The People's Court - General Discussion

[Brattinella]

Pontiac, Ypsilanti, Flint and Wentzville.  Bluish-green, eh?  I'll keep looking, got a model year?

[Brattinella]

Was it like this one?

 

 

[Guest]

17 hours ago, Brattinella said:

Was it like this one?

 

 

How old do you think I am?  LOL!!!

Type in Star Chief 1970's and it looked like the light blue one with the trunk lid open.

Edited October 13, 2016 by PsychoKlown

[SRTouch]

1. Shade tree ATV mechanic fail: Plaintiff wants back the $900 he paid defendant to fix his 14yo ATV. Admits that machine had multiple problems. Says defendant was friend of a friend type acquaintance, not a really mechanic just someone who claimed to know a little about fixing ATVs. First time, thing not running right, he gives defendant $600 to get it running. The night the repaired ATV is returned it is stolen. Plaintiff tries to make a circumstantial case that defendant had a hand in the theft, all the while insisting he's not actually accusing him on stealing. Anyway, after police recovered the abandoned ATV, it has new problems. He calls defendant to repair the damage - broken lights, ignition switch (because thieves hot wired it) - caused by the joyriders. Defendant fixes it a second time for an additional $300. A week passes after the repaired ATV is returned before plaintiff tries to ride it. Starts and runs, but runs rough, and transmission doesn't want to shift out of 1st gear. Over to defendant, who acts like an arrogant prick - this particular Yamaha model ATV is the worst they ever made, he was just fixing it to be sure nice guy, he 100% knows what he was doing as he's raced them and taken them apart and repaired them in the past. Uh no, as MM points out, he wasn't being a nice guy - a nice guy wouldn't be charging for the labor. He says he only charged $100 for labor, told plaintiff the joyriders messed it up and it might cost a couple thousand to fix it right, but he did the best he could with what plaintiff was willing to pay, and BTW he has a voice-mail from when the bike was recovered and it was not where plaintiff says it was. Ok, dude, we know you're mad he accused you of stealing it, but judge already made plaintiff look bad for bringing it up. MM watches a video of what it looks and sounds like now, but really doesn't matter as defendant freely admits it wasn't right, just that daddy didn't want to spend more money on spoiled sonny boy's toy. Plaintiff goes down swinging, insisting he ought to get money back, he loses case.
2. TENANT SUING LANDLORD AFTER LANDLORD AND SON MOVE INTO BASEMENT: Tenant says she rented house and was told basement was off limits because landlord has stuff stored there. Come to find out, landlord's son was living there, and using utilities paid for by tenant. Interesting claim in suit - they thought the place was such a great deal they snapped it up, but claim they wouldn't have signed the lease had they known they were paying for other's utilities. They want landlord to pay difference of what they paid at the old apartment and this new place. Plaintiff has a lease, but it doesn't really address the basement (actually in the quick look of a picture we get, looks more like a split level ranch, or a duplex with one living area over the garage and other area.) Anyway, they say they didn't learn anyone lived downstairs until downstairs landlord's son asked to borrow their bbq grill. 10 months into the lease, they renegotiate and sign a new lease for the whole house (rent goes up from $1850 to $2400). To make up the difference, plaintiff turns around and does just want she's complaining about - renting out the basement. Turns out the math doesn't work - don't know why, maybe they couldn't rent out the basement - and they leave before second lease is over. Altogether plaintiff's claim 8K and defendant has 5k countersuit. MM tosses most of the claims, but agrees defendant owes something in utilities ($700) and plaintiff admits to some damages ($300).  
3. STORAGE WAR: Plaintiff says she stored stuff in defendant's storage facility, and now her $1000 TV is missing. Plaintiff was a victim of domestic violence, and social services paid for storage while she lived in a shelter. So, in this case we have an inventory listing the TV, but no receipt, model #, etc. Defendant, the storage dude, tries to equate the missing TV to lost baggage on an airline. MM shoots that down, the problem is the over inflated value plaintiff is placing on the missing TV. Upon questioning it turns out to be a 35(?) or 40 inch Samsung TV. When MM points out it was probably more like $300 new, plaintiff says other stuff was missing, and besides defendant should be punished. Nope, can't start adding stuff to the claim after you get in front of the judge, and you don't get replacement value for an old TV. MM ends up awarding girl $75.

[Brattinella]

1 hour ago, PsychoKlown said:

How old do you think I am?  LOL!!!

Type in Star Chief 1970's and it looked like the light blue one with the trunk lid open.

Sorry!  When I was a teenager, I owned several 'beaters' that were WAY older than me, one of which was from the WWII era (kind of like the one above).  I wasn't implying you were an old fart! ;)

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

Plaintiff wants back the $900 he paid defendant to fix his 14yo ATV.

Couldn't stand the big-mouthed, meatheaded plaintiff. His accusation of thievery, based on some hearsay from some neighbours, was outrageous. He leaves the ATV out in the open, unlocked, after def fixes it, and somehow that makes def. guilty. I was surprised that his seemingly mute boy could even talk.

Quote

Tenant says she rented house and was told basement was off limits because landlord has stuff stored there.

I loved how hubby was waving around a document that says the house is zoned for one family, when he and his belligerent (also big-mouthed) wifey rented the downstairs to someone else. Breaking the laws is fine for them, but not for anyone else. Her snotty, "You have a nice day" to MM was not unnoted.  Of course, def didn't bother bringing her receipts, for which she was countersuing, with her.

Quote

 Plaintiff was a victim of domestic violence, and social services paid for storage while she lived in a shelter.

Actually, she was a victim of "die-mestic" violence. The nine-year old "SamSum" TV (which must be the giant tube-thing) is worth 1K? I think most of us wouldn't take that if it were offered free. I know I wouldn't. I got rid of one of those a few years back, and was thrilled to give it away for free to someone who was willing to haul it out of my house. Take the 75$, consider yourself lucky to get that,  and get the hell out of here. There's no boe-nanza for you today!

