The People's Court - General Discussion

shksabelle · May 19, 2017

Why do I think that most of the apartments listed on classy apartments.com are probably anything but?

Jamoche · May 19, 2017

#2's fake landlord scam is pretty common: http://clark.com/homes-real-estate/fake-landlord-scam/ Usually they pick homes that are under foreclosure so it'll take longer before the real owner shows up.

Brattinella · May 20, 2017

On 5/19/2017 at 11:30 AM, marny said:

If this show has taught us anything, it's that this attitude is hardly limited to a particular generation.

I have never seen ANYONE over the age of forty act that way. Boomers were not brought up that way at all. Schools and the media have been pushing this crap for decades.

AngelaHunter · May 20, 2017

3 hours ago, Brattinella said:

Boomers were not brought up that way at all. Schools and the media have been pushing this crap for decades.

That's for sure.

BabyVegas · May 21, 2017

On ‎5‎/‎20‎/‎2017 at 11:48 AM, Brattinella said:

I have never seen ANYONE over the age of forty act that way. Boomers were not brought up that way at all. Schools and the media have been pushing this crap for decades.

I'm sorry, but I have to take issue with this; I think it's a gross generalization. I have seen people of all ages act as though the world ought to cater to their wants and desires. I don't want to get into an issue of whose-generation-sucks-the-most, but I think it's safe to say that there are entitled assholes in every generation and a disproportionately large number of them show up on this show.

Quote

There oughtta be a remedy for completely frivolous lawsuits.

Would this maybe fall under abuse of process? I'm not sure, but it seemed like the plaintiff in that case wasn't even trying to argue a factual dispute, he was just mad at the universe for not bending to his will and wanting someone else to take care of him. Normally I'm one who falls on the side that it's better for a person to have access to the courts even if it results in the occasional frivolous lawsuit, but this guy was way past the bounds of normal.

Edited May 21, 2017 by BabyVegas

momtoall · May 21, 2017

1 hour ago, BabyVegas said:

On 5/20/2017 at 2:48 PM, Brattinella said:

I have never seen ANYONE over the age of forty act that way. Boomers were not brought up that way at all. Schools and the media have been pushing this crap for decades.

I'm sorry, but I have to take issue with this; I think it's a gross generalization. I have seen people of all ages act as though the world ought to cater to their wants and desires. I don't want to get into an issue of whose-generation-sucks-the-most, but I think it's safe to say that there are entitled assholes in every generation and a disproportionately large number of them show up on this show.

ITA. I've seen young, middle aged, and seniors be total asshats in real life (friends, family, acquaintances, and strangers ) as well as on TPC and JJ.

Brooklynista · May 22, 2017

On 5/16/2017 at 11:16 PM, howiveaddict said:

I'm a nurse at an outpatient center. I have a patient who comes in slurring and brings her "nurse" with her. I think in this case nurse means drug supplier. Or maybe owning a scrub top makes one a nurse.

Way off topic, but whats this newish fad of having everyone wear scrubs?? Why is everyone on staff all the way down to the receptionist in scrubs now? I dont get it if your not assisting in surgery.

SRTouch · May 22, 2017

blah, 2 boring cases with 1 dog case in the middle .

Investment money: I just can't relate to either of these two. Story is they've been friends for 30 years, then dated for a short time, then broke up and now haven't spoken for two years. Thing is, apparently they have more money than they can keep track of. Plaintiff hears her good friend talking about all the money he's making in the stock market, so gives him 5 grand to invest. Thing is, he just dumps her money in the mad money kitty, doesn't keep track of want he buys with her money, just mixing it with his. While times are good, nobody cares, and he even ends up loaning her money on occasion. Then the inevitable break up, and he claims all but 2 hundred of her money has been lost. He shows MM his stock market statements, and sure 'nuf he DID lose a bunch on an investment on some company MM has never heard of. Problem is, about the time she was giving him her money to invest, he bought a $9000 chunk of stock in Ford which has maintained it's value, and been paying dividends all this time - oh, and one of the stocks plaintiff says he told her he invested her money in was Ford. So, in the absence of any records, MM goes with her common sense and returns part of the money to plaintiff.
dog case: irresponsible owners know the dogs can easily get through the fence. No real surprise when one neighbor's medium sized dog crosses into other neighhor's yard and mauls a Pomeranian. Pomeranian ends up dieing after racking up 6 grand in vet bills. That's all I know, as that was how long it took for me to leave the kitchen and hit FF.
Bad cell phone: plaintiff says he paid $135 for a cell phone. Thing was defective and was returned to the store and send off to be fixed. They give plaintiff a loaner phone. Weeks and months goes by, plaintiff keeps checking back but store keeps telling them phone hasn't been send back, yet. Then loaner phone quits. Plaintiff fed up with busted phone and now broken loaner, so new phone is purchased. But hold on, plaintiff learns the phone that was shipped off to be repaired had actually been fixed and returned to the store long ago. Plaintiff comes to court holding three phones, the original finally fixed phone, the loaner, and the replacement that was purchased when store couldn't find his phone - guy is fed up and wants to sock it to store for $500. Defendant has a different slant on things. He says he gave the plaintiff a loaner phone, even an upgrade, but plaintiff is an unreasonable hothead. Sounds like store really blew it, but don't know about the damage claim amount. Not only does plaintiff now have multiple phones (not clear, but I think 2 work and the loaner is kaput) but he wants everything he has spent returned, including a case and upgrade fees since the store upgraded the phone. Case dismissed.

Edited May 22, 2017 by SRTouch

AngelaHunter · May 22, 2017

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Investment money: I just can't relate to either of these two.

So often watching this show makes me cringe and be embarassed to be a woman and this case was no exception. "Oh, I'm just a little lady and and can't get all this financial stuff in my pretty little head. It's "man business" so here, you big, strong man - take my 5K and do whatever you want with it. You're a man so you must be infallible at this money thing. I won't give any input on what you do with my money, but I'll whine and complain if it doesn't work out."

I've been in the stock market business my whole life. One rule I've adhered to always is, "Never give anyone control of your money." EVER - and I include brokers, financial advisors and boyfriends in that. They don't give a rat's ass if they lose YOUR money! There was so much wrong with this case I don't know where to start. She needed to be proactive and open her own trading account (if he puts her money in his and makes a huge profit, HE has to pay the taxes on it so that does not work if a person is honest and legit, which I don't feel he was.) SHE had to take responsibility for where her money was going, oh - but she can't. That pretty little head being bothered. Can't have that. She didn't know the stock paid dividends! She never bothered to find out. She also never asked for her money or an accounting of it until they broke up. I'm really sorry JM awarded her anything. She'll learn nothing this way.

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

dog case: irresponsible owners know the dog's can easily get through the fence.

I should have listened to myself and not watched this. Awful. Both parties knew the fence was falling down, but neither did anything about it, except for plaintiff's hubby sticking a lawn chair somewhere. Plaintiff couldn't be bothered, or was too lazy to reinforce the fence, didn't protect her own dogs from this terrible fate and def. was horribly irresponsible. Large hunting dogs (and even mild-mannered greyhounds) can be wonderful with people but may see a tiny fluffy dog as prey. It's a dog/nature thing - not the animals' fault but they always suffer when they have dumb, clueless owners.

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Bad cell phone: plaintiff says he paid $135 first a cell phone.

Annoying case. Plaintiffs have a bunch of phones, but neither can speak properly (she "had went") and boyfriend plaintiff was missing a whole bunch of teeth. Does it never occur to anyone that these phones can be used for something other than illiterate "texing" or updating a FB status? You can also research grammar and find cheap dentists. Guess they never think of that. They'd rather spend time, money and energy coming to court to try and get all these stupid phones free. JM was irritated and gave them the boot empty-handed.

Jamoche · May 22, 2017

Somehow I suspect that, if you're pointing to a hole at the top of the fence and saying the dog went through it, said dog is probably equally capable of going over the fence.

