Schnickelfritz June 8, 2017 Share June 8, 2017 44 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said: What kind of operation does one have for high blood pressure? You can have surgery to correct secondary hypertension caused by narrowing of an artery. It looks like he had the same surgery that my father-in-law had many eons ago. 2 Link to comment
Guest June 8, 2017 Share June 8, 2017 On 6/7/2017 at 7:04 PM, AngelaHunter said: It's in Daddy's name (maybe it's relevant that Daddy has a Beatle haircut, but maybe not)of course. When I first saw him I immediately thought of Gilligan's (as in Gilligan's Island) playing the drums in the Honey Bee episode. Slap a fur vest on Daddy and he'd be a dead ringer. Link to comment
Broderbits June 8, 2017 Share June 8, 2017 With regard to the 2nd case, here's an exception to the rule that the driver who rear-ends someone is always at fault: Many years ago I was driving my very first new car on a fairly busy suburban road. The van in front of me suddenly stopped with no warning or discernible reason. I had no problem stopping because I was a reasonable distance behind him. But then he backed up and into me! Apparently he had missed the business he wanted to turn into and decided to go in reverse without bothering to check if anyone was behind him. Of course the cops were called and the van driver tried to tell them the accident was all my fault. They didn't believe a word he said and wrote him a ticket. 6 Link to comment
teebax June 9, 2017 Share June 9, 2017 There are times when the person hitting someone from behind isn't considered at-fault, but it is rare. Years ago, I hit someone who was driving around at 2 am with no lights on. It was pitch black, and his car was dark. I slammed right into him. He compounded the problem by lying to the cop. He said his lights were on until I smashed into him. Cop checked the guy's car. Lo and behold, light switch was off. He was also intoxicated and got a DUI. Of course he had no insurance. Mine paid out under uninsured motorist property damage to fix my car and subrogated against him. I doubt they ever saw a penny of it. Anyway, the plaintiff in the landlord case seemed to be not all there. He seemed like a nice, respectful guy, just clueless. I'm sure the USPS didn't enjoy that case. 5 Link to comment
Florinaldo June 9, 2017 Share June 9, 2017 (edited) The reno case involved a plaintiff typical of people who engage on such projects haphazardly, hiring different people left and right with no coordination and cross-checking of proper procedures between them, perhaps hoping to save some money. He got the results he deserved and was lucky that no one was harmed. The defendants came across as competent and knowing their technical stuff, especially the son; the father was a little too overtly contemptuous of the plaintiff who may have deserved scorn but a courtroom, even a TV one, is not the right place for such attitude. Edited June 9, 2017 by Florinaldo 5 Link to comment
AngelaHunter June 9, 2017 Share June 9, 2017 Missed the first case because Stephanopoulous butted in with some earth-shattering news that couldn't wait one hour. Then we got the text-book, picture-perfect oily (and I mean that literally with hair so oily I'm surprised it wasn't dripping down his face) sleazy, used-car salesman. He gets off on the wrong foot with JM, starting his tale of "It's not my fault!" with "With all due respect, your Honour." You just know such defensiveness means he's guilty. Obviously the 1K plaintiff paid for the 3rd part warranty on the old beater she bought never went to the warranty company. JM called them and learned this, then gives Crisco-boy a week to produce evidence that it did. I'm confused because just minutes earlier the slimeball told her he personally called the warranty company to argue in favour of his customer (whose car kind of conked out 3 days after buying it) and he claimed he was told the warranty wouldn't cover this car because it's too old. That was such a lie I was surprised JM didn't mention it. It would seem that he, himself, put the 1K in his own pocket since he so blatantly lied. He gambled that the car wouldn't need work in the warranty period and he lost. Grease-boy claims he'll have proof he sent plaintiff's 1K to the warranty company within a week. As much as I hated to do it, I had to listen to the Street Troll Shyster to find out what I already guessed: Def never showed proof he'd passed the 1K on, so has to pay for the new transmission for plaintiff. Finally we had a Sainted Single Mother (of course. We never see anything other than single mothers here) who rents out rooms in her apartment. Call me cynical, but I bet she's getting housing assistance and with her boarders either pays nothing for her place or actually makes a profit every month. Why not? She lets plaintiff live there for seven months. He smokes weed all the time and she has an asthmatic 3-year old, but doesn't ask plaintiff to move out. It seems the extra income is more important to her than the fact that her child can't breathe. Anyway, the kid is at school ALL the time (at 3??), so how much unpolluted air does he need? Suck it up, kid. Plaintiff decides to move out and def won't return his security deposit. He put holes in the walls for his TV and never fixed them! He put paint on the floor! Pictures? Evidence? Why, no - she has none of that but we know she's as honest as the day is long. There's a new tenant there now, so of course she can't go into the room to take pics. Get real, JM. Plaintiff says he filled the holes before he left and lying, scamming def, faced with the truth, has to admit he did so, but he only used a "little bit" of putty. 650$ judgement for plaintiff. 1 3 Link to comment
SRTouch June 9, 2017 Share June 9, 2017 (edited) what's a few grand between friends: couple of seemingly intelligent, nicely dressed (though both made some questionable choices) and not spring chickens in court. (I wonder about our defendant in the suit - is it really so cold in that room that he needs an overcoat with his jacket? By the end of the case I'm wondering if this is a version of ghetto rich for older folks where they get all dressed up to appear to have money, but are really just squeaking by.)) At first plaintiff seems pretty reasonable, but then something happens - she's like a car driving down the freeway and all of a sudden the roadway ends at top of a cliff. It sounds like she has money, enough to loan a casual friend thousands at a time and knows enough to write out a promissory note - even a penalty clause for late payments (only 1%). But then things start coming off the rails. First thing, as MM reads the IOU, she comments on the changes defendant apparently demanded before he'd sign - lower payments and longer period to repay loan. Should have been a big red flag, especially as he was supposedly in such dire straits, almost homeless, and couldn't borrow from any other friends or family. Ah, but it worked out as he was paying off the loan. Then there's a second couple grand loan - which I gather was made before the first was fully paid since instead of a new promissory note as plaintiff writes out is an addendum - an addendum defendant refuses to sign or initial. And that's where our seemingly intelligent woman drives off the cliff and loses me completely - someone still owes on the first loan, wants to borrow a couple thousand more, and won't sign an IOU? What, is she an ATM or running a payday loan place. Makes no sense handing over the money without the signature - unless the addendum claim is an afterthought, he already had the money before she writes it out, or maybe the second chunk of change never changed hands. Ah, now I really question our intelligent seeming lady - when she made the first 4 grand loan she had a big savings account but only worked part time - is now unemployed and savings gone. How many other thousands has she loaned other casual friends? Both sides agree he borrowed and paying back the first loan, but he says the second is pure fiction. Have to wonder if that's not true. Her story about him signing the first note and refusing to sign the second makes no sense. My impression of defendant sinks pretty quick once he starts talking, though. He looked kind of nice (though hot in the overcoat) but looks aren't everything. IIRC he needed the original loan to put a roof overhead. Ok, lots of folks live from month to month where a sudden rainy day could sink them, but now I hear he's something of a gambler. I'm not a lottery player or gambler, hey it's no skin off my nose if someone buys the occasional ticket or gambles - as long as they stay within a budget. Ah dude, you sound a lot like one of my uncles who had a gambling problem. Money was just a way to keep score for Uncle Jack, he kept track of any winnings without a full accounting of what he spent to win - hey, won big at the casino, 2 grand... only took 2 weeks going 2 or 3 nights a week, spending a couple hundred a night - but hey, he was a regular so got free soda and sandwiches. Ah, but that was my uncle, maybe this guy is different. Nah, whenever a litigant starts with "to the best of my recollection" I figure the stuff is going to get deep. When 1 side is SURE, and the other says they can't remember, things usually don't go well for the one with the iffy memory - especially when iffy just said he received 2 money orders and she has evidence he's wrong. MM asks why, if she has this evidence, she didn't just show him instead of coming to court. Hey, I get it, dude waves his hand and paces back and forth tsk'ing, I might choose court over confrontation. Dude has to admit his memory is wrong, but still won't admit to the second loan. The loan question is coming down to credibility, on one side we have unsigned IOU and other side memory problems. We also have a couple other side issues. Plaintiff bought some concert tickets (she's a big Beyonce fan) and figures, as a man, he should have paid - no prior agreement or anything, but he's the dude so should pay. Uh, isn't he the dude who had to borrow thousands of bucks to move, and has missed making payments for months according to both sets of records. If get had a budget, I kind of doubt he had Beyonce tickets budgeted under entertainment. Now we're just getting nonsense where plaintiff wants back money she laid out before their kerfuffle. She wants money for the tickets, the money she spent on his birthday dinner in the Bronx - he was supposed to take her out to a fancy dinner on HER birthday, and all SHE got was Olive Garden. As expected, she gets the loan money (plus interest), but nothing for the nonsense. car deal warranty kerfuffle: plaintiff says she paid extra for a warranty, but when the tranny blows up dealer returns the grand she paid for a warranty instead of paying to fix the junker. Gonna have to wait for testimony, cause the defendant's position as stated in the intro makes no sense. Some nonsense about he took the money for the warranty, but the actual warranty is from a third party and was never approved, so when the transmission goes he offers to fix the car for the the $1000 she paid for a warranty (repair is going to cost $2800), or just return the money. Huh, shouldn't you know if you're selling a car whether or not the third party warranty company will warrant said clunker. Only way I see defendant winning is if the transmission is not covered under the warranty she thought she was buying - highly doubtful, as I expect a limited warranty sold with a used car to be for the drivetrain (engine and tranny). Greasy hair defendant starts out on the wrong foot with "with all due repect" and MM explains that when litigants start that way, what she hears is "with all due respect comma you blithering idiot." Oh well, all I see when I look at the open neck, wide collar mousse back hair dude with his head cooked to the side screams slippery slick arrogant salesman - not someone I'd buy a used car from. Story is, day after she picks up the car, check engine light comes on - hey, novel approach, instead of ignoring the light she immediately takes back it to the mechanic. Oh, defendant's whole "warranty wasn't approved" defense takes another hit right off the bat. She picked out the heap, filled out the application and then waited two days for the approval. So, timeline here is - she signs the papers Oct 24 - is approved and picks it up Oct 26 - next day, engine light comes on and she takes it back to be checked - and it's not until Nov 28 that she's given the news that her warranty is not covering the repair. I'm REALLY disliking Slick once he starts talking - not just his looks, but the whole time he's giving his opening statement he's looking down like he's reading a prepared statement. Plaintiff's hubby comes up and explains the dealer wanted to drop the transmission and replace a sensor, but he got a second opinion from a transmission shop saying they need to replace the transmission. Anyway, back to Slick. First the "all due respect" bit, but then MM is holding three contract and having dude translate the scribbles. Sure looks like dealer gave her a warranty, but he explains that in the scribble it says the car is actually a third party warranty. Even going with his version, no way should he let customers out the door thinking they're covered when they're not. Other question, go with his explanation, how long does this third party warranty company take to turn down an application? And, how many of his customers have paid for a warranty, but were denied and are unkowingly driving around uncovered after he collected their money? Going by his story, only way this customer found out her warranty WAS denied was that she needed work two days after driving off the lot. Unfortunately, no matter how much I dislike Slick, it sounds like he may squeak by because the plaintiff DID sign the worthless third party warranty. Sounds like MM would slam THAT company, but that's not who lady is suing. More he talks, more I think Slick is morally bankrupt, but sounds like he's legally covered. He's got that fast talking slick salesman thing going, tells a great well rehearsed story, but he's story has holes. All that about how he was going to apply the grand towards the repair and pay the difference out of pocket - just flapping gums disproved by the texts. Couple of twists and turns come up. Customer agrees she signed that third party warranty contract, but wasn't provided with a copy. Looking at the purchase contract, it sure looks like defendant was providing warranty in that scribble. Sooooo.... plaintiff didn't even know about this third party company, and so never called and demanded an explanation. Noooo, defendant, apparently out of the goodness of his heart, took it upon himself to fight with the warranty people - ah, but sadly has nothing showing he went to bat, or even something in writing that they refused coverage. Maybe, just maybe, because the reason they gave for denying coverage was the car's age. Hmmm, maybe he's not as well covered legally as it appeared a minute ago. So, he's selling a warranty for this third party, shouldn't he know about the age requirement? He SAYS sometimes they'll make an exception - yeah, I bet they'll agree to keep the thousand dollars as long as there's no claim they'd have to pay more than a grand for. From what he's saying, this isn't the first time Slick has had a customer be shafted. Ah, it's going to come down to who is the shadiest of them all, the third party people or Slick. MM takes a recess to find out? Hands down, Slick is the Master of the Shade (or third party people lied on the phone). When she calls, third party folks say they never received an application. So, they didn't deny the application and refuse to pay for the repairs. Slick pocketed the grand, tossed the application, and gambled customer would never have a problem. Or, of course, the person MM talked to was lying. Case not resolved today. Defendant given a week to find out if the grand disappeared in house back at the dealership, or if third party people are lying about never getting a application/claim. Sounds to me like it can't be some mystery salesman back at the dealership, that would make the call Slick made to the company nonsensical - nope, either Slick is lying, or the third party company is a scam. If I had skipped the whole case and just watched the hallterview, Slick would have lost the case. Hey, surprise surprise! Harv updates us, defendant never got back to TPC with proof third party company was paid. Hmmm maybe this would have been the time NOT to use your name and company, Mr Aboud Dawli, owner of Gold Automart, LLC. 'Nother tenant wanting back security: going by the intro, Douglas ought to introduce these two, because they never met. Tenant, plaintiff, says landlady, defendant, gave him 30 day notice because she didn't like his friends, and now won't return His deposit. Nah, only time we hear that is in the intro. Defendant says he was stinking up her place, she's glad he's gone, but never gave him notice - in fact he left without notice. Ah, rented room, nothing in writing, yada yada. Landlady may be in trouble if she kept security because of that no notice claim without a written agreement. Ok, this should be a drinking game - everybody take a shot when litigant throws out an inapprobiate word to make himself sound all legal-like - ie, he "acquired" a room in landlady's apartment, and he was there "in the entirely for about 7 months". We've talked about it before, but how would you go about diagramming the sentences this guy is coming out with (and yes I know, my teachers would have had a fit with some of the stuff I post - especially when I don't edit the autocorrect and weird words appear). Problem seems to be the commonly held belief that a tenant has to give 30 day notice - he didn't, so defendant feels she can keep the deposit. Hey, these folks are in NY, and as we have heard in the past, in NY a tenant is not required to give ANY notice - sure, if you have a lease/rental agreement you can put the that in, but without an agreement the notice can be when the tenant carries his stuff out the door and waves bye bye. Once again, someone playing landlord/lady who hasn't learned the rules. So, the notice claim is gone, let's hear about some damages or this case is over. This lady is going to have problems keeping any of the deposit. Really, he was always late paying rent, rent was due in the morning of that the first, and sometimes he wouldn't pay until the afternoon - maybe not even 'til the second! Then he was smoking pot and using spray paint (huffing?)... terrible with her asthmatic child, just not bad enough to ask him to leave - after all he/she was in school during the day so was only exposed at night, and she has that need asthma machine in case of attacks. (MM is NOT impressed with that reasoning.) Sooo, not only doesn't know how to landlord, but now wondering about mothering skills. Oh, I know, probably needed his rent money to pay her own bills. Enough background, we need to get away from the asthma/pot/spray paint before MM sends Douglas over to give Mommy well deserved spanking. Ah, damages - no pictures - no proof - just clueless lady who needed to money to make ends meet. Defendant agrees to some things - holes in the wall from mounting tv - but then plaintiff shoots down that when she admits he patched the holes, just not very good. MM even apologizes to plaintiff cause she didn't believe him when he said he patched the holes. Plaintiff is talking herself out of keeping any damage money, she's listing damages, but can't get the evidence because the room has already been re-rented and she doesn't want to disturb the new tenant - hmmm, did she collect a deposit from new tenant that she expects to withhold for the same damage that hasn't been repaired? Is the new tenant paying the same $650 a month in rent for a damaged room? Nah, she claims she fixed the damaged, and MM is being unfair. Doug tries to tell her she had no proof, but she's not hearing it. Edited June 9, 2017 by SRTouch 1 4 Link to comment
Jamoche June 9, 2017 Share June 9, 2017 Dear Levin, guess what! In California there are laws against smoking in multi-unit dwellings and separate ones where landlords in single-units can prevent renters from smoking. So it doesn't matter what kind of smoke it is. Legalizing pot didn't magically make smoke legal in places where it wasn't (something I wish a lot more of my fellow Californians knew.) But for crying out loud, take pictures the day the tenants move out! 1 4 Link to comment
SRTouch June 10, 2017 Share June 10, 2017 46 minutes ago, Jamoche said: Dear Levin, guess what! In California there are laws against smoking in multi-unit dwellings and separate ones where landlords in single-units can prevent renters from smoking. So it doesn't matter what kind of smoke it is. Legalizing pot didn't magically make smoke legal in places where it wasn't (something I wish a lot more of my fellow Californians knew.) But for crying out loud, take pictures the day the tenants move out! I think the key point is that you NEED A COTTON PICKING LEASE/RENTAL AGREEMENT if you're going to restrict something that is otherwise legal. If the prospective tenant signs something saying no pot/cigarettes/dog over 20lbs/or whatever, and then ignore the rule, the landlord can evict. Here there was nothing in writing. If pot is illegal, than she doesn't need it in writing. Just the fact he had it in her residence could have cops smashing down her door. The whole pot thing was an afterthought anyway, just something she came up with to justify keeping the deposit. He was there 7 months, probably regularly lighting up, and it didn't bother her enough to kick him out (even though the kid couldn't breath). Same with the spray paint, though the paint was legal. Yeah, I doubt it is prohibited in most residential rental agreements. Thing is, the argument could be made that its regular use in a rented room is unsafe. Again, doesn't really matter, as it didn't bother her until he moved with only 2 weeks notice. 1 3 Link to comment
Jamoche June 10, 2017 Share June 10, 2017 3 hours ago, SRTouch said: I think the key point is that you NEED A COTTON PICKING LEASE/RENTAL AGREEMENT if you're going to restrict something that is otherwise legal. I wasn't paying much attention to the case, I just didn't mute Levin and his gang of idiots in time. He said something idiotic about pot being legal in California, implying that made it OK to smoke in rental units. My condo has made a big fuss about informing us about the new multi-unit law which applies regardless of what a lease says. 3 Link to comment
Brattinella June 10, 2017 Share June 10, 2017 3 minutes ago, Jamoche said: multi-unit law which applies regardless of what a lease says What a fascist law! 1 Link to comment
teebax June 10, 2017 Share June 10, 2017 The most annoying thing to me about yesterday's episode was that it costs $400 to see a Beyonce concert. As someone who recently paid $350 to see Elton John, it sickens me how the average music lover is being priced out of concerts. And the good seats are always gone before the public gets a shot at them. It's awful. The same thing is happening in sports. Full disclosure: I don't usually pay that much for a concert, but after so many amazing singers died last year I thought it might be my last chance to see my beloved Elton in concert. I'd go to a lot more concerts if they weren't so ridiculously priced. Anyway, she's a fool if she thinks he should pay for the concert because he's a man. You want a man who can do that? Find one who isn't hitting you up for money and taking you to the Olive Garden. BTW, MM, the Olive Garden is awful. Solicit a locally owned Italian joint instead. 2 Link to comment
AngelaHunter June 10, 2017 Share June 10, 2017 1 hour ago, teebax said: Anyway, she's a fool if she thinks he should pay for the concert because he's a man. IF I get my opinions only from watching this show, I"d never expect a man to pay for anything, not even his own child support or bail. I'd expect to pay for that and everything else. 4 Link to comment
PrincessPurrsALot June 11, 2017 Share June 11, 2017 Please keep the talk to the show and not general discussions of social welfare programs. There is plenty of trash to discuss on this trash TV. Thanks! 2 Link to comment
Florinaldo June 12, 2017 Share June 12, 2017 (edited) On 2017-06-09 at 5:44 PM, SRTouch said: car deal warranty kerfuffle: plaintiff says she paid extra for a warranty, but when the tranny blows up dealer returns the grand she paid for a warranty instead of paying to fix the junker. I think it's in that case that the only thought that came to my mind when seeing the plaintiff's husband was here's someone who has no trouble choosing his costume for Halloween: Solomon Grundy, Green Lantern's old nemesis! He certainly has the bulk and the required body shape; a little white make-up and he'd be in business. If they live near a swamp I hope he does not fall in and macerate in it for a few years, otherwise the neighborhood might be in for a nasty surprise. Edited June 12, 2017 by Florinaldo Link to comment
Guest June 12, 2017 Share June 12, 2017 Absolutely loved how Doug called the sleazy defendant sleazy. My day just keeps on getting better. Link to comment
SRTouch June 12, 2017 Share June 12, 2017 (edited) starting off with a dog case: plaintiff out walking her two dogs on the sidewalk near her house, while defendant was coming out his door across the street to begin his walk. Everybody was leashed, so should be no problem - well except that defendant is one of those folks who figure attaching a leash to the dog means he has control. Nope, when his dog, mix of bulldog and rotty, sees the dogs across the street it jerks free and attacks. End result, plaintiff and her two dogs all injured, big bills and wants money for pain and suffering - 5 grand all together. At first, defendant is apologetic and says he's unemployed, but will put $700 towards the vet bill now, then make monthly payments. (Ok, that sounds good, but lots of vets demand payment up front.) Obviously, not how it turns out, or we wouldn't be in court. Defendant does send the $700 check, but tries to turn it into a final settlement. Yep, despite agreeing to cover the lady's bills, sneaky dude writes in the memo line that this will be the only payment towards the bill. Don't know how that would have shaken out had plaintiff just cashed the check and then defendant argued that they had settled on $700 and then he's free and clear. Ah, but she read the memo line, and held the check. This should be a slam dunk. Dude has no defense for the vet bills... just the usual nonsense, had the dog 9 years and this was the first time he got loose, he was just sniffing the plaintiff's dog when the vicious Boston terrier nipped his sweet bulldog/rottweiler mix, so it was self defense, yada yada. MM shuts that bull down and asks for the vet bills - yeah, I suspect the plaintiff piled on a little to get the damages up to 5 grand - Oh, and intro talked about her being injured, but she didn't say anything about that in her testimony. Then we get defendant trying to argue that his sweety isn't a big bad rotty, and shows a picture of his baby. Dude, a dog is a dog - a chihuahua can attack and send another dog to the vet, it just won't cause as much damage as a bigger dog. You have no defense, your dog got loose and injured others - strict liability and all that. Really, I expect the vet bill case is over, but seeing as there's another 15 minutes to fill we'll see MM dig into the possibly inflated damage claim and the attempted end run by defendant when he tried to issue a final settlement check. Ok, MM tells defendant he was kind of sleazy to try the check trick, and scoffs at plaintiff and her pain and suffering claim (apparently, she had to carry her Boston Terrier out to do his business after his surgery, and she has a history of back problems which was aggravated). Still doesn't fill the normal 20 minutes, this is a short one. Lady gets the vet bills, little over 3 grand - but like I said earlier, for lots of folks vet visits are pay as you go. Speaking just for myself, 3 grand would be a major hit to my rainy day fund, so dude trying to skate with the $700 "final vet payment" really irks me. Loves how Doug brings up the "sleaze" comment to defendant. When dude tries to claim he was just protecting himself, Doug responds, "no, no, no, that was sleazy!" roommate kerfuffle nonsense: these two have a history of renting apartments together, apparently never as a couple, just apartment and housemates. Plaintiff starts out wanting to go back through all the years they've known and roomed at the same place. Not sure how many places she would have gone ghrough, but MM drags her forward to the place they had their problems. They apparently had arguments from the beginning. She's a single mom with a 14yo son, he's single. They move into a 3 bedroom where rent is $1800. She wants him to pay half, he says hold on, I'm in 1br, you and your kid have 2brs, I'm only supposed to pay a third. According to her, they compromise and he is supposed to $600 rent plus the utilities, but then he decides he's going to monitor the electricity use, and tells her son to turn off the tv. She doesn't like that, so she goes and puts the utilities in her name. Ah, but now that things have hit the crapper, she wants to hold him to her version of the original agreement, and part of her claim is the utilities she took over paying. Seems she had to quit her job when she got sick, she wants to break the lease, he wants to stay, so she says he should take back the utilities as per the original agreement. MM isn't sure what problem plaintiff is talking about, so switches sides hoping defendant can tell us without all kinds of side and backstories. Uh oh, he starts out immediately wanting to backtrack and tell everything from his viewpoint. Oh well, waking him up and letting him talk may have been a mistake. Before he was happy to let plaintiff talk, but now he's interrupting and talking over everyone, and getting loud about it. As we go to commercial MM is telling him to quiet down and stop interrupting. Ah, now we're getting to the meat of the problem. As long as she was working, she was willing to pay more 2/3 of the rent plus the utilities that started out in defendant's name. Now, she can't work, wants him to take back the utilities. Ah, and there's some program that will help pay the rent if you get behind.... sooo, she stops paying rent so they'll qualify - and, since she had been paying more then he was, he had been giving her his portion to give the landlord. He is NOT happy when he learns the money he gave her for rent has not been paid for two months. Now things get really confusing, because we find out she wasn't on the lease as the person leasing the place, just as an occupant/roommate. Sooo when she applies to the program, she's denied... but then he applies as the person who signed the lease. What, landlord was after them for 2 months back rent ($3600) and dude is given 8 grand. We're not getting the whole story here, and I'm wondering if it's worth the effort trying to make sense of this malarkey. Ah, it took awhile for the program to work through her denial and his eventual approval, so what started as 2 months in arrears turned into a bigger bill before he was finally given the money. Oh, and the utilities end up being paid by the taxpayers through a different program. I'm getting a headache trying to figure out who paying these folks' bills - apparently the taxpayers were footing the bill through various programs. Ah, my friend, FF on the remote, zips me out of the maze and out to Doug. After I stopped watching, MM goes back and makes defendant pay the portion of the utilities the taxpayer didn't pay - makes sense as that was the original agreement. used car deal gone bad: another litigant who wants the world to take care of him. Apparently, plaintiff bought a car he couldn't afford. This dealer is a one stop deal, he not only sells the car, arranges financing, he also is an insurance agent. Hmmm educational tv, I never thought of buying insurance right there on the car lot! Anybody else confused as this fool tries to tell his story. Well, you see your honor, I was trading in two cars for this 4yo Lexus, so my car note was really going up... Huh, as MM points out, shouldn't that mean a lower monthly payment? And, dude already had a couple cars, so what was that stuff about for insurance from the dealer. Anyway, dude is looking at big monthly insurance bill ($700 a month) - admits he used to be a street racer. Ah, dealer dude wasn't selling insurance, he just recommended a friendly agent who might get him a lower rate. Friendly agent gets the insurance, but then when the insurance company does the background check they cancel the policy. Oops. What plaintiff says happened is defendant called his friend the insurance agent. Agent got him a policy, but charged a $400 broker fee. More confusion, sounds like plaintiff paid $900 to the insurance agent.... why is he suing dealer? Claims dealer gets a kickback when for referrals. Also claims the friendly agent put false stuff on the insurance application to get the lower rate. Still not sure he has a case against the dealer... but friendly agent is in the wind. Ah, friendly agent really not a friend, just someone who dropped off a stack of business cards. Now there's a problem, nobody can find the agent - heck, can't even find any more of the cards. Surprise, anybody else think a $400 broker fee sounded a little high. Far as I know, my agent gets paid by the insurance company when he sells a policy, I never pay him a separate broker fee. Eventually, dealer dude finds one of the agent's business cards, but he's already being sued so doesn't bother to give it to the plaintiff so he could sue the right person. Probably figured he'd get a free lunch this way and get to shake Doug's hand. Anyway, MM gives plaintiff the agent's info so he can go after the right litigant, and sends these two on their way with nothing (oh, and after the whole insurance scam, cancelation, and resulting lapse in coverage, lazy plaintiff actually found his own insurance for $500 a month. Edited June 12, 2017 by SRTouch 1 5 Link to comment
AngelaHunter June 12, 2017 Share June 12, 2017 4 hours ago, PsychoKlown said: Absolutely loved how Doug called the sleazy defendant sleazy. That alone was worth the price of admission. 4 hours ago, SRTouch said: roommate kerfuffle nonsense I couldn't understand much of this mess, but: JM: "Stop talking, both of you. I can stand the sound of either of your voices right now." Get out of my head, JM! I'm always amazed at how people from other countries know every single handout available to them. "One shot?" Who knew? And "I'm a single mother" - that makes you worthy of special treatment how? Everyone on this show is a single mother. So many on here, so poverty-stricken they can't pay any of their bills and seem to think it's perfectly okay to pay rent late for "only a few months!" but no one ever looks as though they've missed a meal. 4 hours ago, SRTouch said: used car deal gone bad: another litigant who wants the world to take care of him. Moronic, annoying nitwit who wants a status car vs. sleazy car dealer: 700$/MTH for insurance?? That's 8400$ a year!! Whoa. Mine is 403$/year. Of course, I didn't think I should act like a total dipshit trying futilely to prove I'm some testosterone-fueled macho man and do street racing. He seemed almost proud of this. Both parties were extemely unlikable and def. was a shifty liar to top it off. 1 5 Link to comment
Eliza422 June 13, 2017 Share June 13, 2017 13 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: Moronic, annoying nitwit who wants a status car vs. sleazy car dealer: 700$/MTH for insurance?? That's 8400$ a year!! Whoa. Mine is 403$/year. Of course, I didn't think I should act like a total dipshit trying futilely to prove I'm some testosterone-fueled macho man and do street racing. He seemed almost proud of this. Both parties were extemely unlikable and def. was a shifty liar to top it off. I'm always stunned at how much insurance some idiots pay, and it doesn't seem to bother them. It's one of the easiest expenses to control (especially after a certain age). I called to make a small mod to my insurance and the gal on the phone actually gasped at how low my insurance was. Apparently she has quite the lead foot! And I don't believe this guy is in construction... 1 2 Link to comment
Florinaldo June 13, 2017 Share June 13, 2017 1 hour ago, Eliza422 said: I'm always stunned at how much insurance some idiots pay, and it doesn't seem to bother them. It sort of makes it easier to believe the idiot litigants who can't keep up with payments and let their insurance "lap". And then try to use that as a excuse why they should not be held liable for an accident they cause. No pity from me because they have to suffer the consequences of their unwise life choices, in this case being a street racer in his youth. Assuming he really is in construction, perhaps he should start putting his phone under his hardhat to protect it from the curse that seems to plague him on job sites. 1 Link to comment
ElleMo June 13, 2017 Share June 13, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, Eliza422 said: I'm always stunned at how much insurance some idiots pay, and it doesn't seem to bother them. It's one of the easiest expenses to control (especially after a certain age). Not always. Insurance is higher in certain areas, (which, incidentally, are often areas with a lot of minorities), so unless you move, you might now have as much control,. He mentioned that they listed his address in a different county and mentioned Shirley. So I am guessing this is Long Island. Shirley is in Suffolk County and it is a relatively unpopulated areas, compared to Nassau county which has a much higher concentration of people/more traffic. And if he is in a part of Nassau that borders Queens (NYC), that would make his insurance even more expensive. (Of course, being a street racer certainly didn't help) We never go through insurance agents; we call the insurance directly ourselves. Last time we got a new car, we just added it to the current insurance we already had. I give props to the guy for actually buying insurance and being concerned when it lapsed! WE don't see that much on this show. Edited June 13, 2017 by ElleMo 3 Link to comment
ElleMo June 13, 2017 Share June 13, 2017 roommate kerfuffle nonsens I am surprised that anyone got any money. I was expecting a clean hands speech. There was some shady stuff going on there. They were scamming the government - two different programs it sounded like. One of these days I am going to start taking notes and report some of these people;. 2 Link to comment
SRTouch June 13, 2017 Share June 13, 2017 (edited) silly car repair case - bird is a plaintiff witness: ok, we've see dogs, a kitty or two, but this is the first time I think we've seen a bird - not only is the bird sitting on plaintiff's witness' shoulder, but she claiming the bird was a witness. From the intro, it appears plaintiff has an ancient ('91) ford F150 truck. He took it in to defendant's shop for servicing a couple times. He's here claiming defendant did shoddy work. Apparently the old truck had a fuel problem, he ends up taking it in multiple times, and the repair shop uses a hit or miss shotgun approach - just start replacing parts and hoping to eventually cure the problem. So... one day they replace the fuel filter, and oh yeah, time for an oil change, so they take do that, too. Two days later, truck dies again, they replace fuel pump... I know on some dual tank ford's there are actually multiple fuel pumps and filters - but surely they replaced them all - they can charge more. He picks up the truck after the second repair, drives home and picks up gf and her 3 parrots, and is driving down the highway when he gets flagged down - other motorists spot fluid pouring out of the truck. He pulls over to find gas "gushing" out of the truck. Yep, fuel pump leaking, so whenever truck is running gas is pouring out. He calls the shop to ask that they rescue him off the freeway, but they don't have tow trucks, so he's told to get it towed back to the shop the next day - no help. Ah, now the bird gets a chance to perform - gf asks Roxy, the bird, what happened when she smelled gas, and Roxy is supposed to play dead - but poor Roxy is something of a diva and misses her cue. Ok, I'm not impressed with either the customer service or mechanical expertise of the defendant, but how did plaintiff come up with over 3 grand in damages - hope no birdies died. Plaintiff says he eventually got it back to NY, where he took it to a different shop. This new mechanic says the first shop missed that there was a bad seal in one of the tanks and also they missed that a relay switching between tanks was bad... both of which should have been checked and corrected by the mechanic. Defendant, at least in my opinion, shoots himself in the foot when MM questions him about what this new mechanic said. His defense is that it's not his fault, because there was a recall back in '93 about this problem. Hmmm to me, especially as defendant testified he researched getting the front tank to work, which it hadn't for ten years, sounds like shoddy work not finding that recall until he was being sued. But.... MM decides for defendant, because she doesn't feel plaintiff proved the fuel pump replacement caused the problem - still don't know how plaintiff came up with 3 grand damages - maybe getting towed back to NY? We get a closeup of Roxy when she gets out to talk to Doug - I was wondering all along if Roxy was wearing a sweater - sure rnough, she's got on a KISS band sweater. mover says defendant still owes $575 after a move: plaintiff says he spent 15 hours moving defendant's crap, and is still owed money. Defendant says he contracted for 4 movers, but since only 3 came the move took longer than expected. Not his fault, so he shouldn't have to pay for the extra time. Hmmm plaintiff starts out explaining that his estimate of $1350 for the move was based on 4 men working a total of 9 hours. He admits he only sent three guys and it took over 15 hours. Sooo, we get a look at MM and it's obvious she's thinking, ok, you failed to do what you were contracted to do, why are you suing? He says when only 3 guys were going to do the work, he renegotiated the deal. MM has to ask several times to try to get what the new estimate is. Don't know if guy is acting dumb, having trouble understanding, or what, but I wonder if there was ever a meeting of the minds regarding this renegotiated price. He even says there was no new set price, just an agreement that it would cost more. Then when job is completed, he presents a bill for over $2025. Defendant says no way, and pays the $1350 as per the original deal. Crazy sort of case. Plaintiff wasn't onsite, no witnesses who were there, so everything he says is hearsay. No written contract, etc. Defendant says it was a quick move that needed to be done in two days, so he pretty much had to accept the reduced labor force when they showed up at 6am - oh, and they show up with minimal supplies, not enough moving supplies, one truck, only 1 dolly, etc. He calls the movers amateurs - which turns into a joke because he does have a witness - one of the workers who showed up to do the move. Loved it that MM asked plaintiff why, when he found out the crew was a man short, plaintiff didn't head over and do some of the lifting. Then we find out that defendant DID pitch in and help the workers do the work. And, while working, foreman was complaining about job taking too long and threatening to leave the job unless defendant agreed to pay more. Hey, sounds pretty much like strong arm tactics, job half done, agree to pay more or we unload the truck and leave. Defendant claims foreman pretty much extorted more wages ($225 for himself and $150 for other guys), then handed defendant the phone to talk with the boss man. But, those big tips were just to keep the workers working, and now boss man wants his extra 6 hundred for the completed job. Now defendant's witness, the plaintiff's employee, comes up. He's actually a day laborer who answered an online craigslist ad and never met the boss. Yep, this guy pretty much backs up defendant's story (does say he thinks the foreman and other worker had worked for plaintiff in the past.) I'm wondering how much defendant paid plaintiff, since it appears he paid the workers an $525. Ah, MM asks, and defendant says he paid $1100, not including the "tips." Course, these folks are true conservationists and are out to cut down on paper use - no contract or receipts. Hmmm, I'm not clear on whether the $525 was extra wages or their tips. Doesn't matter, not only wouldn't I not give plaintiff the extra money he's asking gf for, I'd refund some of what he paid. MM dismisses the complaint, but defendant still wants to talk. Seems after it was over, he researched and found plaintiff has several complaints online where others claim he did them the same way. Ah, maybe if he had a countersuit that would mean something, but when he offers the reviews MM tells him he already won, so she doesn't need to read the reviews (probably be ruled hearsay anyway). 'Nother almost tenant wants back the deposit: Her story is she put down the deposit, but was then informed her hours were being cut, so she immediately told potential landlord she wouldn't be able to afford to move in. Defendant (pregnant looking bald headed dude who made an unfortunate tight sweater choice) says he turned away potential tenants in the short time between the time deposit was made and the notification she couldn't move in. Says he was willing to try to get a new tenant in, but then he got threatened when he didn't immediately return the $700 deposit. Hmmph another misleading intro. Plaintiff starts telling her story and no mention of hours being cut. Now she's telling us the apartment needed repairs, so she didn't really take the apartment.... so what's the reason she paid a deposit - and again, she paid the deposit but nobody has anything in writing. More she talks the more credibility she loses - not so much that I think she's lieing, just that she doesn't understand how things work. Now, she's saying after she put the the deposit she talked to her boss about getting more hours - so she couldn't afford the place when she put down the deposit. Also, some nonsense about how she was trying to negotiate a lower rent before she made the deposit as if the defendant should automatically accept what she could afford. Once again, a litigant is learning that, by default, a rental deposit is nonrefundable. Only 2 ways you get your money back if you back out before moving in - a nice landlord or a receipt stating it IS refundable. Oh, and even if you postdate a check, it doesn't stop someone from cashing/depositing a check in most jurisdictions - once you sign the check it becomes legal tender and you can get in trouble for writing a check knowing you have insufficient funds - regardless of the date you put on it. Ah, poor girl learns something, case dismissed. Edited June 14, 2017 by SRTouch 1 3 Link to comment
patty1h June 13, 2017 Share June 13, 2017 (edited) Who brings a bird wearing a KISS T-shirt into a courtroom and says "it's a witness"? Someone who doesn't want to be taken seriously. I was prepared to be annoyed at these assclowns, then I got intrigued thinking about what kind of people would make this move: 1) They want their bird to be "discovered"; 2) They are probably childless and have made this animal their proxy kid. The case was a snoozer otherwise. Edited June 13, 2017 by patty1h punctuation 1 4 Link to comment
Bazinga June 13, 2017 Share June 13, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, patty1h said: then I got intrigued thinking about what kind of people would make this move: People who want attention. The same type of people who call their ugly painted 1991 decrepit van an "art van." Wasn't there a case, I think on Judge Judy, about a month ago, where the prospective tenant did get their deposit back? I think Judy, who thinks landlords are scammers, ruled that way because the landlord was not out any money. I know that she has ruled the opposite way as well and had no explanation then for the variance in that case. She seemed angry that the landlord expected to keep the money and didn't return it. Anyone recall that case and know why the ruling was different then how JM ruled today? Edited June 13, 2017 by Bazinga 1 1 Link to comment