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Brattinella said:

Sorry!  When I was a teenager, I owned several 'beaters' that were WAY older than me, one of which was from the WWII era (kind of like the one above).  I wasn't implying you were an old fart! ;)

I was joking.  That's what it was - nothing new. 

[SRTouch]

first case: Plaintiff says ex gf stole his motorcycle and sold it on craigslist. Defendant admits to dating guy a couple times, but says they were never really in a relationship. She says when she loaned him money he gave her the bike as collateral. When he failed to replay the loan, she sold the bike. He admits borrowing the money and giving bike title as collateral (written contract and everything). 9 days before the note is due, he asks for an extension (oh, and according to him they broke up but we're still friends). He says she extended the loan a couple weeks, but asked for possession of bike to go along with title she already had. He agrees, but keeps the key thinking she won't be able to do anything with the bike without a key. She doesn't like the sneaky way he kept the key, so she gets another key made and sells the bike - 3 days before the loan extension runs out. Altogether, what with the amount of the loan and getting a new key, she's out about a grand, and she sold the bike for about twice that and kept all the money. Course, dude not only wants everything she got for selling the bike, he wants what he says he paid for it (twice blue book value because of all the extras). Another little twist, guy was prepared to pay off the loan the same day she sold the bike, called and sent texts telling her he had the money before she sold the bike, yet she sells the bike anyway thinking she could keep all the money. MM sets the value of bike at $2700, lets defendant keep the $700 of the original loan, doesn't like the underhanded way she went about selling the bike, so doesn't give her any of her expenses, and orders defendant to pay $2000. 

second case: homeowner suing the plumber and company. This was the third time in four years the sewer line had clogged up, and she had used this company before. Seems she was quoted 2 or 3 different prices, and she feels they jacked up the price to rip her off. After the job was done, homeowner decides it costs too much, and she wants everything she paid back despite fact her clogged pipes are unclogged. Part of want plumber did was pull and reset her toilet, and she says that's a no-no. She checked the plumber out and found similiar complaint in the company's past. Says worker is unlicensed, and that the Connecticut law prohibits an unlicensed plumber from installing a toilet. Huh, you need a license to pull a toilet? That has to be wrong, right? Quick visit to google and I find a NY Times article http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/05/realestate/your-home-the-rules-on-permits-vary-widely.html?_r=0 which says homeowners in NYC need a licensed plumber or electrician to do pretty much anything. Turns out she's sort of right, defendant ends up admitting it IS state law that you need a license to reset a toilet, he did get in trouble in 2009 for letting an unlicensed apprentice set a toilet, which is the same thing homeowner is complaining about here. MM decides that really doesn't matter in this case. Guy did the work and she approved the work before it was done. Yes, price changed, but that was because more work was needed than originally thought, and she approved the additional work. So no, she does not get her pipes unclogged for free, she has to pay the agreed upon price. She's still complaining to Doug about the guy not being licensed, and short stuff out on the street tells us maybe she ought to take that up with the State licensing board.

last case: plaintiff suing store because she developed buyers remorse after buying some clothes and store will only give store credit - no cash. Defendant says she is a long time customer who has returned stuff in the past, so she knows the policy. Plaintiff says no, she has only been there once before. Plaintiff was buying bf/hubby $540 worth of new clothes for Valentines and to celebrate his release from jail, and they were planning to relocate. Despite fact the return policy is painted on door, plaintiff insists she didn't know. MM tells us that, yes, it would be better if the policy was printed on the receipt, but the painted sign is sufficient. Plaintiff argues it must be a new sign, MM signs she believes the sign was there before. I figure as the plaintiff she would need to prove her claim. Defendant brought bags of stuff to court that he says is what she bought. MM gives her an either or, take the bags or store credit. Plaintiff wants to argue, MM ignores her protests and awards her store credit, just what defendant has been offering since day one. Another dissatisfied litigant who announces in hallterview the case is not over.

[AngelaHunter]

I never want to hear the words, "He didn't honour the agreement," after about ten repetitions of it from the def. She got in one more in the hall too. What she did was so nasty and vindictive, I kind of don't believe they were just friends, even though they "had went" out only a few times. Anyway, the things mature people do are nutty. Giving the title to the bike to some new/infrequent, or whatever girlfriend. Taking a bike leaking fuel inside an apartment? Brilliant.

Toilet lady sounded ridiculous. Take the service, agree to it in writing, pay in full and then later say, "I'm not happy with the price" and think you can all the money back, even though they fixed the problem? I love these people who squawk about unlicensed contractors. They never squawk about that until they feel they don't want to pay the bill. The amounts seemed exhorbitant to me, but I could be wrong there.

Clothes customer with the hula-hoop sized earrings - her b/f want to rethink marrying her. She seems to have a problem with money. It burns a hole in her pocket. "It's not over." What does that mean, I wonder.

ETA: Dang, I forgot to acknowledge this:

Quote

short stuff out on the street

Awesome. May I add "Sleazebag" to that description?

Edited October 14, 2016 by AngelaHunter

[Guest]

Don't know if the clothes customer had second thoughts as much as she didn't want the store credit because in her own words they were "moving to Florida".  I suspect her fiancé (fresh out of the pokey) balked at the money she paid for the clothes, probably thinking he wouldn't need fancy duds in Florida and she wanted cash back pronto.

I'm with you AngelaHunter.  I have no idea what "it's not over" means but maybe she saw the Peeling Paint on a 12 year old Hoopty case and has plans to call the district attorney and the BBB.  Whatever she does - may she go with God.

[NYCFree]

I think "it's not over" is code for "a brick may fly through his store window."

[Guest]

17 minutes ago, NYCFree said:

I think "it's not over" is code for "a brick may fly through his store window."

I laughed so quickly at this I hit my knee on the slide out computer tray. 

It was worth it though because I'm still laughing.  And said brick will be aimed for the "no cash refund" sign.

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

I think "it's not over" is code for "a brick may fly through his store window."