SRTouch · May 23, 2017

bad parking: plaintiff wants big money after illegally parking in front of defendant's driveway. Talk about entitlement! Plaintiff has an office down the street from defendant's house. At some time in the past, she says she asked defendant's wife if she could park there for a few minutes. Defendant's wife said sure, if only for a few minutes. Course, anyone with have a brain would realize that doesn't mean park there any old time and for as long you want - I mean we're talking defendant's driveway, where he's put up NO PARKING signs. On the day in question, plaintiff parks without asking, trapping defendant's car in his driveway. He's miffed, calls cops, who come and ticket the car and call for a tow. Unless there's a nearby donut shop where traffic cops and tow drivers hang out, you know defendant couldn't drive out of his driveway for quite awhile. Instead of apologizing for blocking access to his driveway, plaintiff turns it around and blames defendant. After all, defendant has a gate closing off his driveway (with a NO PARKING sign on it) so there's no real driveway there, and she DID ask defendant's wife if she could park there some other day. (Defendant's wife denies this alleged permission story.) So, of course, she should be allowed to ignore his sign and park there, and since she was ticketed and her car impounded after he reports her illegal parking, it only makes sense he should pay her fees - oh, and she lost business at her real estate office having to deal with the aftermath of the tow, so let's add that to his bill. Well.... after we hear her story it makes a little more sense - not a lot, but a tad bit more. Apparently, defendant created his own parking space and driveway contrary to NY City ordinances. When plaintiff went to court, she got the ticket tossed out. So, what she's seeking is reimbursement of the tow, impound and lost business. Still, where does defendant's liability come in. He reported her car when he thought she was illegally parked, and everything that followed, the ticket, impound etc was because a beat cop agreed she was illegally parked and called for a tow. Once we hear from defendant, plaintiff looks even worse. She claims she's never seen defendant before, and had only talked with the wife once. Not so, says defendant, he says she's parked there several times in the past, but this was the first time he saw who was driving. This time he was outside when she parked, he asked her not to block his drive and she yelled "F**k you" and walked away. He went in his house and complained to the family. He didn't actually call the cops, a traffic cop came by and he complained. Turns out it wasn't just illegally parked, but had a long time expired registration. Plaintiff denies everything - no f bombs, never talked to defendant at all, and continues to argue and talk over MM when the judge points out the cop had the car towed, not the defendant. Ok, main suit is going to be tossed, but what about the countersuit. Seems defendant has filed asking for $500 because she bad talked him in the neighborhood. 99.9% of the time these are just knee jerk reactions to being sued - you sued me so I'm suing you right back. Ah, but this time crazy entitled plaintiff ran off a few hundred flyers with defendant's name and address calling him a liar. Plaintiff is Soooo PROUD of herself, beaming and looking around like she really showed defendant not to mess with her. She can't believe that judge tosses her case "wow, wow, WOW!". Oh, she tossed countersuit, too, since defendant can't even pretend it hurt his feelings when neighbors brought the flyers up. Lots of losers whine and disagree with the decision during the hallterview, but I don't remember any other litigant saying goes judge is nuts.
tenant suing landlord: this time tenant is all upset because she feels landlord is unfairly keeping her deposit - nothing new there, but it appears the reason is that landlord says tenant was running a illegal home business - a hair salon - which damaged the drains, extra big water bills, big parties, etc. Oh, and not only does plaintiff want back her deposit, she also wants landlord to pay her parking ticket. Ah, of course, another section 8 tenant who needs subsidized housing, makes money under the table with her hair business, has half a dozen kids, and has the section 8 rule book memorized. Knows enough to come to court with pictures and video (shame on defendant landlord, she only brought pictures). Huh, when defendant passes up her pictures it's NOT host she left the place, but what it looked like when she lived there. Also, she tries to tell MM place was a mess when she moved in - whoa, MM knows better, section 8 inspects before they agree to pay - so she backs off that right quick. I see nothing about how she left the place. Landlord shows damage, but not sure she's not padding the bill - damaged exterior siding, screens, etc. As we go through the pictures I'm getting more and more ready to side with defendant. Very bad spackle jobs on walls, paint spilled and only partially cleaned up, tile broken... Oops that gets me, plaintiff explains she has a tempurpedic bed, thing weighs a lot, so not her fault tiles were cracked - yeah, MM says, can't contribute a penny towards rent, so section 8 pays the bill for her and her 4 kids, but can afford a tempurpedic. As soon as we see a picture of her "repair" of the floor I'm ready to say any repairs she did will have to be ripped out and redone. Course that's not how MM rolks, she goes through all the pictures and receipts and eventually tosses part of the damage claims landlord says entitled her to keep all of the deposit. We never hear a word about the supposed hair salon business or traffic ticket mentioned in the intro, but we do hear landlord say some of the damage appeared deliberate. I've seen enough to say landlord can keep the $1875 deposit, but part of that may be plaintiff who can't pay a penny yet has bed I could never justify buying for myself. MM decides plaintiff gets some couple hundred while landlord keeps 1600.
bad loan: plaintiff says he loaned long time friend money to tide him over for a few days, but the no good bum stopped answering his phone when time came to pay up. Defendant has totally different story. He says plaintiff fell on hard times, and he ended up being almost a personal assistant/driver for the guy. When he said he was tired of being used, he says he's going friend filed this lawsuit. Either one, or both, of these guys is lieing, or we have some looney goons here. Plaintiff wants $700 he says he loaned his friend, while defendant figures he should get 5 grand (9 hundred for driving him around, the rest for general principles). Right off the bat plaintiff is correcting the intro. He says they were not friends, just business acquaintances. He says he loaned defendant $400 for 3-4 days, and ended up paying $300 to a lawyer to try to get it back when the guy refused to pay. Plaintiff tells a good story. Defendant, OTOH... MM asks defendant if plaintiff loaned him the money, and we get "I don't recall that." Not the best answer - I can just hear JJ saying "well, if you don't remember I'll have to rely on plaintiff's memory." He quickly changes "don't recall" to "no, never loaned me $400." Already don't like smiley defendant dude, but then he starts in about how he gave plaintiff rides to his probation meetings, but he doesn't want to tell us why plaintiff was on probation (unregistered weapon charge). Then some nonsense about how he agreed to drive guy to the PO for $50 a trip, as a friend, but never got paid. Not liking smiley, and don't believe anything he's saying. Says he hadn't seen plaintiff for months when plaintiff says he loaned the $400. Smiley has no evidence of the supposed harrassment or the $50 a trip agreement - but then plaintiff has nothing to prove he ever loaned him $400. Best plaintiff comes up with is a doctored copy of check for $350. No way either of these guys thought they had a chance of winning, so I'm leaning towards a couple guys looking for a free lunch and outing to the studio to meet Doug.

Edited May 23, 2017 by SRTouch

AlleC17 · May 23, 2017

On 5/12/2017 at 1:11 PM, AngelaHunter said:

Maybe it's wrong, but I stopped donating to help people the year I read in my local paper at Christmas about a woman who went into labour with her eighth child as she was standing in line for a free Xmas basket. The article made it sound like some wonderful Christmas miracle. I still remember how outraged I was. Now I donate only to help animals, who can't help themselves.

This is so me as well, although I do give a little to a local foodbank, and to a friend who prepares meals for the homeless. The majority of what I give (including time) goes to the animals. nothing I see on court shows makes me want to reevaluate that either!

AngelaHunter · May 23, 2017

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

bad parking: plaintiff wants big money after illegally parking in front of defendant's driveway.

This case and this plaintiff made a old-fashioned word pop unbidden into my head, and that word is "broad." Plaintiff is a rough, tough, low-class broad. I have no problem believing def. when he said she told him to "Fuck off." I can't imagine how anyone (unless they're gutter rats like her) would want this woman as their real estate agent, if only because she's incapable of listening. Oh, also she doesn't even know how to use a printer. She's just the kind of small-brained, big-mouthed idiot who would call the judge "nuts" because anyone who doesn't agree with her can just, you know - "fuck off." Nice view she gave us of her enormous ass in too-tight pants as she galumphed off down the hall.

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

tenant suing landlord: this time tenant is all upset because she feels landlord is unfairly keeping her deposit

At first when plaintiff started talking about how "basely" the landlord put restrictions on toilet-flushing etc., I thought she had a case. But then we hear that she pays zippo - zero - nada for the 1200$ rent because she's a sainted single mom with four kids she can't support - yet, she can afford luxuries like an "upgrade" to a 55-gallon fishtank (I"ve kept fish for 25 years and would have loved such a big tank but didn't feel I could afford it considering my paycheck at the time because I had to pay my own rent). She can afford other luxuries too - wigs and jewelry and a great big Tempurpedic bed (about which JM snarked)! Well, of course she can! The taxpayers are more than happy to pay her entire rent to give her more disposible income for... well - luxuries! I'm sorry she got awarded anything, but at least it was only 225$.

Two old guys bitching about each other was kind of uncomfortable to listen to. Glad that case didn't last long.

Broderbits · May 23, 2017

24 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

This case and this plaintiff made a old-fashioned word pop unbidden into my head, and that word is "broad."