Jamoche June 13, 2017 Share June 13, 2017 Quote unfortunate tight sweater choice It didn't look that tight, but very unfortunate - it's the kind of v-necked sweater that needs a shirt under it. We do not want to see your chest hair in court. 1 1 Link to comment
Florinaldo June 13, 2017 Share June 13, 2017 (edited) 4 hours ago, SRTouch said: silly car repair case - bird is a plaintiff witness: In a real court, these plaintiffs would probably have been tossed out on their asses as soon as they mentioned that the parrot was a witness. With perhaps an order for a psychiatric evaluation (for the humans, not the bird). But this is court TV and they have to keep it entertaining. It was funny though that the bird failed to perform the trick he was certainly extensively trained to do. I don't think that the mechanic was bound to search for a recall order going all the way back to 1993. The onus would have been on the owner to have been aware of it and to have followed up on it, although it is often foolish to expect some people to act responsibly. I think it would be entirely acceptable for the mechanic to assume the owner would have taken care of any recall beyond a dozen years. 4 hours ago, SRTouch said: mover says defendant still owes $575 after a move: The defendant was partly to blame for the kerfuffle. He should have insisted on a written contract or at least written confirmation, through e-mail for example, of the terms of the work to be performed, including an adjustement of an hourly rate if they send fewer people than planned, and of course for receipts. Also, he said that he stopped taking the plaintiff's calls while he was having the discussion with the foreman, putting himself in an even more vulnerable position to the blackmail. I am still unsure whether the plaintiff was ignorant of his foreman's actions, whether he knows and turns a blind eye, or is in complete cahoots with him; I think it's a toss-up between the last two. 4 hours ago, SRTouch said: 'Nother almost tenant wants back the deposit: 'Nother entitled and clueless Millenial who thinks that everyday rules do not apply to her. Let's hope she does not forget this lesson, but I would not bet on it. And what possessed the defendant to think that showing off his chest merkin was an appropriate fashion choice? Edited June 14, 2017 by Florinaldo 1 2 Link to comment
DoctorK June 14, 2017 Share June 14, 2017 Quote We do not want to see your chest hair in court. I suspect that this is the way he tells the world "See, I really am not a eunuch in spite of what I look like". 1 3 Link to comment
teebax June 14, 2017 Share June 14, 2017 (edited) Not every bird owner is crazy, but every crazy person I know owns a bird. I mean that lovingly, by the way. I know three bird owners. I love them all, but they're all batshit crazy. I have no idea why that is... These plaintiffs should never have allowed these kooks anywhere near a courtroom, even a TV one. Back to the insurance issue from the other day, that guy is full of bad decisions. His insurance is high because he has a history of being caught street racing. I don't know how they penalize that in NY, but here in AZ it's a big fine and a misdemeanor the first time, a felony the second. We've had so many innocent people killed by idiot street racers. Our streets are quite broad and have fairly high limits (for inside city limits.) It's a recipe for disaster. He pays more for insurance in a month than I do for a year of full coverage on both my vehicles. I guess he can afford it; his business is doing well enough for him to have a Lexus and whatever his other car is. I wonder how much he has in savings though.... He seems like a guy that needs expensive things to show how successful he is. I went through a phase like that. At one point, my car payment was $650 a month. I could afford it, but I now wish I hadn't wasted all that money on a freaking car. My commute was only like 10 miles a day, so I was hardly ever in the damn thing. Oh, the trips I could've taken back then... ETA I can't believe I almost forgot the chest hair. I think I threw up a little in my mouth when he came in. Not a good look, dude. Edited June 14, 2017 by teebax Almost forgot the chest hair! 1 3 Link to comment
meowmommy June 14, 2017 Share June 14, 2017 2 hours ago, Bazinga said: Wasn't there a case, I think on Judge Judy, about a month ago, where the prospective tenant did get their deposit back? I think Judy, who thinks landlords are scammers, ruled that way because the landlord was not out any money. I know that she has ruled the opposite way as well and had no explanation then for the variance in that case. She seemed angry that the landlord expected to keep the money and didn't return it. Anyone recall that case and know why the ruling was different then how JM ruled today? I hesitate to say it's because MM is a judge and JJ just plays one on TV. I know JJ was a real judge, but she makes tons of rulings based on her feelings and not the law, which is one reason I don't respect her decisions and can't stand to watch her. MM has always explained that the landlord has to try to mitigate the damages. They can't just sit back for the whole time period and not try to re-let the space. If they've made a good faith effort and they can't immediately re-rent or all their good prospects had been turned away after they received the deposit, MM lets them keep whatever amount will cover the time they've lost. 3 Link to comment
Bazinga June 14, 2017 Share June 14, 2017 52 minutes ago, meowmommy said: MM has always explained that the landlord has to try to mitigate the damages. They can't just sit back for the whole time period and not try to re-let the space. If they've made a good faith effort and they can't immediately re-rent or all their good prospects had been turned away after they received the deposit, MM lets them keep whatever amount will cover the time they've lost. True. But in this case the decision did not discuss mitigating damages. JM asked whether the landlord had rented the apartment and that was it. Not to defend the plaintiff changing her mind after giving the deposit and thinking that is OK, but it was a few hours, how was the landlord damaged by taking the property off the market for 12 hours? JM didn't ask. A vague statement that he turned away prospective tenants is not proof of damage to me. But back to JJ, in the case I am thinking of, being a deposit itself wasn't reason for the landlord to retain it. I agree the plaintiff should not recover. Why else are you giving a deposit if it is not to be a deposit? Just that JJ ruled differently in that case from JM and from her own past rulings. 1 1 Link to comment
arejay June 14, 2017 Share June 14, 2017 It pains me greatly to write this, but TPC is becoming cumbersome to watch. There was a "crayon-toilet paper" reference yesterday, in addition to the ridiculous bird. MM needs some fresh air. 2 Link to comment
ElleMo June 14, 2017 Share June 14, 2017 (edited) 6 hours ago, arejay said: It pains me greatly to write this, but TPC is becoming cumbersome to watch. There was a "crayon-toilet paper" reference yesterday, in addition to the ridiculous bird. MM needs some fresh air. What, the bird wasn't enough fresh air for you? LOL When I saw the little clip before the show started I had an immediate dislike for the plaintiffs and I really wanted them to lose. The feeling didn't get any better as the case wore on. With a 25-year-old car, everything probably could use some replacing so I don't fault the repair shop for not being "thorough." But let's say the issue wasn't that you had a car that was 25 years old that was being beat to hell by being driven in New York -- but that it was the defendant's fault that the car broke down. Even in that case, why is it the defendant's fault that your birds are cold? Call a towtruck yourself. Call a friend or an Uber driver to come pick you up. Take care of your birds! Quote He calls the shop to ask that they rescue him off the freeway, but they don't have tow trucks, so he's told to get it towed back to the shop the next day - no help. In defense of the car repair shop, you need a special license to be able to tow away cars off the highways in NYC and Long Island and I believe they are limited. It's not uncommon for a shop in NYC to be able to tow in NYC but not on Long Island & vice versa. Or be licensed to get a car from the streets but not the highway. I don't recall where they were but I remember think that they must have been in Queens (NYC) or Nassau County ( Long Island ) when they mentioned the highway (Grand Central Pky maybe? or Cross Island? both start in queens and end in Nassau ) And finally - if you own and drive a 25-year-old vehicle and don't have AAA, then you are a blithering idiot. Edited June 14, 2017 by ElleMo typos, typos and more typos 1 6 Link to comment
SRTouch June 14, 2017 Share June 14, 2017 (edited) dog case: ah well, if the case appears to follow the intro, I'll end up skipping it. According to intro and the little preview blurb, defendant knows her dog doesn't like male dogs, but let's her dog off leash because she doesn't have a fenced yard. Defendant sees it differently. She's claiming plaintiff saw her dog was off lease, but let his dog approach anyway - and besides, her bulldog didn't hurt his pit/lab mix all that bad, certainly not enough to cost over a thousand in vet bills. Well.... half the time the testimoney doesn't match the intro - but if the intro is close to right defendant is one of those clueless a**holes sure to make me mad. Yep, doesn't take long after he starts his testimony before I'm reaching for the remote. He says they were approaching each other walking their dogs on lease in a public park - NOT a dog park. Says defendant unleashed her dog, it immediately ran to his and they started scuffling. He's right there and sees a fight about to start and starts calling to defendant to come control her dog. She's still far enough away, and it's getting dark, she takes her own sweet time getting her dog, and by the time she gets there his dog has several bites. We hear a clip from her as we go to commercial. And here's where I zip to the end. Not only is she not accepting any responsibility, she thinks it's fine that she ignores lease laws - everybody else should just let her do what the hell she wants. In the clip we hear she gave plaintiff the wrong contact info at the scene and had to be tracked down by animal control to receive her citation. Nope, heard enough, I'll come back if the outcome looks like she has something worth listening to... well, not sure what defendant said, but she gets quite the a**chewing from MM before being ordered to pay the bill - should just tape that and play it for all the clueless twits who don't control their dogs. Oh, course it made no impression on the defendant, as she comes out giggling and acting like she won - guess she did as TPC will pay her bill. tenant suing for security: plaintiff moves out when his18 month lease ends. Hey, this is NOT the usual section 8 vs slum landlord case - in fact when tenant left he bought a house. By all accounts, everybody liked each other right up til tenant moves out. Tenant is well spoken and likable - landlord, not so much, comes off as arrogant and looking for every penny - even those pennys he isn't entitled to. Yes, part of that is I don't like the whole suit and glasses-on-top-of-the-head look. Yes, they did a walk through when he moved out, and plaintiff admits to a few small things he considered normal wear but was willing to pay for. Ah, but is defendant one of those who expect tenant to reno the place? Plaintiff says there were scratch/scuffs in living room - defendant wants to be paid for resurfacing not only the living room but other areas where he didn't point out damage during walk through. Damaged vanity drawer - no dispute. Then a biggy where defendant loses me. A hairline crack in one ceramic bathroom tile. For this he expects to be paid to replace the whole floor - and gets snippy when questioned by MM - usually not a good idea to smart mouth the person wearing the black robe. She questions a $450 charge for one cracked tile, and he comes back with "It's not a 5-minute diddy." He would have a much better chance of getting his money if he explains he couldn't