That just may be it and I'm sure she'd feel justified in doing so.

Quote

I suspect her fiancé (fresh out of the pokey)

Was he just sprung from the big house? I missed that.

[califred]

So it's great to announce on tv "it's not over" hope nothing happens to his shop.  

 

Once again my mom called during the show, I really need to go get a DVR.

[Guest]

13 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Was he just sprung from the big house? I missed that.

Yes.  She mentioned it twice - first when she gave her opening speech and then when JM said something about him being released from prison.

I suspect that she wanted to dress him in fancy duds to show off to everyone that he really is a prize catch and certainly worth waiting for. 

[AngelaHunter]

18 minutes ago, PsychoKlown said:

Yes.  She mentioned it twice - first when she gave her opening speech and then when JM said something about him being released from prison.

I suspect that she wanted to dress him in fancy duds to show off to everyone that he really is a prize catch and certainly worth waiting for. 

Thanks. Not sure how fancy the duds will be. Wasn't it three suits, shirts, shoes etc and all for 500$? Anyway, it's touching that she seems proud of her criminal b/f and wants him to look sharp.

[SRTouch]

53 minutes ago, PsychoKlown said:

Yes.  She mentioned it twice - first when she gave her opening speech and then when JM said something about him being released from prison.

I suspect that she wanted to dress him in fancy duds to show off to everyone that he really is a prize catch and certainly worth waiting for. 

Should a just sprung for new his'n'her tats

[SRTouch]

ah well, back to reruns... oh and I missed Doug. TPC doesn't last as long as I'm using the FF button more

1. Daddy of the Year TV case: this is the sad case where dude comes back to get some of his stuff after moving out, gets in a scuffle with exe, and now exe is suing over a broken TV and missing phone. The case is silly, only entertainment value is watching the self absorbed daddy. According to his testimony the TV is an ancient "big butt" tv. As far as he's concerned, it's his and he's going to take it, nevermind the fact it's the only TV in the house and he has a 4yo daughter living there. He actually goes on about he doesn't know if his child watches cartoons, and when he was there she would stand in front of the TV to get his attention while he was playing video games. Plaintiff agrees he took the only family tv, but her description is WAY different than his. I buy her version of the tv, if only because he supposedly picked it up and carried it a ways. Seems much more likely he picked up a 32" rather than the humongous old big butt TV he described. Doesn't matter, no receipt and if you buy her version she paid $98 at a Black Friday sale 4 years ago so the thing is worth about the cost of a sit down restaurant meal (yes, food comparison as it's lunch time). MM doesn't like daddy's complete disregard for daughter. She ends up awarded $50 to plaintiff, despite fact she really didn't prove anything. From hallterview I gather daddy really has nothing to do with the baby, he was just a short term babysitter for a couple weeks. Mom says baby doesn't even know he's daddy.
2. Disastrous move: Plaintiff suing moving company for $5000, saying they trashed her stuff and stole items. I find it hard to work up any sympathy for plaintiff as she tells her story. She tells us she wasn't there when the movers arrived, she was off getting her broke down BMW towed, and she told the owner to have the workers start emptying the garage until she gets back in 15 minutes. Then they supposedly "bum rush" her, breaking her furniture right in front of her. She has trouble telling a coherent story and hms and haws whenever MM interrupts her rehearsed story to ask for clarification. She tells us the movers were just throwing her furniture around. When MM asks why she thinks professional movers would be purposely destroying a customer's furniture, she answers it was "pure jealousy, envy and hate." Watch the audience react behind the woman as she testifys, somehow I don't believe a word. MM asks about any video taken as these movers destroy her furniture right in front of her - no, no video. She testifies they were doing this in front of witnesses - but no witnesses came to court or sent statements. Finally, MM switches sides so we can hear from defendant. Discrepancies in stories from the get go. First off, plaintiff said she hired them out of the Penny Saver. Nope, defendant tells us her company was hired off an approved Social Services vendors list. She tells us Social Services has special rules for their venders, and she has the required forms and inventories here in court. Lots of head shaking and eye rolling going on from plaintiff as defendant talks, sounds like a totally different move. Instead of 15 minutes like plaintiff says, defendant claims the moving crew ended up waiting for 2 hours for plaintiff to get there so they could move. Defendant says Social Services pays by the hour for a move based on what is being moved. Hearing that I can see the crew in a big hurry mode to get the job done if they had a long wait to get started. Then the plaintiff was trying to fit a lot of stuff into a smaller apartment, and supposedly getting in the way and actually pushing one of the crew as he was trying to carry stuff upstairs. Hmmm, maybe the crew was rushing and left stuff out, but on the day of the move plaintiff signed the forms saying everything was moved without damage. Afterwards she's claiming $7000 worth of damage (course her suit is for the 5k max). Guess MM figures she's milked all the entertainment value out of this, so she gets to trying to figure out the damage claim. More ridiculous claims, and now plaintiff starts in on the sniffles. She tells us the crew stopped working, saying she had to sign the paperwork before they did anything else, she signed, and they left with some of her property outside to be damaged when it rained. She has some video of a washer and dryer under a tarp on the street. Defendant really hurt her case when she elected rely on the paperwork and not to bring any of the crew who could testify whether everything was moved or not. She did bring along a weather summary for the day when the stuff was supposedly left out in the rain... no rain. Now we get to the ruling, and plaintiff just keeps trying to argue and MM keeps having to tell her to be quiet and listen (this is the type of litigant who made JJ start with the "goodBYE!" And get up and walk out move). Turns out the paperwork was enough to carry the day... Case dismissed.
3. tenant suing plaintiff suing for $750 This is a roommate deal with defendant renting a room to plaintiff. According to the intro, plaintiff moved out after living there over a year because of roaches. She wants back the deposit, saying when she moved in she paid first and last month rent. Defendant landlord wants to keep security, saying plaintiff left with no notice. Yes, there was a lease, but nobody brought it to court. MM concludes lease had expired after a year, so anyway they were operating on a month to month basis. Ah well, this is another case where intro doesn't match what we hear in court. Not word one about roaches, as plaintiff testifies she left because the lights were cut off, a much better reason. Now we get to the real heart of the case, and this is where that missing lease would help. Plaintiff says she should get back last month's rent because defendant breached rental agreement by not providing electricity. Defendant has an either or defense. She should either get to the money because plaintiff left without giving notice, or she gets the money because that money was a nonrefundable move in fee. When MM shots down those defences, she comes up with "she left the room a mess and there were damages I had to pay for"... no proof of what it cost to repair any damage, but she has a picture of a wall which has been patched but not painted. Plaintiff admits to 1 hole. MM let's defendant keep $50, but orders return of the rest - so plaintiff gets $700.