A slightly different "B" word popped into my head and I'm sure you can guess what it was! What a horrible creature.....she doesn't even deserve to be called human.

Wings · May 23, 2017

On 5/17/2017 at 0:55 AM, bref said:

Anyone else suspect Mr. Uber Driver, Esquire, might not REALLY have been a lawyer?

He might have been de-barred or whatever they do when a lawyer runs afoul in a big way :^)

Bazinga · May 23, 2017

4 hours ago, SRTouch said:

tenant suing landlord: this time tenant is all upset because she feels landlord is unfairly keeping her deposit

Why would the security deposit be hers, anyway? As it was Section 8 and she paid no rent, why would she have been required initially to have paid the security deposit so as to be the party to receive the return of the security deposit? I assume this was actually Section 8 money but I could be wrong. I saw no reason she deserved even a partial refund of the security deposit based on the damage that was shown. That awful woman did not deserve even a small victory.

Hated how having an "explanation" for damage made the damage not her fault. Example: Bed was really heavy so the scratches on the floor were not an issue. And, why would a Tempurpedic mattress be the reason her bed weighed so much? Tempurpedic mattresses are not particularly heavier then other mattresses, to my knowledge. (I have one and love it. That is my big luxury. I hate springs.) Also, the mirror damaging the wall, was because wasn't screwed in right so she was not to blame.

The first two plaintiffs were awful, entitled, self-righteous, human beings. The nerve to bring suit when you are the party in the wrong.

Harvey's outside idiots were even stupider then usual in their thinking the first plaintiff should have prevailed because the (other) judge had decided in her favor. Oy.

Edited May 23, 2017 by Bazinga

shksabelle · May 23, 2017

Parking plaintiff has seen one too many Sopranos' episodes. She sounds barely literate.

Section 8 renter with a Tempuredic bed. So typical. Gaming the system as a way of life.

AngelaHunter · May 23, 2017

41 minutes ago, Bazinga said:

Harvey's outside idiots were even stupider then usual in their thinking the first plaintiff should have prevailed because the (other) judge had decided in her favor.

I think of them as "Levin's Curbside MENSA Club." I don't dare listen to them. Some of the cases here raise my blood pressure enough.

1 hour ago, Broderbits said:

A slightly different "B" word popped into my head and I'm sure you can guess what it was! What a horrible creature.....she doesn't even deserve to be called human.

I really wish she'd sue the police who decided to tow her car, but she coudn't get it through her thick skull that def couldn't order the cops to tow the car and ticket her. What a distasteful beast.

41 minutes ago, Bazinga said:

As it was Section 8 and she paid no rent, why would she have been required initially to have paid the security deposit so as to be the party to receive the return of the security deposit?

That's what I was thinking. Somehow I doubt she coughed up 1200$ for a deposit. She has better, more fun things on which to spend her money. Don't we all?

43 minutes ago, Bazinga said:

And, why would a Tempurpedic mattress be the reason her bed weighed so much?

Didn't she say "just the frame" was super heavy? Must be a really expensive one.

Broderbits · May 23, 2017

3 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

That's what I was thinking. Somehow I doubt she coughed up 1200$ for a deposit. She has better, more fun things on which to spend her money. Don't we all?

Just think of all the nasty tattoos she could get!

Bazinga · May 23, 2017

58 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

Didn't she say "just the frame" was super heavy? Must be a really expensive one

You are right. Went back and watched-"her bed frame alone was 2,500 pounds and (she has) a Tempurpedic bed." So if it is the bed frame that is heavy, why was it necessary to mention that it was a Tempurpedic mattress unless it was just to infuriate all those who work to support her and her giagantic fish tank and luxury mattress?

Edited May 24, 2017 by Bazinga

AngelaHunter · May 23, 2017

I had to look up Tempurpedic because I don't have one and when I went bed-shopping 5 years ago I never considered it. The mattress starts at 2,500 freaking dollars??? The base starts at 700$? Now I see why it was so heavy it wrecked the wall, which, by the way, it just too friggin' bad for the landlord. She should understand that huge luxury beds are tough to move around. She fixed the hole with a paste of flour and water or modeling clay or whatever. Landlord should be grateful.

I do love how JM's demeanour changes when she hears things like this outrageous sense of entitlement. The best was that awful woman buying a ton of designer sunglasses because she likes them and we find out at the end she's on welfare. "Get out of here!" JM told her in disgust.

Bazinga · May 23, 2017

30 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

Now I see why it was so heavy it wrecked the wall

But the Tempurpedic mattress is not particularly heavy-it is foam.

I really do love mine as I hated being stuck by metal springs from my old mattress, so price on this didn't matter too much. I really do recommend Tempurpedic though it is not as amazing as the commercials say (no, not like sleeping on a cloud). Had the mattress for a number of years and it is as good as when it was new. I doubt I will ever need to buy another mattress. So I think it is worth the price though I don't think I paid as much as you quoted, but again, it was years ago. I do regret buying the base as it is not needed with the bed (the bed frame said it needed a boxspring) and is no different then a regular boxspring. Thus ends my Tempurpedic infomercial. Got the bed frame and headboard from Overstock, so saved on that end, so it is not as heavy as the plaintiff's.

Edited May 24, 2017 by Bazinga

AngelaHunter · May 24, 2017

1 hour ago, Bazinga said:

So I think it is worth the price

Yes, but I bet Judge M, JJ and Byrd didn't have to pay for yours. :p If they only would, you could upgrade!

ITALIA · May 24, 2017

4 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

This case and this plaintiff made a old-fashioned word pop unbidden into my head, and that word is "broad." Plaintiff is a rough, tough, low-class broad. I have no problem believing def. when he said she told him to "Fuck off." I can't imagine how anyone (unless they're gutter rats like her) would want this woman as their real estate agent, if only because she's incapable of listening. Oh, also she doesn't even know how to use a printer. She's just the kind of small-brained, big-mouthed idiot who would call the judge "nuts" because anyone who doesn't agree with her can just, you know - "fuck off." Nice view she gave us of her enormous ass in too-tight pants as she galumphed off down the hall.

At first when plaintiff started talking about how "basely" the landlord put restrictions on toilet-flushing etc., I thought she had a case. But then we hear that she pays zippo - zero - nada for the 1200$ rent because she's a sainted single mom with four kids she can't support - yet, she can afford luxuries like an "upgrade" to a 55-gallon fishtank (I"ve kept fish for 25 years and would have loved such a big tank but didn't feel I could afford it considering my paycheck at the time because I had to pay my own rent). She can afford other luxuries too - wigs and jewelry and a great big Tempurpedic bed (about which JM snarked)! Well, of course she can! The taxpayers are more than happy to pay her entire rent to give her more disposible income for... well - luxuries! I'm sorry she got awarded anything, but at least it was only 225$.

Two old guys bitching about each other was kind of uncomfortable to listen to. Glad that case didn't last long.

She's a lowlife classless idiot. Enormous ass and enormous tits. What a TOTAL loser.

AZChristian · May 24, 2017

1 hour ago, ITALIA said:

She's a lowlife classless idiot. Enormous ass and enormous tits. What a TOTAL loser.

I can't remember the last time I saw a VPL (visible panty line) on TV. Them was some TIGHT jeans. And an even tighter top. Fashion disaster.

