better job at excoriating a loathesome litigant, but she comes across to me as having contempt for everyone and everything, even litigants who are completely in the right.  MM does a better job at applying the law over her own bias, but she tries too hard to be the cool mom in the room.

That said, I also believe MM has a bias she'll never admit to, which is that often (not always) in a he vs she dispute, she is predisposed toward the she unless he can decisively prove his case.  I don't like to believe that, but I do.  I hear some of her questions and statements in these cases and if you switch the genders, she just doesn't go there.

That said, I still watch TPC.  Every so often I go back to JJ and after a week or two, I'm turned off by her universal harshness and have to stop watching.

[SRTouch]

WTF, I feel like Bill Murray in the Groundhog Day movie. My local TV folks are going screwy with the schedule. They must have decided yesterday's episode was so good they'd air it again today for anyone who missed it the first time. So, for a recap of today's cases, just scroll up and read yesterday's.

Hmmm, almost out of buttermilk, maybe I'll go to the store, hey, maybe swing by MickyD's and get a McPick2 meal. Nah, if I'm stuck in some weird time warp thing I don't want to be eating McPick2 meals forever.

[roseslg]

God knows when this case was from, but I was home with an extreme case of the pregnancy fatigue and was watching a case of TPC where the plaintiff was suing her foster dad for taking back a gifted computer and phone.  What was the verdict?  I chose sleep instead of TPC.  

[AngelaHunter]

Am I the only one who got new cases today?

Woman wearing red goggles suing her movers: She did so well, telling a coherent and concise story, until we found out she's a liar, denying her signature is hers. (Personally I wouldn't hire anyone calling themselves "Studs") Anyway, she wanted 5K for her particle board furniture being damaged, even though she decided to waive insurance and agreed to 0.60$ per pound for damage, which is just what she got = 250$. No, you don't get "Emotional distress" for your 4-year old dresser being chipped in a way that any glue will fix it.

Three really good cases today.

Next, we have plaintiff and her convicted thief boyfriend. Plaintiff got 2.7K, didn't want b/f to get his hands on it, so she asks some neighbour to hold on to it for her. Well, sure. Wouldn't we all? Plaintiff can't put the money in the bank for "personal" reasons. Let's see... she collects welfare/Sec8/owes taxes (?)and why should she pay that with her money when she can get the working public to pay? Def says someone crept in her window, went directly to the locked drawer in the dresser where the cash was (and of course the key to the locked drawer was right there) and stole the money (but left 700$ there), although they stole nothing else in the place. I'm really sorry JM gave the plaintiff her money back and just hope someone from the gov was watching this.

Third: Some of the most entitled people ever. Plaintiff is a landlord suing defendants who didn't pay rent and did all kinds of damage to the place before they moved out. Defs self-righteously explained they were buying a house and decided they had better things to do with their money than pay icky rent. Makes sense. They also installed a bunch of cameras and a walk-in closet which made all kinds of holes in the walls etc. Why is landlord complaining? It's so easy to fix that stuff, but well, defs just couldn't be bothered doing it. They also left a heavy safe there. They lost the key to it, rendering it useless, so decided to let plaintiff remove it.  5K award for plaintiff and she deserved every penny of it.

[DoctorK]

Quote

she wanted 5K for her particle board furniture being damaged

Overall I liked this case and the result except for one thing. The insurance agreement the plaintiff signed explicitly excluded coverage for damage to particle board furniture as the defendant pointed out. JM said that there was no proof that it was particle board furniture. Well, the pictures of damage I saw were clearly and unmistakeably particle board. I don't know why JM ignored this unless she felt sorry for the poor plaintiff who paid way way too much for cheap furniture. Not totally relevent to the result but the mover guy was an idiot.

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

Not totally relevent to the result but the mover guy was an idiot.

Yeah, and after 10 years in the business the ex-Stud admitted in the hall (I actually watch the hallterviews now that No-Neck is history) that he might think about having people sign off after the move is done. Duh.

[NYGirl]

As far as the particle board plaintiff....Bob's Discount Furniture is the biggest rip off this side of the Mississippi.  I bought some stuff from them a couple of years ago and it looks like crap now.  You get what you overpay for with them.

[SRTouch]

4 hours ago, roseslg said:

God knows when this case was from, but I was home with an extreme case of the pregnancy fatigue and was watching a case of TPC where the plaintiff was suing her foster dad for taking back a gifted computer and phone.  What was the verdict?  I chose sleep instead of TPC.  

Ah, if it's the one I'm thinking, it was a split decision. Foster dad ended up liable for the computer, as he agreed it was a graduation "gift". But the phone, though everybody called it her's, was part of a family phone package deal that he was (maybe still is) making monthly payments on. So no charge there, he can just give that phone to the next of his kids he and his wife are raising when they break the current phone.

Mom and Dad were so lucky they raised me and my four siblings back before cell phones. When I got my first part time job as a high school freshman, I was informed the basics - food, clothing, and a bed were on the parents - but I was to pay the rest. Ah, they paid other expenses when I couldn't afford something, but it wasn't an automatic "give me". Wasn't too bad, back then there were these big glass boxes you could go in, where you put a dime in a phone, spun the dial, and could make phone calls if you ran out of gas or something. The worse was trying to call friends from home. Kind of puts a chill on the conversation when there's one phone in the house, located on a stand midway between the living room, den and kitchen. 

[cattykit]

3 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Am I the only one who got new cases today?

Woman wearing red goggles suing her movers: She did so well, telling a coherent and concise story, until we found out she's a liar, denying her signature is hers. (Personally I wouldn't hire anyone calling themselves "Studs") Anyway, she wanted 5K for her particle board furniture being damaged, even though she decided to waive insurance and agreed to 0.60$ per pound for damage, which is just what she got = 250$. No, you don't get "Emotional distress" for your 4-year old dresser being chipped in a way that any glue will fix it.

Next, we have plaintiff and her convicted thief boyfriend. Plaintiff got 2.7K, didn't want b/f to get his hands on it, so she asks some neighbour to hold on to it for her. Well, sure. Wouldn't we all? Plaintiff can't put the money in the bank for "personal" reasons. Let's see... she collects welfare/Sec8/owes taxes (?)and why should she pay that with her money when she can get the working public to pay? Def says someone crept in her window, went directly to the locked drawer in the dresser where the cash was (and of course the key to the locked drawer was right there) and stole the money (but left 700$ there), although they stole nothing else in the place. I'm really sorry JM gave the plaintiff her money back and just hope someone from the gov was watching this.

Third: Some of the most entitled people ever. Plaintiff is a landlord suing defendants who didn't pay rent and did all kinds of damage to the place before they moved out. Defs self-righteously explained they were buying a house and decided they had better things to do with their money than pay icky rent. Makes sense. They also installed a bunch of cameras and a walk-in closet which made all kinds of holes in the walls etc. Why is landlord complaining? It's so easy to fix that stuff, but well, defs just couldn't be bothered doing it. They also left a heavy safe there. They lost the key to it, rendering it useless, so decided to let plaintiff remove it.  5K award for plaintiff and she deserved every penny of it.

Can we have a moratorium on "emotional distress?"  Maybe instead of some filler case, one day MM or Levin can spend ten minutes just reviewing the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress, and why 99.99% of TPC litigants have no business claiming it?

As for the first case, speaking of filler, I really hate padding out 20 minutes when the merits can be decided in 30 seconds.  But then of course, this show isn't about law, it's about drah-ma.  As soon as it was evident she signed a contract that limited damages by weight, as almost every moving company contract does, she was done. 

Second case, I agree with you, AngelaHunter, in wishing MM didn't rule for the plaintiff.  Not that the defendant was any prize, but this is the second recent case (am trying to remember the particulars of the first, might have been a dog case) where MM has penalized a defendant in this way.  It's not like she was the bank and had some obligation to provide a fortress.  She may very well have stolen the money but the plaintiff couldn't prove it.  Plague on both their houses.  Either split the difference or give the plaintiff nothing.

Third case, well who knew that a landlord could be shown to be so completely in the right by the idiocy of the privileged tenants?  That's a hella rent to begin with, to those of us outside NYC, so you can't be too poor, and then you do interior remodeling for your own convenience, install a security system, keep a safe, stiff them on the rent, and have no shame about any of it?  Just pass your responsibilities on to the landlord since they must be rolling in it?

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

Maybe instead of some filler case, one day MM or Levin can spend ten minutes just reviewing the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress

Sorry. I totally agree but don't want to hear it from Levin. We've had tons of litigants tacking "emotional distress" on, e.g. fender bender/contract/bad hair day cases ("I was upset!"), mostly to try and get the amount they're suing for to a nice round number, or to get a big boe-nanza.

There are people who really think they deserve 5K because their hair extensions were the wrong shade of brown. Oh, the emotional pain!

[califred]

We are a military family just moved for the 10th time in 17 years, this time to Hawaii. We have the advantage that ours moves are paid for by the USMC.  This was the first move where we had horrible movers. They took the Handle  bar breaks out of my husbands Harley, my tv came in between layers of bath towels .. anyway even we sign papers after the pack up and after delivery, granted ours aren't insurance papers but I can't imagine a mover not asking for signatures post delivery.  (In good news we were reimbursed for fixing the Harley and the two things they broke).

/back on topic sorry 

[teebax]

I've moved several times, internationally, intrastate, and interstate. I've never, ever not had something damaged in a move. I always take the insurance because I know they'll break something. I usually just pray it's nothing I can't replace.

So far, I'm enjoying the new episodes. I'm waiting for an epic MM smack down, which I haven't seen this season yet, but I'm sure it will come. I love when she goes off on people, as opposed to JJ, who seems to have content for everyone.

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

 I love when she goes off on people

Well, she did call the moving former "Stud" an idiot. I rather liked that.

[speac]

I too have moved a number of times.  Every move we have made required a ream of paperwork with all sorts of waivers, rate explanations and restrictions.  The last move  I hired it was a nationally known brand name mover after several moving estimates. Unfortunately, they subcontracted it out to a cut rate juggling troupe  because they dropped at least a dozen items, smoked inside of the truck and even sat on a box marked fragile. The shocking thing only one item was broke.  It was a piece of particle board kids dresser that I bought when my kids were toddlers.  It wasn't even worth turning into insurance.  I find that particle board items will possibly survive one move but two is kind of pushing it, this was that dressers third move.

Hint to anyone moving, take pictures often, of them packing, loading the truck, the truck loaded, so on. I know of a certain subcontractor mover who is no longer going to get another contract thanks to all the pictures we sent the name company.