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

TPC doesn't last as long as I'm using the FF button more

No kidding. These reruns, featuring the silly Hall Dork summon up bad memories. But it has to be Levin choosing the repeats, of the most annoying litigants.

A license to breed really should be mandatory.  If it were, the first two morons, getting into a "tussling" match over a 4-year old, 98$ TV, would be childless. Baby daddy was even dressed rather clown-like.

Quote

Plaintiff suing moving company for $5000, saying they trashed her stuff and stole items.

This was okay, for comedic value. That's some moving company, with workers so jealous over the plaintiff's amazingly gorgeous expensive stuff (even though she's on welfare) that they just started smashing said stuff to bits, right before her eyes. They did! She "brung" the evidence! I guess they were also terribly envious of her non-working BMW, since they brazenly snatched her keyring and stole the keys to the POS that was towed away. In spite of this horrific abuse, she still signed a paper saying everything was fine. As JM observed, if someone else (like the taxpayers) is footing the bill for your move, who cares if you show up on time or how long the movers have to wait? I love litigants who march in with their crosses prominently dangling on their necks as they proceed to scam and lie, looking for yet more money they never earned. Sorry, you're out of luck.

Rent case: It's the classic tale of, "Yes, I have evidence, but not with me at this time." I'm pretty sure she'll have it at a later date.

[OhioSongbird]

OMG....the moving case!  Gal was out there.  I'm surprised JM let her approach.  I did watch it twice I'm ashamed to say.  Just the whole thing that the movers were sooo jealous of her fabu stuff...bought with our money cause you know she's on disability of some kind...they trashed it.  Riiiiight

TV daddy....I have no words at the moment.  He reminded me of the guy who had 10 kids and his daughter was taking care of the three teenagers.  Head rolls, eye rolls, looking at the ceiling....why do women breed with these cretins?

[califred]

After this last move to Hawaii I will say all of my things were treated horribly.  When they leave all I sign is a paper saying I got all my stuff.  I sent multiple pictures of the horrific packing job to the company and they very quickly sent checks to repair our motorcycle and replace to the two glass items that broke.  (In fact they didn't even send an appraiser just gave us the small amount of money requested)

 

If if she actually had damage she would have used the insurance.  Also if movers are wrecking my stuff in front of me I fire them.

 

the TV stealing dad is a wanker.

[SRTouch]

rerun

1. rent control harrassment (30 minute case): Tenant is suing the property manager of his rent controlled apartment, claiming defendant is trying get to force him out so he can raise the rent. For some reason these folks are suing and countersuing for ten thousand instead of the normal 5k. Plaintiff in court with Mohawk, goatee, long sleeved black shirt and gray tie. I never understood putting on a long sleeve dress shirt and tie and then rolling the sleeves halfway up your forearms. Had this been JJ dude, would have been repeatedly told to look into her eyes... he fiddles with papers, looks up, down and all around - everywhere except into the camera. He says he's been in the apartment for about three years and works contruction, often out of town working for three months at a time. Says while he is out of town his gf checks the place to make sure everything is ok, but she doesn't live there. Normally it wouldn't matter if she lived there or not, but it's kind of important here because of the rent control status. MM asks several times whether she is on the lease, dude fumbles through his papers not answering, just insisting she's an authorized guest. Next issue, pets. He says he doesn't have any pets, but visitors bring over their little yapping dogs over. Says no dogs live there, so he refuses to pay a pet deposit. Switching to defendant, plaintiff wants to keep talking so interrupts and is told to be quiet. Defendant says gf is often there in her PJs early in the morning walking two chihuahuas (and not cleaning up after them when they make their deposits). Then one day gf friend comes knocking, saying she lives in the apartment and is locked out. Defendant goes to let her in (MM points out that's a no-no, shouldn't let in gf if she's not on the lease) and he finds the lock has been changed. That's what confirmed to defendant that she was living there, and is when he checked and found she was not on the lease. MM goes back now to plaintiff to question him more about status of gf living there. Plaintiff came up with a form he filled out when moving in which he claims permits her to be there when he's out of town. Turns out he has some form stapled to his lease which purports to grant her complete access. Defendant agrees that it is a form used in the application process, but it does not automatically put gf on the lease, and besides a copy of this form is not in his file. As we all know from our exhausting studies at Court TV U, it takes more than an unsigned document and a staple to change a contract. Plaintiff starts a song and dance and we learn that today's case where he is suing the property manager personally is actually just one of the multiple cases he has going. He's also has cases ongoing with Housing Court and a Health Department complaint. He tells us that if he loses he plans to appeal, and MM tells him when he came to TPC he agreed to binding arbitration - so he can't appeal her ruling. Plaintiff is claiming Housing Court ruled in his favor, but all the document he presents says is that a complaint has been filed and decision is pending. Oh, it was an email... let's see the email... doesn't have it... does he have anything to show from housing that anything he claims is true... no, but but... be quiet and let judge think a minute without constant yammering. Let's talk about this case, what is the unlawful entry he's suing about. Again, evading questions, unfounded accusations and trying to explain away text messages. On the first date of supposed unlawful entry he claims he didn't get notice there was going to be a health and welfare inspection. Oh, but wait, by this time the feud was ongoing between tenant and manager, so defendant took pictures of the notice on the door and affidavits from other tenants. OK, Your Honor, there were other times he came in... well, let's talk about those... yes your honor I have the dates right here, and he starts going through his papers and finds - uh, nada. Enough of silly plaintiff's claim, plaintiff really needs to rehearse more before appearing for those other cases. We switch to defendant for the 10,000 dollar counterclaim. Starts out the "harrassment" and threats sound as silly as plaintiff's case. He took things as a physical threat because police were constantly responding to the apartment, but oh he didn't bother to get a copy of the call log (far as I know the newspaper here still lists all the calls in the paper). Ah, but defendant does have some evidence. Seems there is video of plaintiff leaving used condom wrappers on defendant's door. More interruptions from plaintiff as MM rules. Plaintiff's unlawful entry claim, with no evidence, thrown out, as is the harrassment claim for manager doing his job are laughed out of court despite the multiple interruptions and protests. Defendant also has claims with little to no evidence - case dismissed. Ah, I miss Doug again, as there are some unanswered questions but I'm not willing to listen to old hallclown.