SRTouch · May 24, 2017

Three frivolous cases

couple of nuts: I had to start this one over a couple times to figure out WTH dude was suing for. Plaintiff talks about how they met through a friend - turns out to be a facebook friend. Dude was flirting with this facebook friend - asked if she has an unmarried sister he could meet - sure, meet my twin sis, the defendant, haha, not really my sister. So, anyway they meet. Her story is different - yeah they met through a facebook friend, not because of him flirting but because she liked a funny video he posted. Either story could be true, but don't see how it leads to dueling 3 grand lawsuits - which is the max in their jurisdiction. Both these loones are having entirely to much fun telling the world their stories, and can't help but watch each other's performances - even after being warned by MM to stop looking at each other. Dude even says at one point that defendant is a member of a drama guild and can cry on demand. Anyway, after everyone tells their little backstory of how they met, dude completely loses me as he launches into a story of how he changed some filter and deserves to be paid. Huh, what filter? Even after rewinding I still don't know how a filter comes in. Anyway, he produces his phone and MM does her text snooping routine. Apparently he loaned her a table and changed anot AC filter when he was wooing her, and once the door was slammed in his face he decided to present her with a bill. The table loan was so she could set up a display at some sales meeting, and when he was told no on the whole wooing business (she claims he claimed to be a swinger, and she isn't into that) he decided the table loan charge is $300 (still don't know where a filter comes in). He ends up suing her employer for big bucks for the use of the table and this mysterious filter. That case was settled and they gave him a hundred bucks to shut up and go away. Now she's lost her job of two years because her boss didn't like being sued, and he's back suing her for the same thing he already settled for in the other case - oh, and he wants triple damages. Ok, I watched it twice, and still have no idea what his case is about. MM isn't having much more luck figuring him out, and eventually he admits he has no legal basis for this frivolous suit, but it's okay because he's not a lawyer. He does have a shred of a claim - seems when they were having coffee, while he was still wooing her, she talked about having to sell a gold coin to make a mortgage payment. Either as a loan or a gift, both agree he gives her $900. Course once she closes the door to sex, he wants the money back, but she says nope it was a gift, she didn't ask for a loan and could have made her mortgage payment just fine, but she's keeping the money because she doesn't believe in any Indian giving. MM disagrees and orders her to pay back the $900. The rest of defendant's counterclaim is because she got fired after her company was dragged to court over a filter and table - oops, no evidence that's why she was fired, so no payday coming.
banged up Mercedes-Benz: has to be more to plaintiff's case then what intro says - dude says he started to get out of his car, opened the door a little, and defendant was driving by and hit the open door - nah, in what world would defendant have to pay 2 grand because plaintiff opened his door in traffic. Course, defendant has a countersuit for his damages - 5 grand to his toyota camry. Oh boy, things start out bad when MM introduces the plaintiff to the whole blind spot concept. He tells how he carefully checked his mirrors, no cars in sight, so he cracks open his door and.... wham, defendant appears out of another dimension and hits his car door. Dude actually argues for awhile about how he didn't see any cars, even while MM says defendant had to be there to hit his car - completely clueless and I'm not sure how they're going to stretch this one out. Guy would be better off saying he was hit before he started to open the door. He has some useless "reenactment" pictures as evidence. His insurance sent out an investigator and - surprise - accident was ruled to be his fault. Mule headed idiot still doesn't get what "blind spot" means, but only reason I'm watching is to learn how old defendant's Toyota is, and how he racked up 5 grand worth of damages - not saying it couldn't happen as the whole side of his car could have been messed up. Ah, defendant's car is a taxi, so not only is he wanting car damage, but he couldn't work until car was repaired. Oh, and of course, he deserves a couple grand for emotional distress. But wait, now MM catches the fact that the date of the repair shows he didn't get the car fixed for 3 weeks - so why is part of his damages for 5 days of if missed work? Is he padding his claim even more? MM is not happy with the padded claim, but orders plaintiff to pay the repair bill.
Almost tenant backs out, wants back deposit: ah, not only return of deposit, but somehow she claims a bunch of other stuff, too - storage fees, rent she paid some one else, child care, dog sitter, pain and suffering etc etc. Defendant has a countersuit (don't they all) since he took the apartment off the market and it took 2 months to re-rent. Plaintiff wants to move, sees the apartment, likes it, signs a lease, puts down a deposit, and then tries to get aid from some program that helps folks come up with move in costs. She did eventually get the aid money, but it took 3 weeks. Somehow she thinks the landlord should have given her the keys up front, on the chance the aid would come through. Since he didn't, and she had to pay rent somewhere else, he should just forget that month of lost rent. They start squabbling over who should eat the month's rent, she never months in, and now she figures he owes for everything she even thought of spending - she wants 5 grand - all because he refused to let her move in without paying like everyone else does. All I can think is - dude really lucked out that she never moved in! This is about as frivolous as a case can get - but there is some entertainment when we learn the plaintiff's witness, who has zip to do with the case, at one time had a relationship with defendant. That's not too surprising, since we already know the litigants once worked at the same place, but the reaction of the "witness" when defendant points it out is the only chuckle of the day. Witness really wants to comment, stands up and butts in even though MM tells her to park it. Really expected Douglas to have to escort her out when she kept running her mouth, but she does shut up after a final "WOW." No, they never dated, he just knew her, and he dated a cousin a decade ago - oh, and I think plaintiff is a cousin, too. Hey, litigants on this show get to invite whoever they want for the free lunch, nothing says they have to actually add anything to the case. Once again Doug socks it to a clueless litigant when he asks plaintiff if she learned anything from the ruling. She starts in with how she learned people can screw you and get away with it - NO, Doug says, when you sign a contract the law says you have to abide by it!

AngelaHunter · May 24, 2017

30 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

couple of nuts: I had to start this one over a couple times to figure out WTH dude was suing for.

Well, he's a nut for sure, although I can't figure out how anyone would want to do any "swinging" involving him. Anyway, def is just a nasty, smug, smirking user. I'm pretty sure her employers had good reason to fire her and it may have had nothing to do with plaintiff's lawsuit against the company. So, someone I just met rushes into where I work and shoves an envelope with 900$ (he used a crystal ball to figure out I needed that much) into my hand then scurries out. Well, of course I would keep and spend the money. Who wouldn't? I'm sure it was love at first sight with her newly wedded hubby. In the hallterview, they seemed just so perfectly matched.

34 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

banged up Mercedes-Benz:

How many times have we heard this ridiculous, dumb story? Plaintiff checked carefully before opening his car door and there were NO cars coming. I assume def's car was dropped into the street by aliens, a "Back to the Future" appearance or he had some sort of cloaking device so plaintiff couldn't see him until it was too late. The unmitigated gall of these idiots who just open their car doors into oncoming traffic and expect to get paid for doing so never fails to amaze me, not to mention he's another one who thinks he's so smart he can fool JM. Durrr. Def. certainly deserved to get paid for the car damage the idiot plaintiff caused, but "emotional distress" over dings on his car? Oh, please. Don't think so. Plaintiff should have kept his big, stupid mouth shut and stayed out of court, since not only does he lose but has to pay defendant.

39 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

Almost tenant backs out, wants back deposit:

Oh, no. I shut this off too quickly and missed this case.

Jamoche · May 24, 2017

#2 plaintiff is hysterical. "There's no obstruction, you can see all the way down the street, he just wasn't there. And he was driving 6" from the parked cars." And oh the eye-rolling as the defendant tells his story.

meowmommy · May 24, 2017

2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Oh, no. I shut this off too quickly and missed this case.

Somewhere idiots nationwide are getting the idea that they can go on TPC for cha-ching, I guess. It's been refreshing to see this run, lately, of stupid plaintiffs who not only don't win any money in the TPC lottery, but then find their asses countersued by pissed off defendants who probably would never have sued, and have to fork out money to the defendants.

CASinCHI · May 25, 2017

Plaintiff of Case 3: Bow tie tattoo? Inneresting!

Douglas with Plaintiff of Case 3: I love how dismissive he was, "On your way...goodbye" with a wave of his hand. Priceless.

SRTouch · May 25, 2017

2 hours ago, CASinCHI said:

Plaintiff of Case 3: Bow tie tattoo? Inneresting!

Douglas with Plaintiff of Case 3: I love how dismissive he was, "On your way...goodbye" with a wave of his hand. Priceless.

Bow tie or dog bone?

teebax · May 25, 2017

I love my Tempurpedic mattress. I don't know how heavy the frame is, but I don't think it weighs as much as that plaintiff's. My girlfriend and I have moved it by ourselves.

Regarding Section 8, some tenants do pay a deposit even though Section 8 helps with the rent, or sometimes pays enough to cover all the rent. My mother rented her house out to a Section 8 tenant years ago and much preferred doing it that way. She knew the rent would be paid on time every month. Of course, success with it depends on if you get a nutjob like the plaintiff or just a regular poor person who needs some help.

Silver Raven · May 25, 2017

Maybe it's not so much the weight of the Tempurpedic mattress, but what you do on it.