find matching ceramic tiles, but no he gets mouthy. By the end landlord is partially redeemed, but his little quip hurts him in my eyes. Ah, seems he does the repairs himself - and apparently pays himself very well. Even the vanity drawer - which plaintiff admits needed repair. He paid himself $75 to put in a new slide. Ok, maybe, but without pictures or receipts the judge doesn't know if he tightened a couple screws or actually spent time and money on the repair. He does have some pictures - mainly having to do with his counterclaim for additional damages. MM agrees landlord should get something, she just doesn't agree with his inflated sense of self worth. She sees enough in the pictures he does have to decide the big ticket items, the resurfacing of the floor and the tile work needed to be done. She has problems with some of the other things he wants to be paid for. Like when they moved out they put the trash out on the curb for collection, and it was a couple days before trash day - so he wants rent because that meant they were still on the property - or, he wants a couple hundred because he had to prepare for court and his time is very valuable, don'cha know. Apparently, landlord thinks he was giving the tenant a break on the damages BECAUSE they had been good tenants, but when they sued and wanted to pay nothing, he started piling on damages in a tit for tat response. Yeah, I get that a little. Tenant was unreasonable expecting to get back whole deposit, just like landlord went overboard in the countersuit. Out comes the calculator and MM sharpens her pencil for some number crunching. She saw enough in the pictures the landlord did have to agree landlord gets to keep some of what he withheld. End result, landlord gets nothing on the countersuit and tenant gets three hundred out of the grand landlord kept. slight twist on the usual car used car deal gone wrong: this time it's the seller suing. He sold an old Olds to defendant on a payment plan, and is still owed $2500. Still a junker case, as defendant decided she doesn't owe the remainder because she had to fix the thing when it broke down. Ah, what a look defendant is sporting - sort of mermaid colored hair and a sour look on her face. Anyway, deal was for 3 grand, she paid a little, but then says she took it to a mechanic who told her it was junk. Plaintiff is actually a used dealer, and we get mixed messages about the deal. On the one hand, he was nice and didn't put a lien on the car when she missed payments because she was a friend of his cousin, but then not so nice that he wasn't charging her 24.9% interest on the car note. Dude sounds reasonably smart, and after all he's running a used car lot at the tender age of 28, just not the best speaker. Defendant, OTOH, lordy she sounds dumb. She says when she got the car she loved it, drove fine, engine good, etc, but after a couple weeks the brakes started grinding. Ah, now seems to be a good time for bf's mechanic friend to look at the car. One thing after another, so she figures she shouldn't have to pay the agreed upon price. Apparently, she's claiming she was promised the tires, front end and brakes had been fixed/replaced just before she bought it, so the deal shouldn't count since she was lied to. Hey, plaintiff actually partially agrees - says there were new brake pads - none of that other front end stuff she's claiming, but the pads were new. She might just have a case if she can show theres a shoddy brake job done. Ah, her evidence is the bf's mechanic friend Randy gave her a notarized statement and she has a receipt for a brake pads and rotors. Starts out sounding promising, but then bf tells us Randy's a shade tree/alley mechanic. Ah, but she does have a receipt from Auto Zone for pads and rotors. Couple things, first, do we trust that Randy actually put those on her car. Second, if dealer dude really put on new pads as he says, if the rotors were really bad I could see those new pads being ate up in two months. Key here, at least in my mind, mermaid girl didn't take the car back to complain and maybe give dealer a chance to fix it, she supposedly took it to the alley mechanic - who is not here to testify - and now wants out of the over two grand car loan because she says she spent $200 on repairs. Yep, MM picks up on that, and now we get the real story. Girly actually wants out of deal because she wrecked the car, and this is the best she came up with to keep from eating the 2 grand. It's obvious she loses - not quite so obvious how much she's going to pay. Dealer dude was being a nice guy and didn't charge her his normal interest when he wrote the contract, but now that he had to sue he wants that 25%. Nope, MM gives him what the contract says. In the hallway we hear the often muttered "It is what it is." Edited June 15, 2017 by SRTouch 1 4 Link to comment
AngelaHunter June 14, 2017 Share June 14, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, SRTouch said: tenant suing for security: Oh, that landlord! A smug, arrogant, smartassed little glasses-on-his-head twerp. "Trust me, judge - replacing a tile cost 400$!" HIs time is worth so much money! He thinks he should be paid for working on his own property and installing a 2$ tile entitles him to 400$. Hey, I tiled my whole backsplash in the house I own. Who's going to pay me for that? If I rented my house out to strangers and they returned it in the condition that this plaintiff did, I"d never stop being thankful. He had a picture of one small area where the paint was chipped and wants a bunch of money for that too. Of course he didn't bother to bring evidence of anything much. Why would he need it? He's so beyond reproach that JM should just believe him that the damages were extensive and he's not just scamming to line his little pocket. He looked and sounded utterly ridiculous. 2 hours ago, SRTouch said: slight twist on the usual car used car deal gone wrong: Ugh. Def. is a rough 'n tough chick with blue hair (sorry,you don't have half the charm of "Coraline") who thinks that because she's so stupid she crashes her car a few months after buying it that means she doesn't have to pay for it. She also thinks that getting some guy who was once, maybe, a mechanic of some kind, to type up a paper that the car had whatever problems, that's all she needs to win. She had her utterly bizarre looking paramour there to back her up. Didn't work. Pay for the damned car you trashed. But even before all that, she informs plaintiff she can't make her full monthly payment because Christmas is coming, and she has other priorities than paying for the beater she agreed to pay for. I wonder if I can try that with my mortgage company this year? I'm sure they'll understand and let me off the hook. Edited June 14, 2017 by AngelaHunter because spelling is poor after the second glass of wine. 1 7 Link to comment
Jamoche June 14, 2017 Share June 14, 2017 1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said: once, maybe, a mechanic of some kind Loved JM trying to pin down that yes, he really was an "alley mechanic". Also, that's my new word of the day. 1 1 Link to comment
Florinaldo June 15, 2017 Share June 15, 2017 (edited) 5 hours ago, SRTouch said: dog case: MM left unresolved the issue about the false address; she made it sound as if the officers were not able to locate her house, whereas the summons servers were. She made it sound as if the police department in that city is staffed by a modern day version of the Keystone Cops. We never found out if the defendant did give a false address to the plaintiff or if he simply wrote it down incorrectly. But he was so bad at explaining the simplest things that it may explain why MM did not pursue the issue further. The plaintiff did not make much effort to give a convincing performance, simply standing there unblinking and impassive, while letting MM describe most of the allegations from her response. 5 hours ago, SRTouch said: slight twist on the usual car used car deal gone wrong: If the eunuch-looking defendant from yesterday crossed paths with the defendant in this one, he could get the idea that it would add glamour to his look if he borrowed her blue hair dye to color his chest merkin. Edited June 15, 2017 by Florinaldo 1 1 Link to comment
califred June 15, 2017 Share June 15, 2017 That landlord was insane. I've rented my house out before, I would never charge someone for those small things. I've had friends find their homes full of rats, non working bathrooms etc. Ive also with my dh installed a whole backsplash it cost us $150 and our time. The dog lady didnt didn't think she should have to pay for the dogs anesthesia or rabies shot(that it only needed bc she couldn't be found)... that's why MM was so pissed 1 1 Link to comment
ITALIA June 15, 2017 Share June 15, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, califred said: That landlord was insane. I've rented my house out before, I would never charge someone for those small things. I've had friends find their homes full of rats, non working bathrooms etc. Ive also with my dh installed a whole backsplash it cost us $150 and our time. The dog lady didnt didn't think she should have to pay for the dogs anesthesia or rabies shot(that it only needed bc she couldn't be found)... that's why MM was so pissed What an idiot. Poor thing. She got hit REALLY hard with the UGLY stick. Edited June 15, 2017 by ITALIA 1 2 Link to comment
WhitneyWhit June 15, 2017 Share June 15, 2017 The dog defendant has to be one the most entitled/inept/infuriating litigants we've ever had on this show, and that's saying something. Of course she let's her dog run lose at a public park, why would anyone except anything else? And why would anyone expect her to actually pay for whatever damages her dog may cause while running amok? HELLO, she's never seen that guy there before, her dog needs to run and damnit, people and animals alike will just have to deal with it. 1 3 Link to comment
patty1h June 15, 2017 Share June 15, 2017 (edited) This gigantic plaintiff claims to have left expensive electronics in an apartment with a broken window, just prior to moving in. Lo and behold, his stuff is "stolen" and says the landlord is responsible. His list of missing items is unbelievable: 60" TV, top of the line camera, laptop PC, Playstation, etc. but can't prove any of this. He can't even produce a valid police report - he hands JM the request to obtain a report from the local precinct instead. These litigants never wise up - they always try to scam for every last $ and I love when the judge shoots them down. These cases always remind me of a "Married with Children" episode where Al's car was stolen and he puts in an insurance claim that fur coats and priceless paintings were in the trunk of his broken down old Dodge. The people on these court shows are just as dumb. Edited June 15, 2017 by patty1h 1 3 Link to comment
SRTouch June 15, 2017 Share June 15, 2017 snow blower incident: well, here's something we don't see everyday. Defendant supposedly using a blower to clean off a parking lot and hit a pile of debris which showered neighboring houses and cars. (Ok, snow blower bit was just to grab our attention - incident happened in April while cleaning a parking lot next door.) Plaintiff (not sure why she's wearing a pink baby blanket like some reverse scarf) isn't here looking for a big payday, just wants her broken basement window replaced. Problem is, I'm not so sure the window was broken by the blower, looking at her pictures I buy defendant's version that it's an old house with a settling foundation that broke those glass blocks. MM points out that it all the blocks look cracked, and I wonder if plaintiff just now found the broken glass block because she went looking for damage. Doesn't totally excuse rude defendant for blowing crap all over the neighbors - especially if he originally offered to pay but then ignored the plaintiff once she got an estimate. Other thing, defendant was cleaning a 2 acre commercial parking lot (hopefully his company is insured). Now, I used to run a landscaping company, so I totally buy that a commercial blower has the power to break windows next door - which is why the operator should not be blowing crap towards the neighbor. I'm just not sure plaintiff can prove this dude broke her window - especially when her evidence is a very iffy picture and a recording of someone who heard something hit the house (plaintiff wasn't home at the time). Hmmm, not only doesn't her pictures help her case much, but the recording is a very poorly lit video of woman in bed - also not very helpful. Soooo plaintiff wasn't there and only has questionable evidence, but... defendant wasn't there either. Seems he's a supervisor for the landscapers, but wasn't there that day. Best he can offer is he saw the property before work began, and went back a couple days after completion when he heard about the complaint. According to him, he never even spoke with plaintiff about paying for repairs. Says he looked and saw the broken window, spoke briefly with the downstairs tenant (plaintiff says no, she answered the door and spoke to him.) Says he decided their equipment couldn't have thrown a rock and broken the window - he figures closest point his equipment could have been was 30-40 feet away. Ah, the staff has a blowup of Google Earth looking down on the neighborhood. Looking at that view, yeah, those blowers can throw rocks, but that's a LONG way - through a fence, across a yard, across a driveway - not impossible, but highly doubtful. Not only that, but I was thinking a big rolling blower for cleaning parking lots, and he shows us a picture of a back pack blower - still probably twice the power of your normal hand held, but now I'm leaning towards no way that thing threw a rock as far as the picture shows - leaves, soot, trash, maybe if the wind is blowing, but no rocks. Still don't think plaintiff is looking for a payday, I think she may really believe defendant's crew broke the window - but she hasn't proved her case. She is not happy, tries to interrupt as the judge dismisses her case and mutters she didn't even get a chance to finish her case. 'Nother plaintiff wanting back their deposit: this time the plaintiffs put down a deposit to hold a car, backed out of the deal, says defendant quickly sold the car to someone else, so he's not out any money and should return their deposit. Whoa, a $4200 lawsuit! Is that all the deposit? Nope, $2500 deposit and then I guess $1700 'cause it's Wednesday. Guess it's not the typical 15yo $1000 hoopty. Nope, these folks were at a car lot, and defendant says when they put down the deposit he pulled the car from the showroom, started dealer prep, got the financing approved, etc. Ok, not only am I not impressed with the tacked on $1700, but Mommy plaintiff is doing all the talking about buying sonny boy a car - sonny, if you're old enough to grow a beard it's time to cut the apron strings and grow a pair. Wonder how old sonny is, anyway? Mommy says after putting down the deposit they went home and thought about it, and decided they couldn't afford $350 a month car payments, the increase in HER insurance, rent etc. Ah, maybe there's a reason mommy was doing all the talking. Sonny is not very convincing when he says he called the day after the deposit was put down, isn't sure who he talked to, maybe Bill or Jerry. Folks at the car lot not happy, they got the financing approved despite the family's bad credit, have the tags, prepped the car, thing is ready to drive away and these people are backing out. Questions come up about what happens when the deposit is made. The car is pulled and prepped, financing approval process, etc, but no contracts are signed until after the customer comes back after the financing goes through. Oh, and sales manager actually found better financing than they thought they were going to get - payments would have been $295 rather than the expected $350. So, yes, dealer does do work based on receiving the deposit, but should he get to keep the whole $2500? In real estate the answer is no, but in some retail operations there's a restocking fee and customer gets the rest - not sure what the default position is in car sales. Up to this point I hadn't really formed an opinion about defendant, but now he's showing some shady used car sleaziness as he tries to comes up with reasons why he should get to keep the whole $2500. He starts listing everything he did after getting the deposit, and after each step he can't resist saying "which costs money." That wouldn't be too bad, because, yes it does cost money to do what he's listing. Ah, but then he doesn't stop, and he starts listing things that he does before every sale. Yep, all good, but since he sold the car to someone else, why should these folks be paying for safety inspections, checking tires, checking brakes, etc. Let the eventual buyers pay for that. So, next step down the slippery slope for defendant, MM wants to know about the sale to the people after this deal fell through, she wants an idea if dude double dipped by keeping the deposit then charging full dealer prep for the new buyers. Dealer dude acts put out that she's asking, saying he's not sure he can get the requested information. Oh, and while he's getting a little huffy with the judge, he throws out that some folks don't even ask for the deposit back - is this a regular thing where he bumps up the deposit, then hopes customer backs out so he can keep it? And, didn't plaintiff says at one point she wanted to put down 2 grand and was talked into adding $500 to be sure of getting it financed? First off, part of the case is that plaintiffs want their deposit back because he's not out money because he sold the car to someone else (not true, he IS out money, just not $2500) so it seems reasonable to me that he might have looked it up before coming to court. Biggy though is acting like he can't get the information if given a recess. Ok, maybe he's the whole sales department as well as the owner, and no one else back at the lot has a high enough password to figure out what the new buyers paid. MM doesn't buy that, "you're the owner, of course you can get the info if you want it!" Hmmm, something tells me when we get back from commercial dude will be refunding part of that deposit. Hoboy, maybe the reason he didn't bring the info to court and pretended he might not be able to get it over the phone is because he actually sold the car for more money after these people backed out. Not looking good for keeping the full deposit as dealer dude is looking shadier by the minute. We finally get to learn sonny's age. Bearded dude who has mommy going car shopping, paying his insurance and helping pay for his car is 26 freaking years old. Oh, and that extra tacked on $1700... that's to pay mommy because she drives him 50 mile to work every day - well, I guess it's good that he works, he could be one of those pot heads who sits at home playing videos all day. Not sure how that became defendant's problem. Anyway, rough justice... MM orders defendant to return half the deposit. potential tenant/landlord case: hey hey hey, it's Fat Albert - even gf looks skinny next to this guy, who needed the double doors to make it into the courtroom. This is a case where potential tenants found an apartment, but since it needed some electrical work they didn't move in right away - well, they did move some of their stuff in, but didn't live there. Who buys the bit about these two couch surfing with friends? These people picked out this lovely apartment after needing flashlights to walk around to see the place... looks great always wanted to live off grid. Anyway, the work was supposed to take a week, but ended up taking a month, and when it was finally ready the stuff they moved in early was gone. Defendant is little bitty guy with a dish rag on his head - sort of a high and tight with a little toupee. At first I thought he had a scar on his forehead - nope just an escaping string of hair - more hair hanging as case goes on. Anyway, his story is that he admits the place wasn't ready, but that the repairmen took longer than expected, he doesn't know anything about plaintiffs moving stuff in early, not his problem. Hmmm, I'm having trouble buying plaintiff's story. He says he was getting the bums rush at his old place because it was an illegal apartment and the landlord needed them gone pronto. So, what's he do? Like so many before him, quick craigslist search for dumps, finds this basement apartment with no lights. Has to get out of the old place, so he snaps up the no lights place and stores stuff there while temporarily staying with friends - after all supposed to be ready to occupy in a week. Oh, yeah, course he put down the deposit and paid first month's rent - wouldn't want to chance someone else snapping it up. Anyway, all their clothes and stuff are in the basement cave/apartment, but they're in and out getting stuff to wear every couple days - oh, and of course to check to see if the lights ever come on. Anyway, place is supposed to be ready November first, so Nov rent was paid. Come the 17th plaintiff sends a text, if electric doesn't come on right away he wants his money back. No response. They go over on the 20th to check on things and get clean undies... their stuff is gone. Ah, just exactly what was gone, asks MM. TVs, cameras, video games etc etc. MM says, well for folks about to be homeless and out on the streets you sure have lots of toys. They call the cops - no sign of forced entry, and supposedly only the plaintiffs and defendant (or maybe his workers) had keys... and the no forced entry bit - later we find out there was some broken window both sides knew about. Oh, and defendant admits he never changed the locks after the last tenant - so half the people in town could have a key. That part loses it for defendant in my mind. Ok, he had already lost any rent and deposit, but now I'm ready to give plaintiff's anything they can prove they had, plus a little extra for bad landlording - dude, if I'm paying hundreds of dollars in rent, I expect the landlord to exercise a little bit of control over who has keys. Really, can't believe MM bought defendant shifting the onus for changing get the lock to the renter, plaintiff. Heck, any landlord I ever had would have frowned on a tenant changing the locks - and that doesn't even take into account the landlord supposedly having electricians needing access. Oh, next bit hurts both sides. The broken window everybody knew about - so why does plaintiff have all those expensive toys there and why didn't landlord fix the thing (and sticking in plexiglass is not fixing a broken window). MM asks for proof this isn't another illegal basement apartment - course no one thought to bring that when they're fighting over rent. Ok, everybody's case is circling the toilet. First, all through the case plaintiff has been saying he paid rent and deposit (totalling $2400). Nope, says defendant, they only put down $200, then paid a little now and then throughout the month - at the time of alleged breaking they had paid $2100. Plaintiff disputes that, says it was $2400, but has no proof. MM wants to know why plaintiff moved all his toys in, and defendant is quick to hop on the bandwagon about how easy it would be for a crook to break in - does he think that helps his case - nope just goes to show both sides were negligent. As if that's not enough, we learn that the real reason electricity was off was that the previous tenant hadn't paid the bill - so all that bit about slow repairmen and needing approval from the city to turn on the power was bull pucky - oh, and we learn landlord lives on premises and was without electricity all that time, too. He says the electricity was finally turned on two days after plaintiff gave up and left like that's a good thing for his side. Ok, MM is fed up with both sides. Plaintiffs have no proof of what they paid, but defendant admits to receiving $2100. They're going to get that back. The stolen stuff - both sides were negligent. Everybody seems to agree somebody broke in, but no police report and nothing showing what his toys were and what was stolen, if anything. Oh, maybe he didn't bring the police report because, according to defendant's friend who is presently out of state, when the cops came they reported a stolen Playstation. Then, after careful thought, they amended the police report and added a 60" TV, cameras, etc etc. Yeah, doesn't matter much since that's hearsay, but still... no proof of what he had or what was taken. Nope, not getting anything for that. Ah, he also wants moving expenses. Yeah, that sounds reasonable... but he can't help himself and tries to pad that, too. He has a uhaul bill, but doesn't expect the judge to actually read it. Why not stick an extra $70 on there? Well, one reason not to keep asking for stuff with no proof is because some judges (JJ) would have just dismissed the case with the first lie/exaggeration even though he does deserve something back. Here, MM gives him back the $2100 defendant admitted receiving plus a hundred for the uhaul. 1 3 Link to comment