Party catering event job flop: plaintiff says she was hired to cater an event for defendant, who she has had a freindship and business relationship with for 19 years. Says she was hired months before the event, bought the food and arranged staffing, and at the last minute defendant hired a different caterer. (This is the case where litigant interjects, while other side is fiddling with her phone, that MM is the best looking TV judge and Douglas is hottest bailiff.) Seems plaintiff also runs a security business, and they got into a kerfuffle over security at an event a week before the catering event. (I keep calling it a catering job, but actually she was supposed to be the only food vendor at a flea market like event.) Defendant ended up firing plaintiff's security firm. Series of long texts ensue, and lost among the cuss words flying get back and forth plaintiff says that yes, she still plans to cater the other event. Defendant is caught up in the nasty and hostile texts, and either misses or ignores that plaintiff still plans to be at the second event, so, she hires someone else. Turns out the second event was rained out and a total flop. Doesn't matter to plaintiff, she's in court seeking more money than she could have possibly made had the event been a rousing success. Her 5k dollar claim is ridiculous. MM agrees defendant breached the agreement, does a little rough justice, and awards lady $300 of the $5,000. I'm not even sure she should have gotten even that much sincell it sounded like the food could be frozen and used at her next catering job. I wonder if MM wasn't maybe slapping defendant's hand over the unreasonable security firing. Also have to wonder about how wise it was for plaintiff to sue for such unreasonable amount, considering that it sounds like she may lose defendant as a customer for both the security and her startup catering business.

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

Tenant is suing the property manager of his rent controlled apartment

Not a rerun I would have chosen. The yappy little Mohawked garden elf was beyond irritating. Does "rent-controlled" mean something like "Sec8"? If so, why does plaintiff, (who has such a hectic seemingly successful career in which he needs to travel extensively and is I'm sure making very good money) have such a benefit? Anyway, he's taking his case to Superior Court! I wish he'd brought his girlfriend. I'd like to see the woman who really wants him.

Quote

Ah, I miss Doug again, as there are some unanswered questions but I'm not willing to listen to old hallclown.

x2

Quote

This is the case where litigant interjects, while other side is fiddling with her phone, that MM is the best looking TV judge and Douglas is hottest bailiff.

There was something creepy about the way she said she didn't want her ass-kissing to prejudice the case, as though she thought it might. Not likely.  And she called Douglas a "clerk."

[Brattinella]

13 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

Not a rerun I would have chosen. The yappy little Mohawked garden elf was beyond irritating. Does "rent-controlled" mean something like "Sec8"? If so, why does plaintiff, (who has such a hectic seemingly successful career in which he needs to travel extensively and is I'm sure making very good money) have such a benefit? Anyway, he's taking his case to Superior Court! I wish he'd brought his girlfriend. I'd like to see the woman who really wants him.

I haven't seen this episode, but I do know a little about rent-controlled apts.  Usually in NYC, in older buildings, there are apts that have been occupied for decades by the same family.  Some of them are under a law that says the rent cannot be legally raised until/unless they move.  Sometimes these apts are controlled at a HUGELY discounted rate (like, 200 a month versus 2000 a month).  Most folks don't want to give up a rent-controlled apt and I don't blame them a bit for digging in their heels.

[AngelaHunter]

Thanks, Brattinella. This guy has lived there for three years only, yet it's rent-controlled. We don't know if his family lived there for decades, but is this something that can be handed down through the generations? I have no clue about this because for the years that I rented, I had to pay full rent out of my own pocket. (imagine that!) Fool was I.

[Brattinella]

I believe so, AngelaHunter, but I think the family has to be unbroken, that is, the original renter has to be there when another family member moves in, and so on.  Rent-controlled apts are like gold.

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

Rent-controlled apts are like gold.

Ah, now I see why family members descend like a flock of vultures on the apt. of a deceased grandmother, e.g. It doesn't seem right or fair to me that young, able-bodied people should get the same benefits that someone elderly or infirm gets, but what do I know? I never learned how to work the system.

[Jamoche]

27 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

Thanks, Brattinella. This guy has lived there for three years only, yet it's rent-controlled. We don't know if his family lived there for decades, but is this something that can be handed down through the generations? I have no clue about this because for the years that I rented, I had to pay full rent out of my own pocket. (imagine that!) Fool was I.

San Francisco has rent control too - I don't know if it can be handed down, but it's not just for older buildings. I've got a friend whose landlord would always take the side of the newer tenant in any dispute, because they were paying more; kicking you out isn't allowed but making your life miserable until you leave is a gray area. So she'd have to put up with things like "your downstairs neighbor says your elderly cat walks too loudly".

[DoctorK]

Quote

your elderly cat walks too loudly

Just get the cat to take off the high heels and all will be well.