SRTouch · May 25, 2017

employee wants to be paid: (not sure why, no real weather in the area, but missed part of this as picture pixelated and things jumped ahead) plaintiff claims to have worked for a home remodelling firm and wants his backpay. Supposedly he walked into an area where there was insulation being sprayed, he inhaled it and, following doctors orders stayed off the job. We see email where he informed his supervisor, and boss jokes (?) well guess you can take the vacation you wanted. Unfortunately, we can't ask the supervisor if that was a joke - or what kind of relationship he had with the plaintiff, since defendant didn't bring his brother, the supervisor, to court. Thing is, plaintiff worked for the company over a year as a salesman was paid strictly commission, was already unhappy with the job and was seeking other employment (still unemployed as Doug learns in hallterview). Things get contentious because of this work related injury/vacation - he never goes back to work and feels he is owed for work, while employer/defendant is resorting to some self help in recovering some work related materials, saying yeah we owe him money, but he still has company poperty so it's a wash. Nobody here is presenting a very compelling case. Plaintiff has already taken his ex-company before the labor board and had his case dismissed. Defendant is testifying about what other salesmen did to cover for plaintiff's shortcomings, but has nothing to show except his word. I'd have thought most of what MM is asking for would have been presented before the labor board, but no one even brought a copy of the ruling. Ah, but MM, or her staff, have done her homwork. SHE already knows about the ruling, and why the case was tossed. She ALSO knows plaintiff is currently under investigation for fraudulently claiming unemployment - lieing and claiming he was fired when the emails show he just stopped going to work. Ok, Mr Salesman, dig your way out of the mess you stepped into. Nobody comes out if this smelling like roses. Plaintiff obviously all kinds of wrong, but defendant lacks any real evidence to PROVE what he says, and for some reason judges frown on self help. In the end, MM awards a couple grand to the plaintiff (a fraction of the $30,000 he claimed before the labor commission).
mommy suing daughter's ex: plaintiff fronted the loving couple money for a car, bf split, car disappears into limbo, now she wants bf to pay back money she lost on the deal. Hmmm, no doubt she lost money, as soon as you leave the lot you lose a chunk of change, but why would he have to pay? Sounds like, if anything, this would be a joint loan to both daughter and bf. Anyway, as I understand things, everything is in mommy's name, so after the breakup, car reverted to her - problem is she doesn't want/need another vehicle, and when she tries to claim the car cops won't help. Her story doesn't make a lot of sense because - well nobody can be THAT stupid. It doesn't help that daughter is appearing in a different court on a different matter so can't help clear up things here. Mommy says she doesn't have the car, doesn't know what happened to it, and defendant tries to act like she has it. Hey, folks, if no one was making the payments I bet the loan company repo-ed it and auctioned it off, and is now after everyone whose name appears on the loan so THEY don't lose money. Ah, buy the bank says the car was not repo-ed. Dude insists it was towed, but says he couldn't be bothered to find out who towed it. Mommy supposedly has tried going to the cops, so it's not impounded (unless somebody screwed up the paperwork like we saw in 1 case), she has a statement from a couple weeks ago saying the bank doesn't have it - sounds more and more like dude is hiding it. Ah, but where ever this car is, it sure is racking up tickets - over a grand worth. Seems like someone could find where the car spends most of its time by tracing where it got all those tickets - hmmmm, either MM has the same idea, or she wants to get away from the idiots, as she takes a recess and heads to chambers with the stack of tickets. After she comes back she rules that defendant has to make good on the loan, as he either has the car, sold it, knows who has it, or neglected to report it stolen when he had possession - he also gets to pay the tickets. As a final word, after she stands and starts to leave, she urges plaintiff to take a copy of the tape and report the thing as stolen.
mommy suing son: apple didn't fall very far here. Mommy, who looks pretty rough, took in sonny and his gf when they were homeless living out of his car. She goes to jail for a week - probably only the latest in a long rap sheet, she claims he sold/pawned her possessions and took her old jeep. She was picked up for selling coke and oxy, wouldn't be surprised if sonny isn't a regular customer. She freely admits to committing fraud when she bought the jeep, putting it in sonny's name because she can't get a license - not that she didn't drive it all the time. Then she arranges to sell the jeep to his friend, then... beats me, convoluted story not worth trying to figure out. Apparently, this mystery friend CJ signed a bill of sale, but never registered it... well, I've had enough of career crook/dealer mommy - and zip to the end where I find mommy collected some of what she was seeking.

Edited May 26, 2017 by SRTouch

AngelaHunter · May 25, 2017

50 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

employee wants to be paid: (not sure why, no real weather in the area, but missed part of this as picture pixelated and things jumped ahead)

You didn't miss much. Both parties were a little shady.

Quote

defendant lacks any real evidence to PROVE most of what he says,

No, no! He has it, but gee - not with him! It exists for sure, but sadly he left it all on his desk. Don't you hate when that happens? Of course JM would take his word for it that he left the entirety of his case in his office. Err, no. If I were a more cynical person, I might think plaintiff walked into an attic on a job where he knew foam insulation was being sprayed, held his breath then raced to the doctor so he could get that vacation he was denied. He still doesn't work, as Doug ascertained in the hall.

56 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

mommy suing daughter's ex:

O.M.G. How many people here would put their name on a car loan for... some guy? JM has heard stupidity that would boggle the mind of any normal person, but the abject dumb, idiotic stupidity she heard here actually rendered her nearly speechless. Momma must have really wanted her daughter to have a boyfriend. BF needed a new car - and not just any old car, but a 25K, 2010 Audi (I've worked my whole life yet don't have an Audi) and Momma agreed he needs a car like that. Def is so dumb he can just barely speak in short sentences. He's so stupid he can't say anything to Doug in the Hall. Doug kindly helps him out with "You're speechless at the verdict?" "Yeah," brain-dead idiot replies, "Speechless." Anyway, the car magically vanished from his house - he never called the police or tried to find out what happened to it - it's such a mystery - but of course he need not pay for it anymore because, like, it's gone. He has no idea who's racking up tickets on it! Another mystery. Plaintiff's daughter couldn't show up because, well, she had a car accident three days ago and had to appear in court. Mom has not a clue why. No idea. JC, how do any of these morons get through a day without accidently killing themselves?

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

mommy suing son: apple didn't fall very far here.

Yikes. Momma is a tatted, toothless, mustachioed mutant drug user/dealer and while she served her latest "incarceration" for, well - dealing drugs, Sonny Boy (who in comparison to Mom sounded almost reasonable even if he was also mutant in appearance) took over the old car and sold it someone or other (Donald? Ronald?). But why can't a person who can pay for Playstations, tats and drugs, etc. get some damned teeth? This was about some old beater car and stolen Playstations which Sonny's ex-girlfriend says he "forced" her to pawn and whatever. These litigants were so frightful I really couldn't concentrate on who was owed what. I heard the words "child support" in there somewhere but I'm eternally grateful JM didn't press for details. The thought of any of these people breeding is profoundly depressing.

patty1h · May 26, 2017

The pool case today had some shady litigants. The defendant is dealing weed to the plaintiff, then not completing the job after receiving full payment. I would not mess with the defendants hard looking daughter -- I think she'd cut a bitch. She looked like she was tweaking with her eyes jumping all over the place but never seemed focused and she was jerky as hell. I'd be afraid to turn my back on her.

The defendant in the third case (car warranty) did a terrible job dyeing his beard - he left a whole thin border of gray hair showing. Maybe it was an optical illusion or a bad camera angle, but to my eyes, the mother in this case had a very... interesting face.

Edited May 26, 2017 by patty1h

AngelaHunter · May 26, 2017

1 hour ago, patty1h said:

I would not mess with the defendants hard looking daughter -- I think she'd cut a bitch.

Hee! I came here specifically to mention def's super rough-looking daughter, who had taken the time to plaster her face with nightclub-type makeup and was totally shocked at the disrespect (which seemed to consist of plaintiff saying he's not professional and she wanted her money back) shown to Daddy. These cases are the kind I love - Crackpots with Contracts! Everyone is smoking weed! Yeah, it's illegal in Florida but I'm sure they all have permission from doctors or whatever. Plaintiff, who expected JM to order the refund of illegal drug pushing money, seemed to either be stoned or mentally deficient. Listening to her was painful. Yeah, everyone is all chummy and passing spliffs around until they aren't. Def seemed to be a bit of a con artist.

Security deposit refund: Wow, def. landlord was one mean, vile old man. He's the kind of person I think about when people whine that everyone who is elderly automatically deserves respect. He did not. The nasty old fart thought he needed to school JM on how to conduct a case, informing her that her questions were "inappropriate" and that her repeatedly asking him if he had any evidence to back up his defense amounted to nagging. He even had the temerity to mock her. JM did not take kindly to that, to the point of addressing him as "pal" something she reserves for the ultimate smart-mouth dumbasses who are in need of a major smack-down. Def's raddled cleaning lady/girlfriend - who would not admit to being his girlfriend because that's not appropriate - backed him up of course, in saying that the apartment needed 64hrs of cleaning at 20$/hr. Yeah, sure. She must the slowest cleaning lady in the west. The stove had grease! The toilet had black slime! The walls had some kind of grunge on them! You have to paint anyway, you old Scrooge. He doesn't need pictures or proof of any kind. He's operated this way for 200 years. Plaintiffs seemed very nice and decent and I'm glad they got their money back from the evil old gas bag. They may not have gotten back every penny had the def not been such a total asshole.