AngelaHunter June 15, 2017 Share June 15, 2017 23 minutes ago, SRTouch said: snow blower incident: well, here's something we don't see everyday Seriously? I think today's cases came about because Levin read all our love notes to him and is trolling us. The whole testimony by the money-grubbing plaintiff is hearsay: "She seen and the neighbour seen but I never seen..." and on and on. Plaintiff's video witness really pissed off JM, when she couldn't be bothered to heave her carcass out of her bed to testify to what she "seen." Huge clouds of black smoke! Debris flying everywhere! Well, so some people say who seen, but who knows? That's some atomic leaf blower, that can send rocks 40 feet to crash into someone's decrepit looking glass blocks. No, no pictures but plaintiff and her witness SEEN it. 26 minutes ago, SRTouch said: 'Nother plaintiff wanting back their deposit: More clown litigants. Momma and her baby boy (who apparently is a 26-year old man) had to drive all the way from Middle Earth to appear here, plus Momma had to drive Sonny to work every day so the def. should pay for the miles and gas she used. Of course neither of them have any credit to speak of but still decide Baby Boy needs an 11K car he can't afford. Sure, he or they will buy it, put down a deposit and then think, "Oh, no. My sweet Baby Boy can't afford this!" and expect to get all their money back. Dingbats, they are, who will never have any credit. 30 minutes ago, SRTouch said: potential tenant/landlord case: hey hey hey, it's Fat Albert Holy... I am shocked and depressed at the incidence of super morbid obesity so prevalent these days. He had a hard time breathing, and he's so young. He better do something or he won't be around long. Girlfriend stood there, chewing her cud, while her paramour breathlessly explained that he had a huge store of expensive electronics (including a 60" TV! Laptop - well of course they'd leave it there)he naturally moved into this dark, strange place that had no electricity, a broken window and unchanged locks. He said they would have been "on the street" if they hadn't taken this place. The tons of electronics left there? Aren't we supposed to have faith that no one will steal our stuff when we leave it somewhere unsecured, even after we saw the broken window? I can just picture him and g/f sitting there, panting and drooling over the big payday they're going to get. Receipts? We don't need no stinkin' receipts. JM should go look up what such things cost on BestBuy or whatever. Just trust us - we had all that stuff, even though we're so poverty-stricken we were nearly homeless. More money grubbers and petty con artists. Landlord was rocking the "Fifth Element" Gary Oldman look. Sorry, it's not flattering. 1 6 Link to comment
Florinaldo June 15, 2017 Share June 15, 2017 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: potential tenant/landlord case: When the announcer said that the plaintiffs had to sleep on a friend's couch, I muttered to myself "that must have been one verrrry sturdy couch". 29 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said: Nother plaintiff wanting back their deposit (...) Dingbats, they are, who will never have any credit. Never mind credit, just think about simple cash: how long did it take them to waste away their share of the appearance fee litigants get from the show? Considering how stupid their previous life and financial choices were, I'd say not very long. 1 1 Link to comment
meowmommy June 16, 2017 Share June 16, 2017 2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: More clown litigants. Momma and her baby boy (who apparently is a 26-year old man) had to drive all the way from Middle Earth to appear here, plus Momma had to drive Sonny to work every day so the def. should pay for the miles and gas she used. Of course neither of them have any credit to speak of but still decide Baby Boy needs an 11K car he can't afford. Sure, he or they will buy it, put down a deposit and then think, "Oh, no. My sweet Baby Boy can't afford this!" and expect to get all their money back. Dingbats, they are, who will never have any credit. Holy... I am shocked and depressed at the incidence of super morbid obesity so prevalent these days. He had a hard time breathing, and he's so young. He better do something or he won't be around long. Girlfriend stood there, chewing her cud, while her paramour breathlessly explained that he had a huge store of expensive electronics (including a 60" TV! Laptop - well of course they'd leave it there)he naturally moved into this dark, strange place that had no electricity, a broken window and unchanged locks. He said they would have been "on the street" if they hadn't taken this place. The tons of electronics left there? Aren't we supposed to have faith that no one will steal our stuff when we leave it somewhere unsecured, even after we saw the broken window? I can just picture him and g/f sitting there, panting and drooling over the big payday they're going to get. Receipts? We don't need no stinkin' receipts. JM should go look up what such things cost on BestBuy or whatever. Just trust us - we had all that stuff, even though we're so poverty-stricken we were nearly homeless. More money grubbers and petty con artists. I am still trying to imagine the legal principle under which you can decide not to buy a car you've agreed to buy, and then charge the seller of the car you didn't buy for the miles you drove in a different car. It would be like cancelling a Hertz rental and then expecting Hertz to pick up your Avis charges. My daughter, long story short, is living in a heavily subsidized apartment, and it's supposed to be her there alone, but she's got baby daddy and baby daddy's dogs all squatting there illegally because she insists he'll be homeless otherwise. The only time I've been out there and been able to see her apartment, the first thing I noticed was this huge ass TV and Playstation/etc. that took up half the place, all property of baby daddy. She did not appreciate my suggestion that he sell off his toys and start paying for things like food and rent. 1 5 Link to comment
teebax June 16, 2017 Share June 16, 2017 42 minutes ago, meowmommy said: I am still trying to imagine the legal principle under which you can decide not to buy a car you've agreed to buy, and then charge the seller of the car you didn't buy for the miles you drove in a different car. It would be like cancelling a Hertz rental and then expecting Hertz to pick up your Avis charges. My daughter, long story short, is living in a heavily subsidized apartment, and it's supposed to be her there alone, but she's got baby daddy and baby daddy's dogs all squatting there illegally because she insists he'll be homeless otherwise. The only time I've been out there and been able to see her apartment, the first thing I noticed was this huge ass TV and Playstation/etc. that took up half the place, all property of baby daddy. She did not appreciate my suggestion that he sell off his toys and start paying for things like food and rent. I'm flying back east for my sister's wedding next week. My mom has been there helping her get things together. My sister texted me to tell me how negative my mom is being. I know my sister only ever paints herself in the best light, so I call my mom. Long story short, my sister and her betrothed received an eviction notice. Meanwhile they ordered a limo to take them to the wedding that's so close to their house they could walk to it. Furthermore, they asked my mom to stay afterward for another week and watch their kids so they can go on a honeymoon. She told my mom she can't afford rent because of the wedding. What the actual fuck? Their kids have designer everything. They have big tvs everywhere and a $200 monthly cable bill. I know these things because they asked my mom for help. Instead, she gave them a lecture about their stupidity and told them if they can't afford rent they don't need to have a wedding. like to refer to my sister as a future tv court litigant. And also one of the many reasons I live thousands of miles away. I'm only going for the LOLs. My point is that some folks have horrible priorities. Like MM said, this dude has all this shit and is practically homeless. Me, I'd rather live in a nice house I own and take pride in without the constant threat of being on the streets. If that means no new electronics, so be it. Color me weird. 1 8 Link to comment
ITALIA June 16, 2017 Share June 16, 2017 22 hours ago, WhitneyWhit said: The dog defendant has to be one the most entitled/inept/infuriating litigants we've ever had on this show, and that's saying something. Of course she let's her dog run lose at a public park, why would anyone except anything else? And why would anyone expect her to actually pay for whatever damages her dog may cause while running amok? HELLO, she's never seen that guy there before, her dog needs to run and damnit, people and animals alike will just have to deal with it. Major entitled beyotch who is ignorant and clueless. 2 Link to comment
DoctorK June 16, 2017 Share June 16, 2017 Quote "that must have been one verrrry sturdy couch". Me too! Quote send rocks 40 feet to crash into someone's decrepit looking glass blocks I might be able to believe this if one of the glass blocks was cracked or broken. However, as JM pointed out, most of the glass blocks were cracked. I go with the foundation settling and cracking the glass blocks. 1 2 Link to comment
DoctorK June 16, 2017 Share June 16, 2017 Quote Long story short, my sister and her betrothed received an eviction notice. Meanwhile they ordered a limo to take them to the wedding that's so close to their house they could walk to it. Furthermore, they asked my mom to stay afterward for another week and watch their kids so they can go on a honeymoon. She told my mom she can't afford rent because of the wedding. What the actual fuck? Their kids have designer everything. They have big tvs everywhere and a $200 monthly cable bill. I know these things because they asked my mom for help. Instead, she gave them a lecture about their stupidity and told them if they can't afford rent they don't need to have a wedding. like to refer to my sister as a future tv court litigant. And also one of the many reasons I live thousands of miles away. I'm only going for the LOLs. teebax, I am truly sorry you have this problem in your family. Your sister has screwed up her life with bad decisions. But you have grown up OK (except for that left handed thing LOL), sometimes people do their best but the result still comes out bad. I have a similar situation with my brother. 1 6 Link to comment
AngelaHunter June 16, 2017 Share June 16, 2017 Sorry to everyone going through infuriating hell with members of their family. It makes you crazy, I know. It does seem (from personal experience and from watching TPC and JJ) that a whole slew - if not a whole generation - of people think not only they should have whatever they want, but that they're entitled to it, just because they "like-ded" it. They'll stiff everyone and make prices and interest rates go up for the rest of us. Reminds me of a case where a desperate women planned a Lady Di-style wedding, when her betrothed was a brokeass loser/slob who didn't even pay his child support, or that woman with a gaggle of kids who all live on your taxes yet she can buy expensive luxury items like Tempurpedic beds, etc. I know JM hates them too. You can see it on her face. 4 Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.