[ElleMo]

18 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Thanks, Brattinella. This guy has lived there for three years only, yet it's rent-controlled. We don't know if his family lived there for decades, but is this something that can be handed down through the generations? I have no clue about this because for the years that I rented, I had to pay full rent out of my own pocket. (imagine that!) Fool was I.

In NYC, a tenant has to live in the home for two years with the lease holder in order to lay claim to the property.  In my single days,  I worked in NYC around a lot of other 20-somethings and I knew a lot of people who had ways of getting around this.  One lived in his uncle's apartment.  Uncle was living in Florida but landlord was not onsite; super was friends with uncle and didn't squeal, so after two years, nephew could claim apartment as his own.  Another had a grandmother in a nursing home but lived in her apartment. Not sure if that ever became her home or not.  Landlords do get rental increases but they are highly regulated and do not even approach the market value of these properties.  

I was stuck in an apartment in Brooklyn and then another apartment in Hoboken because I was not lucky enough to be able to finagle a rent controlled apartment in Manhattan.  And I didn't want to answer an add in the Village Voice and move in with someone who I didn't know.  (and judging by all the cases I have seen, that was a wise decision. )

[SRTouch]

1. dream store gone bad: plaintiff sells one of her two clothing stores to defendant, who knows nothing about running a business but has "always dreamed" of owning her own boutique, but never even worked in one. She's suing because she claims defendant failed to make last two payments. Defendant says part of the deal was that plaintiff was supposed to mentor and teach her the business, which plaintiff failed to do. In fact she learned plaintiff was taking advantage of her lack of knowledge. Strange sort of business deal where plaintiff is selling one of her two stores, but for a year they apparently share staff and inventory. Wouldn't it have been better for the defendant to buy in as a limited partner, with an option to buy the second store after she learns what is involved in making a small business succeed? Both sides suing the other for the $5,000 court max. Most of defendant's claim is based on Stacy, a disgruntled former employee of the plaintiff who came to work for defendant after having a big kerfuffle with plaintiff. Seems to me defendant is full of sour grapes. Apparently she expected plaintiff, who is busy running her own business, to personally train her. Uh, no, my understanding was that she was selling the business fully staffed so that the defendant could learn from the staff. She complains that customers stopped shopping at her store and switch to the other, and that she couldn't get credit from the vendors, blaming this on plaintiff for bad mouthing her new business. Hmmm, maybe so, but just as likely to me is that the customers and vendors saw an inexperienced person trying to run a business and decided to take their business elsewhere. I mean, really, why would a vendor let you buy merchandise on credit when they learn you know nothing about the business. Stacy is in court as a witness for the defense, and as soon as she starts to talk in start to doubt her. I mean, basic human lie detector stuff, not maintaining eye contact, repeating a question to have more time to think of a plausible response. Anyway, pretty basic contract case. Defendant is obligated to make the payments unless she can prove plaintiff breached. Her prove consists of supposition and testimony which I don't believe. Plaintiff wins.
2. long time friendship ends in feud when they do business: plaintiff has a Type A personality, while defendant more laid back Type B. Friendship worked fine for over 25 years while plaintiff was off out of state working as a corporate project manager. Defendant is a dentist who owns real estate on the side. Plaintiff moves back to town, actually moving into her home (sounds like a sort of mother-in-law living quarters as everyone agrees there is no Hanky Panky going on), and he going to take over as her property manager for her properties. He's has an aggressive management style, a real yeller, and doesn't take long before he's antagonizing her workers and contractors she has worked with for years. Big problems arise when he is yelling at the weekly business meetings with her and her adult son, who not only is a partner in the real estate business, but also lives at home with mom, (Sounds like a big home, mom, adult son and his friend, college age daughter, now the plaintiff, the office for the property management, and who knows what all.) Mom and son are offended, and son steps in to lay down the law about yelling at mom, which as I said, is probably just his style. Everybody gets upset, son wants him gone, now both sides are suing over the "improvements" he made to the rooms and office. He admits he was technically a month to month tenant with no expectation of being repaid when he paid the the improvements, but says he expected to be live and work there for years. So he wants MM to order defendant to pay even though that was never the agreement. Same deal from the other side. Defendant agrees she knew about the changes, never objected, but now says she never liked his choices and wants 4k to undo his improvements. Everything thrown out.
3. Surprise ending in snowflake damages neighbor's car case: thought this was one of those "special snowflake" cases where mom refuses to take responsibility. Neighbor saw the kids playing ball hit her car and asked them to move the game. They shrugged off her request, so she moved her car. Next day she notices the damage where the ball hit the car. At first, she says neighbor kid apologized, but later it became a Sergeant Schultz routine from Hogan's Hero and defendant went through a "know nothing" act. Yeah, the kid is wishy washy, from I sorry I broke the windhield to the ball never hit the front of the car, only the back, and never touched glass. Surprisingly at first the defendant's mom was willing to split the repair bill with the parents of the other kids in the game, but when they refused she withdrew her offer to pay. First impression really failed me in this case. When case started I thought this was going to be another case of someone looking to cash in over minor damage to junker. Nope, turns out it was a brand new car (actually new, not 12 yo car being called new because litigant just bought it for $500). And, reason for why repair is so high - she took it back to the dealer because the first 4 places she called didn't have glass for this new model. Same thing with defendant - first impression, based on woody woodpecker hair and kid in tshirt, was oh no another snowflake where mom refuses to admit her darling caused any damage. Nope, she talks about how she knows the ball could have damaged the car. She says she was ready to make the boy get a summer job (yes, she was going to make a 14yo get a JOB!) and pay his share of the damage, but dug in her heels when the estimate was several times what she considered reasonable and the other parents refused to pay their fair share. Too bad both sides couldn't sit down and talk it out, as both sound reasonable in court. Plaintiff prevails, though she doesn't get anything for missed work (another good move, instead of a song and dance trying to get money for missed work, when asked she simply says she has no proof.) MM explains that the plaintiff has to right to pick which the person to sue, either all those who caused damage or any one of them, and now defendant has the right to sue the other kids.