Car Case: Plaintiff's daughter (they looked about the same age) bought a car as old as she is and they're shocked that anything is wrong with it. Def offered to fix it, if only they would make an appointment (I always have to make an appt with Toyota when I take my car in. It's not like a walk-in clinic) but plaintiff and plaintiff's daddy didn't want that. They take it to Nissan and apparently told them to list every single thing that needs fixing, replacing or adjustment on the old beater. Of course Nissan quotes them 11K. Plaintiff doesn't want def to fix the car, she and daughter's daddy just wants the money back. They, of course, don't get it. It's that old pesky contract they signed, but don't feel they need to abide by it thingy. Def is still willing to fix the car. They make an appt for next Tues.

1 hour ago, patty1h said:

the mother in this case had a very... interesting face.

She looked very much like one of the characters in the movie "Antz." Interesting, yes.

SRTouch · May 26, 2017

pool repair hustle (or maybe another fool and her money): this case is about homeowner hiring some dude to replace the liner in her pool. She pays full price up front, but defendant does nada. She wants her money back. Defendant comes up with all kinds of crappola about why work was never done, and throws a little mud saying plaintiff bought some pot from his oldest daughter. Not only did he never finish the job, but he figures, now that he's in court being sued, now's the time to countersuit for more money. This may be a yawner, as plaintiff is mumbling and has her head down looking at.... something. When MM does get her to look up, doesn't matter much as her eyes are still pretty much hidden behind glasses and bangs. So, anyway, plaintiff hires dude in Nov to buy and install a pool liner after getting a recommendation from another pool company. Amazing, there's actually a written contract. She pays $2165, full price, up front when she signs the contract. Couple months go by, slickster is back asking for an additional $800 - seems his truck transmission went out and he used her money to get it fixed. Her hubby, not quite so gullible, pulls out the contract and says no, you've been paid. Well... maybe hubby isn't as foolish, but slick talking defendant still talked plaintiffs out of an additional $320. Apparently texts go back and forth and dude keeps coming up with excuses of why he isn't on site doing the work - including a claim that the pool supply store closed for weeks at Thanksgiving. Have to give it to slick, after listening to plaintiff he is a little easier to listen to. And, he actually may have a legit reason for taking so long. He claims, and plaintiff sort of confirms, hubby wanted a deeper pool. Soooo... he measured and ordered the liner, but once the depth changed all that had to be scrapped, and new measurements taken. Heck, he even has a case for asking for additional money if this was a change order to the original contract - any change order cost money, sometimes BIG money. Not sure why, but he brought along his pot dealing daughter as a witness. MM is NOT impressed with his parenting style when he says he arranged for daughter to score some weed for plaintiff. Oh, and he freely admits to using a little on the side even though MM points out it's illegal in their jurisdiction. MM gets plaintiff's phone and scrolls through the texts - nobody looks good, as there's talk of the pot deal, but mainly plaintiff complaining about the unfinished work, and defendant not returning calls. Text war with lots of profanity, at least part of which appears to be about not being happy with the pot deal. Dealer/daughter comes up. She makes a lousy witness, as she looks and acts high when she gets a chance to testify. We're not talking weed here, she's way way too hyper and agitated for a pothead. We're missing something here, maybe a phone call, but plaintiff sends a clearly irritated demand about getting something for the 2 grand she's paid - irritated but still reasonable and mostly polite. His response is full of profanity and ends with he's dropping off all her supplies and washing his hands of the job. Nope, he has a contract, has been paid, so do the job or refund the money. Oh, the refund money part is complicated by the fact that, apparently, installers don't like to install liners someone else measured - guess that makes sense, especially if they offer some warranty on the installation - so the work he did do is pretty much useless as another installer is going to be starting from scratch. Oh, another complication, there's conflicting stories about the pot deal, as plaintiff admits she bought pot from the daughter, and some of the dollar amounts in the text may be about that instead of the pool. Ah, well, time has run out, MM shuts everyone down and tries to figure things out. Finally, she gives up trying to separate the pot from pool money, and orders defendant to refund the money plaintiff is asking for - which may actually be less than what she paid. Course, in hallway defendant whines he didn't get a chance to tell his side. Doug helpfully points out his side just didn't mesh with the timeline of the texts. Oh well, the exit is that-a-way.
wrongfully withheld rental deposit: plaintiffs want double their security, because they claim shifty landlord is keeping money he shouldn't. Oops, preview clip shows MM chastising landlord, saying she doesn't care how many times he's automatically withheld the deposit, this time he has to prove he's entitled to keep it. Oh dear, another litigant who fails miserably as a public speaker. Plaintiff gets about three words out, then waves her hand and says "uh, you know, uh" three words, hand wave and "uh, you know, uh" maybe let hubby speak, even though defendant claims hubby is a hothead - heck, a hothead may be good for ratings as long as he doesn't go all Jerry Springer on us. After several minutes of ummm, you know... and... etc, she says what should have taken 30 seconds - landlord kept a grand of the 3 grand deposit, and we have video of how good the place looked when we left. Looks pretty good in the video - though they zipped around so fast it about causes motion sickness. Over to landlord to explain why he kept a grand for what looks like an immaculate apartment. Another mumbler and looker downer, he starts out by pulling out the lease and reading page six "tenant will pay landlord to have house professionally cleaned by Barbara Hernan(?), etc. at the rate of $20 dollars an hour." Then he has a time sheet of the time Babs supposedly spent cleaning the apartment. That's the extent of his evidence, the contract, a timesheet, Babs at his side to say she worked 64 hours on the already clean apartment. When MM asks if he has any pictures, he says no - why no pictures, his answers sorry, I've been doing this sixty years yada yada. And MM says she it doesn't matter how long he's been doing business his way, this time he has to prove his case - and Babs' timesheet doesn't do it for her. Ah, dude thinks he can win by talking over the judge, maybe if he just restated his non-existent case enough she'll ignore the fact he has no proof that shows the clean apartment in the video wasn't clean. When he says Babs is his proof place needed lots of work, MM wants to know what his relationship is with Babs. Good grief, simple question, but they don't want to tell us she's his gf - even to the point of trying to argue with the judge it's "not relevant" - uh, maybe I'm wrong, but doesn't the judge get to decide what's relevant. Of all the silly things to dig in their heels, this really torpedoes defendant's case. He really had no case to begin with, but now nobody believes anything out of his mouth after he says no, not his gf and she says they're just business associates. Not satisfied with how things are going, he continues to argue non-points and teach MM how she should be running her court. Dude, you may be old, you may have 60 years in the rental business, but you can't expect to treat any authority figure as you are and win any point. Oops, MM doesn't like his attitude... Apparently, off camera, he does something which she finds particularly offensive - are you mocking me?!? We don't see what she saw, and it wouldn't surprise me a bit because of old dude and his "I'm a successful landlord of 60 years so I'm always right and I'm amazed you don't automatically take my word over some renter" attitude - we get any abrupt ruling awarding plaintiffs the remainder of their deposit, but not the double amount for wrongfully withholding the amount... and, amazingly, we're back on schedule after the first case ran long. More nonsense in hallterview, with more attitude when Doug tries to interview him and he again starts with the interruptions and talk over routine.
bad used car: plaintiffs bought a 02 Nissan from a used car dealer for 6 grand. (Plaintiff is an attractive, apparently hard working 17 yo who is buying her first car with money earned working part time after school - aaahhh.) After a month they decide it's a lemon, so they take it to a dealer, who gives an eleven grand estimate to make it like new. They want a refund. Defendant (reminds me of Danny Devito's Penguin for some reason) has a couple defenses. One - they had it a month, so who knows what kind of abuse they subjected it to. Second, he offered to repair what was covered in the limited warranty, but they don't want it fixed, they want a refund. Ok, plaintiffs have a different slant on the "had it for a month" story. They say right away thing was acting up. They called and visited several times and kept getting the run around about when to bring it back to be seen. Finally, they get fed up and take it elsewhere for an estimate. When MM asks defendant if what they're saying is true, we get a well rehearsed, used car slime ball vibe type answer. Unfortunately, no matter how likeable plaintiff may be, or how shady defendant is sticking kid with a junker, not sure how the judge could undo the deal without proof dealer misrepresented something to do the deal. Defendant's testimony is helping plaintiff here. He tells us of multiple visits made to complain about the car, but claims plaintiff's didn't want to set up an appointment to do the work - huh, what sense does that make? Hey, this car is smoking and doesn't run right, so dealer orders a part for the seat? It's unreliable for my daughter to drive to school and her after school job, but no worries, no hurry to set up a time for it to be fixed? Nope, sure Nissan wants all kinds of repairs done (actually, they want to sell a new car and take this as a trade in), but the deal is the deal - you're not buying a new car with full warranty, you're buying a 15 yo car with limited warranty and that's what you got. I understand the parents wanting to undo the deal, but they can't get it done without giving shady dude more time to fix the warranted problems (even though it appears he was stalling getting it in to be fixed). Ah, to get around the big stall, MM gets an appointment made for them to bring in the car on the next Tuesday. Mommy isn't happy, because she doesn't trust dealer dude, but MM dismisses the case without prejudice so she can refile if car doesn't get fixed as promised in court... ahha just a trick to get us to listen to street troll to see what happens - spoiler alert, don't waste your time, nothing is said about whether car gets fixed.

Edited May 26, 2017 by SRTouch

califred · May 27, 2017

That landlord was a piece of work. No one spent 64 hrs or even 4 hrs cleaning that apartment after they left. How are you a landlord for 60 yrs but don't take a picture?

AZChristian · May 27, 2017

11 hours ago, califred said:

That landlord was a piece of work. No one spent 64 hrs or even 4 hrs cleaning that apartment after they left. How are you a landlord for 60 yrs but don't take a picture?

And the first complaint from the "cleaning lady/not a girlfriend" was: The place smelled like room deodorizer. Not cat pee or animal feces or rotten food.

HOW DARE THEY???? LOL.

califred · May 27, 2017

I thought she was trying to say the deodorizer was to cover up another smell.

That place had no trash left behind and was basically clean.

AngelaHunter · May 28, 2017

1 hour ago, califred said:

That place had no trash left behind and was basically clean.

It didn't matter how clean it was. I bet evil landlord/hustler does this to every tenant, and maybe none of the others could be bothered fighting over their security or knew that even if they won a judgement in small claims he'd never send the money.

How he had the unmitigated gall to stand there and say it took 64 hours - eight hours a day for eight days!! - (yeah, I'm sure he pays g/f 20$/hr) to clean is astonishing. Buckingham Palace wouldn't take that long. Maybe she cleans with a toothbrush. To thoroughly clean that place, especially once it was empty, should have taken no more than an afternoon. As for the walls, it's up the landlord to paint. Gee, I hate big-mouthed, ignorant nasty people/scammers like him.

califred · May 28, 2017

He pretty much admitted he does it to everyone. In 60 yrs I'm astonished no one has sued him.

We should have sued our last landlord for our deposit but the day I met her (she'd had a real estate agent do just the initial part) I knew I'd never see it. She also purposely made sure we didn't have an address for her too. We just had to hope she'd answer her phone.

wallysmommy · May 28, 2017

"Mere mortals" -- how many times did Judge Milian say that this week? I guess she needed a new phrase to replace "stick a fork in me."

SRTouch · May 29, 2017

Reruns

fraudulent used car sale: typical fool buying a used car and not understanding what "AS IS" means. Not only does this ditzy girl buy the clunker without a mechanic checking it, she buys without ever hearing it turn over and start. Oh, and she goes to the used car lot with a self imposed limit of $1800, and ends up with a $2200 car - because she trusts the fast talking salesman who swears it's a clean car, runs great, just came onto the lot, and never been involved in an accident. Hey, she trusts him so much she doesn't even pull out her smart phone and get a free carfax. Nah, she's the one who, first time she opens the trunk, finds schoolbooks belonging to a girl she went to school with, contacts the former classmate on FB, and finds out the old friend owned the thing when it was wrecked and totaled. Turns out to have been sold as scrap to the tow company - which also happens to be the guy who sold our hapless plaintiff the car after repairing it. Yeah, MM asks her if she got a carfax and she says yes, here it is, but she got that AFTER she learns it had been wrecked. Over to defendant, who agrees he sold the car, but it was sold "AS IS" so tough luck. He might have been able to make that stick, had he not lied to the judge that he knew nothing about any accident. Yeah he towed it, but that was because it was because of traffic violations, not an accident, never met the previous owner, etc etc. Oops, plaintiff has the documents proving everything he just said was a series of lies - affidavit from previous owner, police report from the accident, tow records, proof it was in fact registered even though he says it wasn't and that was why it was impounded. About the only thing he said that was true was that he sold the car for $2200. He tries to argue that doesn't matter - actually, MM corrects him when he starts out "IRREGARDLESS" um, that's not a word! Says MM. I disagree, I think it's a great word, it lets ignorant folk combine a double negative right there in one word! Almost from the beginning, she had second thoughts, and repeatedly brought the car back for "repairs". She starts in with nonexistent tears - because she feels SO betrayed. Defendant starts reciting things she brought the car back for, saying some things were fixed, others didn't need doing. Nope, beginning to sound like defendant, despite some shady puffing in the beginning, did quite a bit he wasn't obligated to do. She's doing everything to back out of the deal, even goes to the BBB where they tell her she has no complaint as long as he's working with her. Ah, but there comes a point where defendant gets fed up with her. The car breaks down, she owes a payment which she can't pay, and he refuses to go pick up the car and tow it in for another free repair. Ah ha, the BBB told her it was a waste of time to file a complaint when he was working with her, but now he's refusing, so she file her complaint. Oh, this is where it gets good. Poor plaintiff with her fake tears and whiney voice, starts in with a fast talking recital. We learn she had a big kerfuffle at the car lot, defendant forgave the remainder of her car loan and signed over the car, telling her to get out of his business and never come back, but sign this here settlement agreement before you leave. She signs the settlement, but still is in court wanting a refund, money for Uber, repair costs, and pain and suffering - wants $3600 for the $2200 car. MM is Soooo over the fake tears and bad acting, asks defendant if she signed a settlement agreement - yep, right here your honor. Still a little time on the clock, so we go to commercial and then come back to hear how her signature shouldn't mean anything cause she signed it before reading it. Yeah sure, that's enough time, lieing defendant wins irregardless of how many lies he told.
double dipper? Ok, I didn't watch this one. But as I remember, it was a case where salon was supposed to remove customer's mustache, and took off a mole/beauty mark. (Oh dear, wonder how much Cindy Crawford could sue for.) Like I said, case didn't interest me, but IIRC defendant was already on when a different customer sued.
'Nother desperate woman loaning deadbeat money (oh and met on FB, of course): these two meet on facebook, then for next three years she throws money at him. Nope, these cases aren't worth a second look.

Edited May 29, 2017 by SRTouch

AngelaHunter · May 29, 2017

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

fraudulent used car sale: typical fool buying a used car and not understanding what "AS IS" means.

Not only not understanding what "As is" means on an old beater that doesn't even have a key, but thinking the salesman is her father, or Santa Claus, who will continue to service said old beater for the rest of his life when he didn't have to do a single thing. And then not understanding what a signed settlement means. OH, the tears, the heartbreak of buying an old used car that doesn't run perfectly - she really deserves a whole bunch of money for her emotional distress. The sense of entitlement never loses its impact.

3 hours ago, SRTouch said:

But as I remember, it was a case where salon was supposed to remove customer's mustache, and took off a mole/beauty mark.

Yeah, Def removed a nasty, stalk-y skin tag thingy from plaintiff and plaintiff is devastated, as we would be at having our moles/tags removed. There was a pinpoint dot of blood on her face, so she raced to the doctor right away... oh wait - she actually went to the doctor days before this case. JM was very clear in that plaintiff tried to figure out a way to get a 5K boe-nanza for the loss of a blemish. You can't replace a skin tag! Gimme 5K!

3 hours ago, SRTouch said:

'Nother desperate woman leaning deadbeat money (oh and met on FB, of course):

Hahahhaha! Thank you, Doug in the Hall for asking what we all needed to know - "What did you see in him?" I know plaintiff is a squatty, rough little street rat, but even so, the ridiculous looking def. is the best she can do(?) to the point where she has to pay him for his favors? And NO - they weren't dating. They were just having sex. Why, I have no idea. Yuck! My mind's eye needs to be gouged out.

Florinaldo · May 30, 2017

19 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Reruns

fraudulent used car sale: typical fool buying a used car and not understanding what "AS IS" means. Not only does this ditzy girl buy the clunker without a mechanic checking it, she buys without ever hearing it turn over and start.