Edited October 19, 2016 by SRTouch
Left out a word

[AngelaHunter]

I liked the first two repeats. Personally, I don't need moronic, illiterate brutes getting drunk, fistfighting, busting each other's shit or even "tussling" to be entertained. I've always really liked contract cases. No matter how outrageous the claims - as in boutique def. who has never run a business and never even worked in the clothing business yet thought she'd buy one and play "store", with def. holding her hand in what she seems to think should be perpetuity.

The contractor, (project manager):

Quote

 (sounds like a sort of mother-in-law living quarters as everyone agrees there is no Hanky Panky going on)

Look at plaintiff. Even if he weren't so prissy, small-minded and petty that he's suing for the cost of towel bars(!!) I kind of doubt the def. would have wanted any hanky panky with him. You never really know someone until you live with them. I have life-long friends I love dearly, but don't think I'd want them moving in.

Edited October 19, 2016 by AngelaHunter

[SRTouch]

1. Wedding photo flop: what we have here is a failure to communicate. Plaintiffs hire a photographer friend of a friend to produce a small album of pictures of their wedding. No need for a contract (guy says he usually has a 12 page contract breaking down everything customer wants, but since it's a deal between friends, didn't bother). Well, maybe they needed a contract because he treated the deal like he was a wedding guest with a camera instead someone getting paid $900 to produce a wedding album. Funny thing is plaintiff has a email confirming what they went over when they met to go over what they wanted, but defendant is like there was no contract yada yada. Then there was a followup confirmation email agreement where they wanted two photographers at the wedding for a little longer and the price was upped to the final price. This photographer is flakey, he either can't remember what happened or doesn't want to tell the judge as he dances around questions. One complaint was that their email confirms that 2 photographers were scheduled, but only one came. The biggy, though, was that there was supposed to be a photo album produced after the plaintiffs picked their favorite pictures, and then one framed picture. The guy took lots of shots, they went through and picked their favorites, but the guy never gives them an album. When grilled by the judge he says his failure to produce the album is "not a big thing"... Uh dude, plaintiffs must think it's kind of IS A BIG THING, look around, they suing you! Kind of funny, as he tries to divert attention from his failure to provide what he was paid for he brings up another complaint the plaintiffs had, which they were prepared to not bring up... not sure why, he's admitting to showing up late and not getting behind the scenes pix - guess his point is that the wedding was kind of hectic, but really, I haven't been behind the scenes at a lot of weddings, but hectic seems like a good description for the ones I've seen. MM cuts off his rambling excuses and asks why he didn't produce the album. New ramble starts, seems he was extremely busy getting ready for some classified job that he really is not at liberty to talk about... huh, what big secret work could it be that prevented him from doing the job he was paid to do? And, if there actually is a hush hush city job, why hasn't he offered to return at least a portion of what he was paid? Oh, and I've seen someone pulled from a sensitive assignment for less than having a complaint of the person not doing a satisfactory job. So, dude, if I was the person hiring for that hush hush government job, I would not be hiring some fool who went on TV and said he didn't do a job because he was preparing get for some city job he can't talk about. More song and dance, now he claims the album never happened because they were calling up and harassing him, and MM says it would have been easy to stop the phone calls had he done what he says is "no big thing," and which he was paid for in advance. MM is done with the fool and starts trying to fix a price on damages. Plaintiffs don't really know the game, as they're only looking for 600 of the $900 - they're allowing him credit for doing part of the job... Apparently they don't realize they are supposed to round any claim up to $5000... just say "pain and suffering and/or punitive damages". Ah well, MM figures they're still asking for to much, she halves their request and awards them $300. I would have given them more, say $300 for the missing album and then a couple hundred more for that AWOL second photographer.
2. tenant vs landlord for double security back: silly entitled tenant sues her landlord of 11 years when he fails to return her deposit. Landlord is really laidback, let her slide regularly on late payment fees,  reduced her rent $150 a month when she had troubles financially, etc. She says he was a good landlord, he says she was a good tenant overall, except for when it came to paying rent on time. Sounds like she was getting assistance, as she part part of the rent and the rest came from some agency - don't know, that part was skipped over. Anywho, after 11 years she gives her 30 day notice, and moves out. Landlord figures he's been giving her a rent break for years, never charged the late fee even though it's in the lease and she was late A LOT, so he feels like he should get to keep the deposit. Ah, the big problem is they're in one of those states where the landlord has to provide a written itemized list for any money kept from the deposit within so many days, or be on the hook for double the deposit. Another problem is proving the late fees and reduced rent payments. He says the deal was she could pay reduced rent, and he'd make up the difference out of the deposit... of course she denies they ever talked about it. I sort of wonder, if she was getting assistance, did section 8 or whoever know about the reduced late, and if should the assistance have been adjusted for any reduced rent? Could it be that landlord wasn'the being all that nice, and he was pocketing a guarenteed assistance check instead of taking a chance on tenant paying her portion? Doesn't matter, MM didn't pursue that and I didn't replay the case to make sure there was even assistance paying the rent. Tenant half heartedly pursues the return of deposit until the time limit passes where she can ask for double, then goes to a lawyer and files papers - hmmm, maybe litigants on both sides of the case were a little more savvy than I thought. Landlord is shocked, says he thought they parted on good terms, now she's suing, so he has countersuit for state max of 3k. MM agrees tenant really trying to stick it to a landlord who bent over backwards for years to make her happy. But, law is clear, landlord failed to give that all important written explanation of why he was keeping the deposit, so he loses. Ah, but since MM is mad about the plaintiff suing someone who had been nice about letting her slide on rent, she penalizes tenant by not awarding girl the double damages.

[califred]

SRTouch I got a difffregt rerun with a lady from Little Women LA and now some kind of video dispute.

[SRTouch]

1 minute ago, califred said:

SRTouch I got a difffregt rerun with a lady from Little Women LA and now some kind of video dispute.

Ah, that was what direct TV told me was going to air, but not what I saw. They still have my schedule messed up... looking at the program info for tomorrow, well that's what I watched today. Direct TV still has my Hot Bench schedule messed up, Judge Faith on the schedule but I'm watching Hot Bench.

[AZChristian]

24 minutes ago, califred said:

SRTouch I got a difffregt rerun with a lady from Little Women LA and now some kind of video dispute.

Judge Judy would have straightened out the Little Woman from L.A.  "This is not an audition for you.  I have this show.  Go act all cutesy on your own show.  Judgment for plaintiff."

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

Judge Judy would have straightened out the Little Woman from L.A.  

No kidding. As though being on some tacky, dime-a-dozen, low-brow reality show makes you above the law? Oh, the plaintiff's car was an old hunk of junk anyway, says the person who doesn't/can't pay her car insurance.

[AZChristian]

1 minute ago, AngelaHunter said:

No kidding. As though being on some tacky, dime-a-dozen, low-brow reality show makes you above the law? Oh, the plaintiff's car was an old hunk of junk anyway, says the person who doesn't/can't pay her car insurance.

Now let's be fair.  Her husband USED to pay the bills.  Of course, he's not allowed to anymore.

Two things jumped out at me from this episode.  I've had automatic payments charged to a credit card that was cancelled (due to someone making fraudulent charges on it).  Those who were expecting payments from that card contacted us IMMEDIATELY (yes, including my CAR INSURANCE) so we could provide another credit card.  And a car insurance company would have sent multiple notices before cancelling the insurance.  This wasn't just a little "oopsie" . . . the woman's husband is either stupid, lazy, or intentionally avoiding paying a bill.

Secondly, could little precious daughter have flipped her hair any more within the 20 minutes the case was on TV?  Sheesh!

[califred]

I was just glad the judge believed that police don't come for accidents in Cali bc unless someone is injured/dead/high/drunk they don't.  

 

The lady and her daughter were quite antimated.

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

the woman's husband is either stupid, lazy, or intentionally avoiding paying a bill.

Yeah, but it's cute when adults are too slack-jawed to pay their bills, isn't it? *giggle* Or it's just another dumb excuse among the usual we hear from people with no insurance and who can't seem to drive without crashing or racking up tickets. I guess it's a change from, "My insurance expired fifteen minutes before the accident" or "My insurance company cancelled me and never told me" or "I was driving on my way to pay it THAT VERY day because I must pay all bills in person." Bunch of dreary idiots who think a judge hasn't heard that BS ad nauseum.

[SRTouch]

Today's recap posted yesterday... ? yep, my local station must have loved this episode, so are showing it twice 

[ElleMo]

16 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Yeah, but it's cute when adults are too slack-jawed to pay their bills, isn't it? *giggle* Or it's just another dumb excuse among the usual we hear from people with no insurance and who can't seem to drive without crashing or racking up tickets. I guess it's a change from, "My insurance expired fifteen minutes before the accident" or "My insurance company cancelled me and never told me" or "I was driving on my way to pay it THAT VERY day because I must pay all bills in person." Bunch of dreary idiots who think a judge hasn't heard that BS ad nauseum.

 

If I were inclined to watch reality TV (other than Court Shows), I would be interested to see what she said on her show about the accident/lawsuit and whether her husband really forgot to pay the bills.

[ElleMo]

I googled here and this is what I found out (according to TMZ):

 

"It's ironic ... Christy was in the car with her 16-year-old daughter, whom she was teaching how to drive."

With a that driving teacher, the poor girl is doomed.

http://www.tmz.com/2016/02/10/little-women-christie-mcginity-peoples-court-car-accident/

[guilfoyleatpp]

Did anyone else catch how she subtly mocked the plaintiff's vietnamese accent?

And the plaintiff didn't really have an accent, but Christy started to say something like "oh, no no no." and then stopped herself.

[AngelaHunter]

I didn't remember today's landlord/tenant case, where plaintiff is seeking double damages of 3K because landlord didn't return her deposit. Landlord was nothing but nice and kind to her  - not even charging her a late fee for all the times she paid late -  and JM was thoroughly disgusted by plaintiff's avarice in looking to soak the landlord. At first I thought, "Finally, a tenant who paid her own rent, even if it was reduced, and has a ligitimate beef," but no such luck. It seems as though every tenant who is bitching and whining has the rent paid by "social services" a.k.a. taxpayers for years and years. Not even his offer to refund ALL of her deposit was good enough. She was looking for a boe-nanza and luckily JM found a way to at least deny her that.

[Jamoche]

Ooh, that wedding photographer is getting some serious side eye from the groom when he talks about what he did at the wedding.

[lilabennet]

That tenant is a vicious, greedy bitch.  I wouldn't have given her any money back; too bad JM's hands were tied.

[califred]

That tenant is as a jerk.  He does need to learn to put stuff in writing and also follow the rules.  I can't believe she had the audacity to ask for double the money back.

[AngelaHunter]

4 hours ago, Jamoche said:

Ooh, that wedding photographer is getting some serious side eye from the groom when he talks about what he did at the wedding.

He was some savvy businessman, wasn't he? "Contract? Um, err - I... don't know." "What was the agreement as to album, etc." "Beats me. How would I know? Could be one thing, or it could be something else. Don't ask me."

We had the peak of "harassment" stupidity here. He couldn't be bothered making the album for which he was paid in full because he had other things to do. But then when plaintiffs started harassing him, well - they weren't getting it at all even though the harassment consisted of them trying to get what they paid him for. D'oh.  I wonder if anyone at his new, top-secret goverment job watched this and wondered how they hired such a slack-jaw.

[Guest]

21 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

I wonder if anyone at his new, top-secret goverment job watched this and wondered how they hired such a slack-jaw.

Something tells me that this top-secret government job requires rubber gloves, steel-toed boots and the ability to throw dried-up Christmas trees onto a truck once a year.