Now there's a litigant whose fake court demeanor changed quickly as soon as she got into the hallterview; gone were the quavering voice and the near sobs. Instead, she showed what must be her true face, a free-rider who was already relishing the prospect of the seller not being able to produce the title and her getting her money back, rubbing his nose into it. It's too bad we did not get to see her reaction when the title was indeed produced and given to her.

On the other hand, the plaintiff was partly at fault; by giving her so many unnecessary and free repairs, he nurtured her sense of entitlement and amplified her expectations. "Pleasing the client" stops being a valid justification at some point. He even gave her a 100 $ bonus to sign the settlement! Some people invite being exploited by moochers.

AngelaHunter · May 30, 2017

23 minutes ago, Florinaldo said:

"Pleasing the client" stops being a valid justification at some point.

I think what he meant is that he would have done anything, short of taking back the clunker, to get rid of her. She must have been calling a million times a day, talking 100mph, sobbing and whining about her emotional distress. He just wanted her gone by any means. I just listened to her for ten minutes and wanted to puncture my eardrums.

SRTouch · May 30, 2017

reruns - Harv has a clown - in makeup - in his posse. Don't know if the clown (the one in makeup) says anything, as I zip through that part.

skateboard park: group of young guys get together and rent a space, but when owner finds out they've build a skateboard facility he wants them out. Lots worse things for young 20 somethings to do then pitching in, combining resources, renting a place and building ramps etc so that they'll be able skate year round. Plaintiff is a 23yo who planned this for awhile, scouted out the space the year before, didn't have the money, but then next year gets his buds to pitch in and they have year round skatepark. Ah, but old scrooge dude doesn't like what they've constructed in his storage building and start adding restrictions until he forces them to shut down. Differing stories about whether or not defendant, landlord, knew what they were going to use the space for - oh, and they never had a lease, but were month to month. The space was actually an open warehouse type building with someone else renting the rest of the building. The other renter stored trucks and tools for his business, and wasn't happy to see these young kids with access to HIS storage space (remember open warehouse). Sooo, landlord decides it's better to keep his old renter than these kids and starts in adding hoops the kids have to jump go rough to keep their space. Just little things, like taking away bathroom privileges, making them build a hallway to get to their space so they can't enter other renter's area, raising the rent, etc. Landlord is in court testifying he was afraid of liability issues and his insurance might go up - but he kept collecting the rent just as long as he could. If he was really concerned, with a month to month agreement all he needed to do was give them a 30 day notice. Anyway, the kids kept the space over the winter, but come March moved out. Now they want back their security, and credit for the hallway they built for the old fart. Old fart, when he gets a chance to tell his story, starts by accusing plaintiff of lieing about everything. Then he starts a story which contradicts his answer to the complaint. Oh dear, not the best way to start, 'cause we all know MM bends over backwards for the young cute kids - remember the case where kids rented somebody's house for a weekend long party, tore stuff up, and MM told the one kid how awesome their idea was. I didn't agree with her on that one, but here scrooge was happy collecting the increased rent and now is just inventing reasons he should get to keep the security. MM says she wouldn't believe him if his tongue was notarized - and yeah, I agree this time, this landlord is not a nice guy. He keeps coming up with justifications for keeping money, but can't come up with any proof - we get a laugh when he shows a picture of how the kids left a bunch of stuff - and the picture is actually the other renter's space. Oh boy, big mistake and MM goes off on the old fart, and old fart is even smiling at how absurd it was to try to pass off the picture as evidence. MM shuts him down and is ready to order him to return the deposit. She tells plaintiff, to bad you didn't ask for double, because in Connecticut he would get it.... but wait, he starts digging through his papers and says, yes, he printed out the relevant Connecticut law. Big laugh, and MM says of course you did, because you wouldn't disappoint me. So, yes, he gets double the security.
unauthorized auto repairs: (ah, this defendant obviously isn't a viewer, he waltzes into the court, bypasses his spot at the lectern, goes off camera up to the bench - maybe to shake hands with Douglas - before circling back into camera range, stopping at the wrong end of his table before finally moving to his spot.) Plaintiff claims she brought her car in for an estimate, and defendant went ahead and worked on it, replacing the motor mounts. She's not happy about being charged for new motor mounts when she didn't authorize any work, but gives her credit card and picks up the car. But, hold on, after the work and paying $500+, car still making the weird noises. She does a u-ey, goes back, and is told maybe it's your tranny, take it to Nissan. Whoa, when Nissan dealer looks at it they say it's nothing to do with the transmission, it's a bad PCV valve, and they fix it for the low low price of $286.28 - viola, no more weird noise. Cross the aisle and slick auto shop guy gives his side - uh, after 30 seconds I'm calling his story BS. OK, I can buy the start - she came in shortly after he got there, he lifted the hood, didn't hear anything, and told her to come back in a couple hours after the mechanic came in. But, really, he saying he keeps all the old parts for months, just in case someone comes back and claims he did unnecessary repairs. Two months after his repair, when he found out she was suing, he went to the pile of junk and pulled out "HER" defective parts. Now he's in court with a cardboard box with the defective mounts - yeah, like everybody who ever watched a lawyer/cop show hasn't heard of "chain of custody." Next, he claims she didn't claim there was a noise, he says she just said it wasn't running right. So, of course, instead of questioning her to find out why she thought it wasn't right, he and the mechanic "troubleshoot" and decide to swap out the motor mounts. He SAYS he called and got verbal approval - maybe, but I'm skeptical since I don't believe anything he's said so far. Too bad plaintiff didn't go back to Nissan and get in writing that they don't believe the motor mounts had anything to do with the noise, which she says they told her - hmmm, wonder if they were even changed out, and if an expert can tell from looking whether they needed replacing. Well, without expert testimony, it's down to credibility. As if defendant's credibility isn't already scrapping the bottom of the barrel, plaintiff has video of the obvious noise, that plaintiff testified no one at his shop could hear. Ah, but when it comes time for rough justice, MM has to balance the new motor mounts on the car with the amount charged to make the possibly unnecessary repair. MM decides to she doesn't have the evidence proving the repair was not necessary, so she let's shop dude keep the $500+. But.... there's enough of a question that she decides shop dude should get a slap on the wrist, so she orders him to pay for the Nissan repair bill. OK, but I dislike dude enough that I would have given her the whole $500. Hmmm, wonder how much of that $500 was parts vs how much for labor? I would have been happier if MM had only let him keep the price of the parts, because I really question paying him anything for unneeded labor.
homeowner wants back deposit for custom shades: familiar story, customer contracts to buy something, makes a deposit, shops around and finds it cheaper, now wants to undo the deal and get back the deposit. This one even worse than some, as the custom shade lady met with homeowner, did all the measuring, ordered the shades etc. Funny deal, custom shade lady is friend of a neighbor, and homeowner pays for the consult and measuring before getting a contract - or even a freaking written estimate. So anyway, neighbor friend lady is the second person to do a consult, coming a week after someone else. First person to come did a free consult, then went away to crunch the numbers. Our neighbor friend lady charges $250 an hour for her consult, and collects a $1400 deposit before crunching numbers, so she leaves the meeting with a $1650 check. Oops, first shade contract comes back with an estimate - $1625, and after number crunching neighbor's friend comes back at $2500. Soooo, homeowner wants out of the deal with neighbor's friend, she agrees to let defendant keep the consulting fee, even though she wasn't told about it up front. Thing is, she wants out of the bathroom shade deal, but still wants other work done, so decides to use the $1400 deposit for the bathroom for the rest of the house. Whoa, when the quotes come back for the other work, neighbor friend still WAY high, soooo homeowner decides to forget this, she just wants back the $1400. Ah, but defendant says she spent lots of time on this, and remember she expects $250 per hour, so she figures she earned the deposit. She agrees to return the unused portion of the $1650, but only sends a $62 check. Huh? Nope, MM says, the way the receipt is worded, this $1650 was only for the master bath, and can't be carried over to the rest of the house without something in writing. Oh, and the consulting fee has to be stated up front, not at the end of the meeting on the way out the door. MM decides she does get to keep sonething - after all homeowner still had subsequent meetings after the initial $250 surprise charge - but not the whole $1650 enchilada. MM issues some rough justice - splits the $1400 both sides get $700.

Edited May 30, 2017 by SRTouch

NYGirl · May 30, 2017

Holy crap the shirt the defendant was wearing in case #3, the custom shade lady. It was light blue with some kind of giant flower on her right shoulder and on her left arm. I just shook my head.

I'm surprised I missed that upon first showing.

Sign In

The People's Court - General Discussion

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

teebax

arejay

zillabreeze

Posted Images

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment