The People's Court - General Discussion

[meowmommy]

It's cruciate, not crucible, dammit!  Maybe if he'd brought an actual vet report, the diagnosis would be stated correctly.  At least the defendant's vet report had it correctly, as it was written by an actual vet.  And add this case to the ones we can count on one hand where the plaintiff in a dog case loses.

Edited October 14, 2017 by meowmommy

[DoctorK]

Quote

It's cruciate, not crucible, dammit! 

Picky, picky, picky (LOL). We watch this show with people who frequently esculate their verbal altercations. And don't start me on the police favorite phrase "rate of speed", which they completely misuse, but it sounds so sciencey. While I am ranting, how about a technical editor who insisted on changing every occurrence of "ordnance" to "ordinance" on a proposal involving guided munitions; needless to say, our proposal was a source of great amusement around the receiving command. Just having one of those "get off my lawn!" days I guess.

[AngelaHunter]

36 minutes ago, DoctorK said:

Just having one of those "get off my lawn!" days I guess.

I have one of those every time I hear "cock-er-roaches" and "real-a-tor." But, yeah - "The Crucible." I quite liked that movie.

[SRTouch]

1. bad neighbor: well, this sounds a little different... no dog, no tenant/landlord, no used car or car repairs - just argument about who pays the  contractor maintaining a private road - and the contractor isn't a litigant. (Not to worry, the next two are dog breeder and As-Is car deal.) Apparently, there's a private road, which services three properties, and the maintenance for the road is shared by the respective landowners. Ah, but defendant refuses to pay his share. Complicated deal... plaintiff bought an existing home on the front of the property with condition that a developer could build and sell homes behind her house. Other folks bought land and built their homes, but to get to their property they use the private road along plaintiff's land... and no, apparently silly plaintiff bought her house without having the easement agreement spelled out. Things work for awhile, but defendant, who bought the lot three houses in from the city/County road, says he never agreed to pay for road maintenance. Nope, his contract says he was promised a separate driveway next to the private road. So he sues his contractor, but the case drags on for years. After multiple delays, the judge (actually, he says that was part of the delay - rotating judges, and this was judge #6) puts everybody in a room and says nobody leaves until late they work it out. Well, solution they came up with is the shared private road... but defendant, who admits he doesn't get along well with others, says he held out and never agreed, so he uses the drive built and maintained by his neighbors. Things come to a head when plaintiff hires someone to fix the potholes in the road for 3 grand. Plaintiff says he didn't want to pay his share, so he went out and got an estimate for WAY more, like 18 grand. Sooo, she says he told her to go ahead and have her guy do the job. Ah, but once it's done he reneges, and she ends up having to pay his share (other neighbors paid their share). Course the plaintiff feels he should be forced to pay his share, but he says he never gave her the go ahead. Big kerfuffle, including plaintiff blocking the private road and refusing him access. He takes her to court and she's ordered to let him use the drive, but now she's suing demanding he pay his share. Ah, this smug dude stands there smirking, thinking no way will plaintiff get anything, after all he got free law advice from his good buddy the lawyer. Hold on, says MM, what you were granted is a temporary easement... plaintiff can shut you down by going to court and proving you could build your own drive - it'll just cost you money. Interesting case, reasonable plaintiff, real a-hole of a smug defendant... plaintiff won.
2. dog breeders case: plaintiffs buy a puppy with a genetic defect (bad overbite). Their vet finds the problem when they take the pup to be checked out three days after the purchase, and refers them to a specialist. They say they notified the breeder right away, and this is when the versions differ. Breeder's story has him being very reasonable, offering to exchange the puppy for a healthy dog. Plaintiff says breeder wasn't concerned, and they went ahead and made the appointment with the doggy orthodontist. Eventually, they say, they contacted the breeder's vet,  and were told breeder knew about the overbite before the sale... but that's just flapping gums because they have nothing from that vet. What they do have is their vet and the specialist's report - and bills for an initial surgery and potential future surgeries to correct the problem. Ok, they can prove the dog had a problem when he was sold, but usually the remedy is a puppy exchange. These folks want their purchase price returned, along with past and future vet bills - yep they want a BoNANza of 5 grand. Uh, don't think so, not unless they have something proving the breeder had prior knowledge of the defect - and hearsay testimony from his vet isn't enough. Ah, the defendant... if I didn't already have such a low opinion of breeders I'd develope one listening to this guy. And, my opinion certainly doesn't improve when MM asks him what the law requires of breeders with regards to guaranteeing puppies... ah, he doesn't know.... how long have you been a breeder... a couple years.... bout time to figure it out! Not sure if I believe anything this guy says. Plaintiff says he made multiple offers to settle, but reneged after each offer. Sort of sounds suspicious, why would the guy offer to settle without ever seeing any of the vet reports. Then defendant steps in it... he admits he offered to settle without a vet report. Dude dances around, says he offered to give a partial refund after they provided multiple vet reports, but also says he wrote the check and cleaning lady lost/threw it away... all this dancing around and hand waving while he can't look at the judge. Hmmm, maybe just my prejudice here, but that is enough to make me believe he sold the puppy knowing about the problem... still not going to give plaintiff's 5 grand, though. Yep, plaintiffs win, but MM awards $1200, not 5 grand.
3. used car case: plaintiff had nothing but problems, and 20 days after buying the heap, with over 100,000 miles, she wants the seller to foot the over 2 grand in repair bills. Oh, and the purchase price was $1600. Oh, oh, we have another idjit buying a car with the Check Engine light on. Anyway, plaintiff says seller did something that got the light to go out but a couple days after picking up the car it was back on. Off to a mechanic for the first round of repairs. Next, transmission goes out. That's it, she wants defendant to pay for the repairs. Ok, some jurisdictions have very consumer friendly laws, do MM collects the paperwork to check things out. Plaintiff is pretty straight forward... there was no warranty, but feels defendant's SHOULD be responsible, because they told her it was good. Oh, this is good - defendants own an auto repair shop, buy cars at auction for resale, and have the car's inspected by an independent mechanic before sale. Hmmm something in that smells... why pay someone else to inspect the vehicles? Seems more reasonable, if you own a repair shop, to do your own inspection and offer a limited warranty yourself. Anyway, after the first prohlem, defendants say they offer to look at the car, but plaintiff went elsewhere. Same when she complains about the transmission - they offer to fix it (but not for free), but she took it to someone else. Heck, even if there had been a warranty, usually you have to let the place giving you the warranty a chance to fix it - not go elsewhere and then give them the bill. BORING!!! FF  to the ruling. Surprise, plaintiff loses.

Edited October 16, 2017 by SRTouch

[AngelaHunter]

3 hours ago, SRTouch said:

bad neighbor: well, this sounds a little different... no dog, no tenant/landlord, no used car or car repairs

And litigants could speak proper English too!  Def was a repugnant and utterly obnoxious asshole - a middleaged, professional man who thought it was cute to brag to JM and millions of viewers that he "doesn't play well with others." Really? Very impressive, I must say. Personally that's not something I would even want to acknowledge about myself, let alone share with the world. JM absolutely despised him and I adored how she crowed at plaintiff blocking his way out, and then gave her advice on how to screw up the a-hole even more. BTW, def - the bad dye job isn't working for you. Sorry.   It was nice to have an interesting case to start.

The word "dog" = FF.

3 hours ago, SRTouch said:

used car case: plaintiff had nothing but problems, and 20 days after buying the heap, with over 100,000 miles,

I didn't catch the age of the car but it had 160,000 miles, I believe. Yeah, who would expect a problem? Plaintiff wanted the old beater and somehow expects defs to be responsible for everything that conks out on it for eternity, or until the hunk of junk gets hauled off to Beater Heaven.  He told her it was in perfect working order. Well, maybe it was when she foolishly took it, but it wasn't 20 days later. Tough luck. "Haven't you ever watched this show?" JM asks plaintiff, unable to believe that she ever did and still thinks she has a lifetime warranty on an aged vee-hickle. I see plaintiff spent some time Googling to try and find some law under which she'd get a bumper-to-bumper warranty on an old used car and starts babbling some semi-legal jargon. But yeah, she's watched the show but it doesn't matter because she - of all people - is somehow exempt from the "as is" law.  NO, you're not.

Edited because "Plaintiff" and "Defendant" aren't the same, no matter how much Drambuie one has imbibed.

Edited October 16, 2017 by AngelaHunter

[babs j.]

I was impressed that the plaintiff in the car case knew that there is a Universal Commercial Code - but, over 100,000 miles, no dice.

[Florinaldo]

bad neighbour: He really was the prototypical neighbour from hell, the type who cannot envision for even a nanosecond that rules, laws and obligations that bind others could apply to him, and who believes that other people around him must abide by what he decides are the conditions that should govern them coexisting on the same street according to his whims. I know people a few blocks over who have to deal with such a person and it is a constant frustration for them (although he apparently enjoys every second).

In the hallterview I thought he said "she won the war but not the battle", which would make him an ignorant idiot for not understanding even that simple expression in trying to spin the verdict into a victory for him.

 

used car sale: There seems to be an endless supply of people who hope against all hope that MM will suddenly discover an hitherto unknown provision in the law that protects them forever under all variations of a used car sale. The fact that they have a guaranteed share in the award kitty if their case is dimissed, compensates for coming on the show and looking like a naive fool on national TV.

[califred]

Omg what a jackass that dude was.  I hope they do go and get his access blocked so he has to fork over the money for his own road.

[meowmommy]

5 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Ah, this smug dude stands there smirking, thinking no way will plaintiff get anything, after all he got free law advice from his good buddy the lawyer.

What are the odds that this accountant, smirking about his free legal advice, and his lawyer buddy pay taxes on the value of their bartered work, as they are legally required to do?  Probably none.  Hope the IRS is watching.  And the value of MM's free legal advice at the end?  Priceless.

Poor puppy.  Dog cases are always better, though, when the actual dog comes to court, and lots of cute puppy shots.  Won't even go on about the perfidy of animal breeders while millions of pets linger and die in shelters.

[Brattinella]

1 hour ago, meowmommy said:

What are the odds that this accountant, smirking about his free legal advice, and his lawyer buddy pay taxes on the value of their bartered work, as they are legally required to do?  Probably none.  Hope the IRS is watching.  And the value of MM's free legal advice at the end?  Priceless.

Poor puppy.  Dog cases are always better, though, when the actual dog comes to court, and lots of cute puppy shots.  Won't even go on about the perfidy of animal breeders while millions of pets linger and die in shelters.

A new law in California, remarkably, makes all puppies sold in pet stores be rescue puppies.  No more puppy-mill puppies.  I applaud this, goes into effect 2019.

[AngelaHunter]

14 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

In the hallterview I thought he said "she won the war but not the battle",

Is that what he said? I FF because I'd had more than enough of him. If he did say that, he's even more of a pompous tool jackass than I thought.

[TresGatos]

20 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

In the hallterview I thought he said "she won the war but not the battle", which would make him an ignorant idiot for not understanding even that simple expression in trying to spin the verdict into a victory for him.

In the halterview the Defendant said something about how the shared access road would be blocked once he fenced his property in. I hope the Pliantiff and her neighbor does serve him papers reversing his right to use the private road but if I were the Plaintiff I would be putting my house up for sale now in anticipation of losing years of my life to litigation with an asshole.

[SRTouch]

1. Jewelery tag maker mystery: another unusual case... but boy are these two looney tunes! Defendant is Andrea Rosenberg, hippy chick jewelry designer - actually sells stuff under the name Hipchick. She says she has her jewelry in upscale stores - maybe so, I googled her and it does appear that in addition to her own boutique she sells stuff online and in bigger stores. (She's  wearing a couple of her creations in court.) Anyway, she's one of those folks who has to be talking... continuous running commentary as MM talks to plaintiff - so much so that MM is cautioning her from the get-go that "I don't need a cheerleader," SHUT THE HELL UP! (I might have added the last bit.) Anyway, plaintiff thinks he can remain anonymous when he goes on national tv as long as he doesn't tell us his last name, he's the real loon. He's the guy who makes the little tags that manufacturers stick on their products. He is suing because the Hipchick refuses to pay for tags he made to be attached to her jewelry. Hipchick says she didn't pay because the tags say "made in China" instead of "made in USA." He insists he just prints whatever the hell the customer wants, he doesn't care what it says... Hipchick specified "China," and that's what he sent her. As we go to the first commercial we have dude insisting that's what she wanted, her insisting she wanted tag to say "USA," and a clip of MM storming off the bench to come over and wave a paper in dude's face yelling WTF does this say... something tells me she likes this guy as much as yayhoo neighbor from the driveway case yesterday where she ended up offering free legal advice. Anyway, after the break MM is going through the folder of texts/emails that plaintiff yayhoo-anonymous dude gave her. She pulls out a text where Hipchick tells him what color tag she wants, and that it's supposed to say USA... Dude claims he never received that text... MM call him up to the bench, shows him the text (holds it up in front of his face and gives it a shake) and says this came out of the folder YOU JUST GAVE ME! Dude is all, "no no no" that's wrong... and MM is standing over him at the bench waving him back to his spot. Ok, time for Hipchick to demonstrate her level of looney-ness. MM calls her up to the bench to show what dude sent her. She brings up a box with a necklace and the tag. Whoa, she actually sent Neiman Marcus necklaces with his "made in China" tags with a sticky "USA" tag covering "China." Yep, bet that was a big seller! Ah, but she DID use his tags, even if she modified them. Does that mean she ate the steak and has to pay? Yeah, much as dude is a real piece of work, he did provide a service, so he deserves something (but definitely NOT full price). MM is ready to talk numbers, but she wants dude to admit he screwed up... and dummy, after hearing the judge as much as say he should get something, still wants to argue about that text message she found in HIS FREEKING FOLDER. Ah, dude even tries some sleight of hand.... MM had given him back his folder, and now he wants to argue the dates of when Hipchick said "USA" not "CHINA" - MM asks for the message back so she can double check he date - and dude sends SOME of the messages back - she doesn't find the pertinent text and tells him to send ALL the messages - and of course there it is... and dummy STILL argues - and this is where she storms off the bench as shown in the preview... whoa, dude just talked himself out of a partial payment - in fact MM is wishing there had been a countersuit so she could make him pay something. And, of course dude comes out crying "mean judge wouldn't let me speak!" And we get to hear "it is what it us!"
2. car repair case:  plaintiff says shop kept upping the cost of the repair to his 13yo hoopty, so he says he took his junker to a different mechanic. Says the new guy found all kinds of stuff done wrong. So he wants back the money he paid defendant. Uh, this is almost a case of used car sale where some genius buys a junker with the dash lit up with warning lights. Plaintiff was buying this heap, and took it to defendant to be inspected before the purchase. Defendant tells him it needs work - I bet he said something like not TOO bad on the surface, and plaintiff didn't hear "on the surface..." heck, sometimes you don't find the really bad stuff until you start peeling the onion. Plaintiff doesn't help himself when he starts his story. Buying the car off cl, knew enough to get it looked at, but chose to have it inspected by nearby shop not by somebody he knew. In fact that's part of the problem, defendant's shop is half an hour away. Says he knew it needed work, but just from his comments it's obvious he had no real idea how expensive it could get... I mean he talks about getting the air conditioning "done" but he didn't know if it needed recharging or a new compressor... turns out it needed a compressor, so big money instead of simple service. He buys the car with no real idea what the heck it needs because the asking price is $1600, he figures the bucket of bolts is worth 3 grand easy, and when the inspection is done he was told they could fix the obvious stuff for a grand. So, he has the junker, and turns it over to the inspector turned repair guy to make the repairs. Surprise, when they start opening it up the repair price quickly jumps - obvious rip off!  So, asks MM, is this additional repairs needed, or did they raise the price on the estimate for the same repairs. Little back and forth, with dummy trying to say he gave her the estimate, but turns out he didn't get a written estimate at all. Dude didn't like the new price, so he has them put it back together without making the needed repairs. Oh, the horror, the reassembled car is unsafe... within 200 yards of the shop he finds it shaking, shimmying, and pulling to the right... but, WTH, he's 30 miles from home and needs to pick up his kid, so he drives it on home to switch cars. As MM points out, he likely caused further damage driving the unsafe vehicle around, putting everyone on the road at risk. Nope, plaintiff has nothing so far. Cross the aisle to hear defendant. First off, defendant explains how the heap passed his New York State inspection with badly out of wack brake rotors - easy, the rotors are not inspected as part of the State safety inspection (probably like our safety inspections used to be here in Oklahoma, just a static inspection where all KINDS of crap could be wrong, but not looked at.) Anywho, plaintiff wants defendant to pay for a brake job because.... hmmm, not sure why, someone has to pay, and even though this guy didn't do anything to the brakes - by golly, he should have, so better he pay than me! Once again plaintiff tries to pass off phoney evidence. MM asks if he had anything from the second mechanic saying defendant did something wrong - sure, right here, but all he has is the second mechanic saying the brakes needed work, not that defendant caused a problem (hey, what are the odds this 13 yo heap with over 100,000 miles was running around with the original brakes?) Anyway, defendant offers to do a brake job for cost of the parts just because yayhoo is making a scene, it's closing time and he wants to go home. Instead, blowhard declares he's a retired cop, he doesn't want to pay anything for the brakes, and oh yeah, he wants $500 rebate on the bill he already paid. Hoboy, MM is sooo over this blowhard she starts demanding proof, and when he starts in she cuts him off and again demands proof, saying she doesn't believe his testimony... nope, no proof. Then some nonsense about air conditioner not working - uh, defendant is part of a national franchise and there's a 2yo warranty that plaintiff can have work done at any other franchise shop. Oh, wait, he can't take it in for warranty work, because the work was not done and he wasn't charged for it... that's enough, says da judge, dude has wasted enough of everybody's time, case dismissed.
3. landlord vs tenant:  tenant moves out after 1 day. Plaintiff is here demanding rent because he took place off the market when guy accepted it. Ok, nutty landlord, let the defendant move in before getting a penny... which is why he's the plaintiff - otherwise it would be tenant suing for return of rent and security. Defendant is young 20yo kid, who was moving out of parents house into an apartment with his gf. They take the place, but ask landlord if they can wait til they get back from their getaway cruise before paying. He says sure, but then he's away for the weekend when they get back, so they get the key and move in before paying first and security. Ah, but kid isn't ready to cut the apron strings (or maybe there was a fight with the gf) so get backs out a day after moving in. He agrees he should pay the month's rent even though he's not taking the place, so he writes a check three days after moving in... ah but then he stops payment, so plaintiff is also asking for the fees he was stuck with when the check was canceled. (Can't get more than 1 month rent, since place was month to month.) Ah, kid is trying to back out without paying because he says after he wrote the check he had "fears" the place might be illegal... just fears because it would cost him $25 to go to the city and find out if it was legal... yeah, let the plaintiff be stuck with bank fees, court costs etc, not something snowflake needs to worry about living at 'rent's house. Defendant asks to be allowed to explain himself, MM listens but kid's explanation goes no ehere. Plaintiff gets what he's asking for... snowflake moves out to cry on Doug's shoulder - ah, another snowflake who thinks he shouldn't have to pay any rent if he didn'the move in... no, dummy, you have to pay because landlord took it off the market based upon your promise to take it. MM is 3 for 3, all the losers today feel she was unfair and wouldn't listen to their cases.

Edited October 17, 2017 by SRTouch

[Broderbits]

17 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

Defendant is Andrea Rosenberg, hippy chick jewelry designer - actually sells stuff under the name Hipchick. She says she has her jewelry in upscale stores - maybe so, I googled her and it does appear that in addition to her own boutique she sells stuff online and in bigger stores.

I Googled her too and didn't see anything the average person couldn't make after a quick trip to Michael's. But good for her, she got her stuff into Neiman Marcus so who am I to scoff. She (or her husband) must be raking it in to afford to live in Armonk.

[AngelaHunter]

Watching today's eps made me wonder how any of these litigants - who appeared to be mature, reasonably intelligent - manage to do any business at all.

 

59 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

Jewelery tag maker mystery: another unusual case... but boy are these two looney tunes!

Looney tunes is right. They made me wonder how JM, or any judge, has the kind of patience necessary to listen to flakes like these two. I mean, we can mute and FF. She can't. Dweeby, numnuts plaintiff needed JM to charge off the bench and nearly put his head in a vise to force him to read HIS emails he denies he ever got or read. Omg. Def - eeeek! She went on and on and on, in a voice that sounded like a cross between Betty Boop and Simka (Latka's g/f from "Taxi") JM couldn't stand listening to her either, particularly her cheerleading of JM's observations. But seriously - someone producing "Made in America" products hires irritating plaintiff to make "Made in China" tags for her items? Looney Tunes City. In the hall, plaintiff complains, "The judge didn't give me the opportunity to repeat my nonsensical stupidity more than three or four times." Well, not really but that's what it sounded like to me.

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

car repair case: 

My headache began here. Plaintiff must have had a very successful career as a detective since he was desperately trying to make his newly purchased, 1600$ extravaganza POS car work. He was completely unwilling and unable to answer a direct question honestly, handed over fugazi evidence that he really thought JM would swallow without comment, and of course he called def. and threatened him. Def, BTW, seemed totally credible to me, and would have fixed the shifty plaintiff's hoopty but plaintiff wouldn't take it in because, well, he's busy  and it was 30 miles away!! JM hated him too.

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

landlord vs tenant:  tenant moves out after 1 day.

Landlord is another one making me wonder how any of the litigants we saw manage to conduct their business. He trusts people, you see, enough to let strangers/babies move into his apartment without paying one cent up front. He's very trusting, always a good quality for a landlord to have. So he rents his property to the huge, Baby Huey defendant, who tries to say he "feared" it was not a legal apartment (a bunch of other gobbledegook followed as he tried to weasel his way out of his big-boy obligations) although he never bothered finding out. He does pay the landlord, but, oops, stops payment. The truth of the matter is that Huey started crying, "I want my MOMMY!" and had to back out of this big grown-up deal and run home to mommy and daddy.  After all, who is going to feed him so well if not Momma?  I think he should probably stay there for the foreseeable future. It seems that 21 is the new 13, at least as far as the male population we see on this show goes.

[Jamoche]

If I ever have anyone do custom or contractor work, there will be hardcopies that are signed by both sides. None of this text messaging or phone discussions.

[babs j.]

I'm guessing Judge M's paycheck is what enables her to endure these loony-tunes.

[califred]

This jewelry lady is coo coo I wish she hadn't used the tags.

 

 

So while cleaning my bathroom I hit my phone into the toilet... who was to borrow me the money for a new one.  I promise to pay you back with my tax refund ?

[AZChristian]

51 minutes ago, califred said:

So while cleaning my bathroom I hit my phone into the toilet... who was to borrow me the money for a new one.  I promise to pay you back with my tax refund ?

So you already have half the needed stuff to draw up a written contract - toilet paper.  Do you have a crayon nearby?

[califred]

I jus finished the rest.  What's with people buying old cars and being so shocked they don't work? 

[teebax]

2 hours ago, califred said:

I jus finished the rest.  What's with people buying old cars and being so shocked they don't work? 

As someone who just bought a used car last month,  the problem isn't with buying them. In fact, if I never have another car payment it'll be too soon. The problem is them buying them and assuming if there are issues there's a lemon law that applies. Where they get this idea is a mystery to me.

I took my car to a mechanic and had it checked out before my purchase. It needed tires and an oil change. No problem. The engine, tranny, and brakes were in great condition, so I bought it. If tomorrow it needs a repair, it's not my mechanic's fault. Modern cars that are well-maintained can last a long freaking time. My mom got 300,000 out of her Maxima! However, these litigants think a used car shouldn't have any problems, and that's just stupid.

This fool bought a car that needed at least a thousand dollars worth of work. That's just dumb.

[califred]

@teebax that's what I meant.  An older car will likely need some work.  None of these people are bright enough to have a mechanic check it out first.  Of course they aren't bright enough for most things in life.

[SRTouch]

2 hours ago, califred said:

@teebax that's what I meant.  An older car will likely need some work.  None of these people are bright enough to have a mechanic check it out first.  Of course they aren't bright enough for most things in life.

Well... one thing seems simple really.... if the check engine light is on don't buy it... 

[Katy M]

3 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Well... one thing seems simple really.... if the check engine light is on don't buy it... 

I wouldn't buy a used car without have a mechanic check it out first.  If the seller won't let you take it to a mechanic, then that's a red flag right there, and I wouldn't buy it even if it looked and drove perfectly.  Better safe than sorry.

[AngelaHunter]

8 hours ago, teebax said:

The problem is them buying them and assuming if there are issues there's a lemon law that applies. Where they get this idea is a mystery to me.

Because they look up "Lemon Law", on Wikipedia, read only the first sentence and shout with glee because they think they're entitled to a full refund on a 12-year old Pontiac Sunfire they bought from some guy on Craigslist who met them at midnight in the Walmart parking lot to do the transaction.

Quote

Lemon laws are American state laws that provide a remedy for purchasers of cars and other consumer goods in order to compensate for products that repeatedly fail to meet standards of quality and performance.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_law

[teebax]

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

Because they look up "Lemon Law", on Wikipedia, read only the first sentence and shout with glee because they think they're entitled to a full refund on a 12-year old Pontiac Sunfire they bought from some guy on Craigslist who met them at midnight in the Walmart parking lot to do the transaction.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_law

Even if they don't read the whole thing or understand it, one would assume they've seen these cases a billion times on TV court shows. I wish TPC would stop accepting them like JJ has stopped accepting cell phone cases.

[Katy M]

2 minutes ago, teebax said:

Even if they don't read the whole thing or understand it, one would assume they've seen these cases a billion times on TV court shows. I wish TPC would stop accepting them like JJ has stopped accepting cell phone cases.

Actually it's probably good to have so many.  At least people who watch will know "used cars (or anything) are as is unless there is a specific warranty."  She's said that like 3 zillion times.  So, any sporadic watcher of People's Court should know that.  Then, of course, the other exception for used cars come for people who sell over a certain quantity.  Can't have dealers purposely pedaling junk, so that might also add to the lemon law confusion.

[SRTouch]

29 minutes ago, Katy M said:

Actually it's probably good to have so many.  At least people who watch will know "used cars (or anything) are as is unless there is a specific warranty."  She's said that like 3 zillion times.  So, any sporadic watcher of People's Court should know that.  Then, of course, the other exception for used cars come for people who sell over a certain quantity.  Can't have dealers purposely pedaling junk, so that might also add to the lemon law confusion.

Ah, but then there are those, like the special snowflake a couple days ago, who claims  they watch, but somehow they deserve special treatment...

[AZChristian]

Any time we're in a situation where money will change hands for a product or service other than standard retail, I always say, "I watch People's Court and Judge Judy.  We need to put this in writing."  I then chuckle and say, "I'm 70; old, but trainable."

We haven't been shystered since we started doing that.

[AngelaHunter]

3 hours ago, teebax said:

Even if they don't read the whole thing or understand it, one would assume they've seen these cases a billion times on TV court shows. I wish TPC would stop accepting them like JJ has stopped accepting cell phone cases.

Oh, they've seen them, they just think their case is somehow special and they deserve their money back because THEIR junker conked out only 3 days after buying it OR they took it to a mechanic after buying it and were told it was garbage.  They also want pain and suffering compensation, because they trusted him/her (the way I'd totally trust a stranger peddling an old beater on CL) and now their heart is broken along with the POS car. I agree I hate these cases, as 9/10 times they're a total waste of air time. The only way I get some enjoyment from them is if there is fraud involved, like the lying creep who turned an odometer back.

[teebax]

3 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

Oh, they've seen them, they just think their case is somehow special and they deserve their money back because THEIR junker conked out only 3 days after buying it OR they took it to a mechanic after buying it and were told it was garbage.  They also want pain and suffering compensation, because they trusted him/her (the way I'd totally trust a stranger peddling an old beater on CL) and now their heart is broken along with the POS car. I agree I hate these cases, as 9/10 times they're a total waste of air time. The only way I get some enjoyment from them is if there is fraud involved, like the lying creep who turned an odometer back.

I'm putting them next to cell phone cases, dog bite cases, and loan/gift cases. I hope that doesn't meant I'll never watch TPC again, but I'm so over the same types of cases.

Now that I think about it, I'll just come here BEFORE I watch so I know whether or not to tune in. I appreciate those of you who slog through the BS cases so I don't have to!

[Katy M]

I prefer the car cases to the ex suing for money that they gave or loaned.  I never watch those.  Even if you think you're going to be together forever, if it's that important to you to get the money back, put it in writing.  If it's not, don't get all vengeful just because you broke up.

[AngelaHunter]

I love cases like yesterday's - all contracts and my favorite type. Maybe the litigants were kind of bozos but at least we didn't have to hear about baby mommas, jailbirds, smashed windshields, or idiots having drunken altercations and all that sordid crap, related in murdered English.

 

48 minutes ago, teebax said:

I'm putting them next to cell phone cases, dog bite cases, and loan/gift cases.

 Ditto that. I hate cell phone cases in general, but they particularly annoy me when parents are fighting over $600 phones given to 12-year old children who - surprise! - lose, break or have them stolen and then lie about it. Grrrrr. 

Thank goodness for SRTouch's fab recaps, which let me know which cases to skip before I even begin watching!

[SRTouch]

1. he ruined her Mercedes' window: quite the intro with this one. Plaintiff comes in and from the intro I gather she thinks we should be VERY impressed that she has a Mercedes... in the preview clip we hear that she will only take her car in for work at a Mercedes dealer - so particular that she drives from Delaware to New York to get her cracked windshield repaired... and that's when we get the first hint that she's not some spoiled rich folk - when asked she tells us that those Mercedes dealers in Delaware are just to darn expensive. Anyway, when she found someone who would work on her Mercedes (notice I keep saying Mercedes instead of "car," that's cuz this lady seems to think a "Mercedes" is extra special) the inept dufus managed to break her power window and even scratched her window tinting... so she figures she deserves $5,000 because of the heartache. Huh, couldn't possibly let anyone but an authorized "Mercedes-Benz" dealer work on her car, so much so that she drives to another state to get a chip in her windshield fixed, and ends up at some non-Mercedes authorized auto glass shop because they fixed her minivan window 20 odd years ago. Ok, don't think much of her, but get a laugh when, according to the intro, defendant says her "Mercedes" is actually a 1999 POS not worth 5 grand. Poor MM can't even read plaintiff's damage request without laughing about the $4600 request for punitive damages for the horror of her power window not shutting when she pushes the button. Plaintiff has a well rehearsed opening statement, all about how she isn't happy to be in court, but is pleased to be on TPC - yep, suck up to da judge. Well... plaintiff may be full of it, but at least she speaks intelligently - just no common sense and a silly case. Anyway, her story makes a little more sense after MM questions her. She didn't really drive to NY for the repair, she was already coming because her mother had a stroke. Ah, but now she has to add that, while the windshield repair was satisfactory, she wasn't happy that it took so long... I mean, she says it should only take 30-40 minutes, but these guys didn't drop everything to take care of her and it took all day. MM asks repair dude why it took so long. He explains that even though lady called a couple days in advance, there are a couple different windshields that could go into her car depending on her actual model, and when she came in it turned out they had ordered the wrong glass. (She disputes this, saying when she asked after sitting for an hour she was told the glass had never arrived.) I got the feeling MM is getting tired of the plaintiff as she tries to get her to hurry up and get to the reason for the frivolous suit - plaintiff doesn't want to deviate from her rehearsed story and does a little talk over action as MM tells her to move it along. Ah, that throws her off and the practiced professional facade starts to cracks as she gets more animated. Anyway, her story is when she goes to get in the car both her front windows are down, and when she hits the control the drivers side won't go up. (Her daughter was there, but can't be in court today because the 25yo is working - she's a flight attendant - but she send along a notarized statement. Guess she figures if she throws out enough irrelevant information that makes her sound important we'll forget how flimsy her case is.) She goes back into the shop to raise some righteous hell. Defendant doesn't even need to say anything, as MM asks what her theory is of how her window was broken, okay timing is suspicious, but this is a 18yo car, things wear out, and what could the repair shop have done to damage the window that makes any sense. Ah, she's mad about having to sit and wait at the repair shop like everyone else, because shop owner got nasty and rude when she complained, oh, and she claims the broken window motor was a ploy to get her to come back and get it repaired. MM let's plaintiff get excited and act the fool for awhile, but it's obvious she has already decided not to make the shop pay for the window not going up and down. When MM has milked that for all it's worth, she asks for an explanation of the $5,000 claim - after all, we still have 5 minutes to fill. More nonsense. Defendant finally gets to talk a little. He admits his guy screwed up and scratched her tinting when he  used a suction cup to pull up non-operating window - says it would cost $20 to re-tint the window. Says he offered to replace the inoperable window motor for $200 plus parts, and that he'd redo the tint for free if she brought it to him to get done. Whatever happened to "I only let Mercedes-Benz authorized dealers work on my car" line? I really wanted to know where she got that window repaired. She said when she got it fixed (not by the defendant) it was $276 - which included the tinting... sounds like his price was pretty close. I'm guessing quite a bit less than a Mercedes-Benz dealer would charge. Ah, enough time wasted, time for the ruling and the only question is how much MM is going to make dude pay for the tint scratch. Plaintiff doesn't like what she's hearing, keeps trying to interrupt the ruling to the point where MM tells her " no, I'm done"... doesn't shut her up, though, and I'm hoping MM gets mad and tosses her without the $20 for a tint job... nah, not how MM rolls, she gets the 20 bucks. 
2. contractor wants to be paid:  dude repaired some water damage for defendant, she pocketed the insurance check, he still hasn't been paid. Homeowner says dude was unprofessional, brought his youngster to the job and kid used her bed as a trampoline, he doesn't deserve any money because he left when job undone when she complained. Defendant has quite the look as she sweeps majestically into court, throwing open the doors with both hands, then repeats the move with the gates. Not only the attitude, but what's with those lips? Then she starts yacking, ah, the head bopping, and does she have something going on with her teeth - hey, another one who is starting out sounding intelligent - but I'm getting a sort of pretentious vibe here. Oh, and don't you love to hear homeowners who find their contractor when they run into each other at a convenience store... hey, dude, I see you're wearing painter pants, how bout coming over and giving me an estimate cuz I need tens of thousands of dollars worth of crap done to my house - don't worry, I have State Farm footing the bills. Dude says he was the general contractor and should have received the insurance checks, not just for his work but so he could pay the subs. When State Farm issues checks, they put both the general contractor and the homeowner on the check - he says she kept the checks, forged his endorsement, and refuses to give him anything. Ok, let's see the contract... oh, he didn't keep a copy ? ok, maybe defendant has a copy, after all her defense seems to be he breached the contract so isn't entitled to anything... nah, she doesn't have it either. Time for commercial break... but the preview has me wondering WTH these folks are doing here. From the clip, homeowner has an ongoing case for forgery... so why would plaintiff sue before that case is settled - couldn't restitution be part of that case if she's found guilty, and if she isn't ordered to pay then file this case...  and why would this lady come on TV and open her mouth where the prosecution can put this testimony under a microscope. Ah, more no evidence nonsense. This was major water damage and mold remediation and plaintiff was to receive a total of $34,000 in 5 checks. First couple checks received no problem. Then they have the kerfuffle. He does the upstairs and most of the downstairs. 8 grand still owed for the floor subcontractor - but he didn't think to bring evidence of that outstanding money... she keeps the remaining three checks.... again, WTH are they here with the other case pending?! From the numbers he throwing out, maybe he can't wait til the criminal case is over - I'm hearing thousands of dollars he has to cover for any crew and materials, never mind him working for free for weeks. Hmmm, maybe she's here practicing, trying to come up with a plausible story... cause what she says I'm not buying. She says the breaking point was his bringing his 4 yo to the job site three times - yeah, he admits he brought his son to a couple meetings when day care flaked out, afierce asking and she told him it wouldn't be a problem. Then, guy did sheet rock on two floors, removed wallpaper and resurfaced walls, did ceilings, prepped the whole house and painted upstairs, and she says he was only onsite 6 times... well, maybe he has a great crew who did the work, but he says he was there 2 weeks, 7 days a week, treating it as emergency work to get her back in the house and out of a motel. Whether he was there 6 times or 14 days, somebody did the work and he was paying them. Well, at least defendant knows enough to put on the brakes and say her attorney told her to plead the 5th... but again WTH... no, already asked that... MM really doesn't have much to adjudicate now that she's stopped talking... I suppose she could dismiss without prejudice, but otherwise all she has is plaintiff's testimony. She does give the defendant a stern talking to, telling her she's toast if plaintiff is telling it like it is... MM gives her a hard time, yells a little, and demands "WHAT WERE YOU THINKING?"  Defendant WANTS to respond, but has wised up enough to shut up. Course, dude wins, but MM asks the same question I have... why sue in small claims where the max is 5 grand when he's owed 30 thousand... oh, and the IRS is after him cuz they figure he was paid. Maybe one question answered in hallterview... the lack of evidence from plaintiff may be because this whole deal wasn't exactly a chance encounter at the 7 Eleven, no he says they were friends before.
3. another contractor case - but this time contractor is plaintiff's tenant: plaintiff says he hired his contractor/tenant to repair his roof and ceiling - paid in full before work started - dude fixed the roof but never did the ceiling... ah, intro isn't even over and I'm figuring simple contract case - with no contract. Defendant says the whole kerfuffle started when plaintiff/landlord said he wasn't going to renew his lease. Says there was no completion date specified on the ceiling - admits he stopped work when told he would have to move, but it's all good since he can't be in breach if there were no dates specified - and now the louse is evicting him. (And yes, contractor dude lives in house with the falling ceiling.) Uh... so far all I've seen is the intro, but me thinks dude is depending on the wrong defense. In the clip before commercial we hear it's been two years, and as long time court TV viewers, we all know that da judge can decide what a reasonable period is for a job to be completed - and two years might be stretching it. The real stretch in this case is believing defendant is an actual contractor with a business,  and that a contractor has lived in a falling down rental for two years without a freaking ceiling - ok, turns out maybe the sheet rock was replaced, but the texture was never finished, that part never really made clear. I mean, I would think in two years he might get it done on when odd days when work was rained out on other jobs. Nah, I'm thinking, just from dude's appearance, that he's a boozer and probably not licensed to handle any type of contracting job. Can't even going to laugh (much) when he doesn't answer when asked how long he thinks he has to complete the job. Dude is just so sad and pitiful, looks like he's still hung over with those baggy eyes and blank expression, and when asked his answer is just "ummmmmm." He finally starts talking when MM starts talking about why eviction proceedings were started. Plaintiff says not only did he not complete the job in two years, but he stopped paying rent. This gets dude upset. He says plaintiff agreed to lower the rent when his roomy, gf, and her dogs moved out. But dude reneged on lowering the rent - guess he figures that means time for a rent strike - oh, and he was told plaintiff wasn't going to renew the lease, and besides plaintiff wanted to store some crap in the basement. Ah, now defendant is trying to school the Cum laude law school graduate and retired Florida judge on what constitutes a binding agreement... yeah, that goes over REALLY well. Quick decision, plaintiff wins his case over the uncompleted, but paid for, work - MM makes it clear she doesn't have jurisdiction in the rent/eviction dispute.

Edited October 19, 2017 by SRTouch

[NYGirl]

Wow just wow to the case today with the contractor and the defendant who looked kind of normal who stole the insurance checks drawn to the order of both of them.  It amazes me how the litigants just stand there with a  deer in the headlights look when they are proved wrong.  This defendant was one of them.  And 2 small children..geez.  I bet she's a single mother.  Since she stayed at a hotel I'm assuming you doesn't have family in the area.  Who's gonna watch those kids when she goes to jail?

[AngelaHunter]

Is someone from the show reading this forum? We got three more awesome contract cases. Loved!

50 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

he ruined her Mercedes' window:

Did that woman, who started off with a little JM ass-kissing, not realize how foolish she - a seemingly intelligent mature person - sounded? She wants 5,000$ in punitive damages because def, for some unfathomable reason, broke her window mechanism? It couldn't be because her car is 18 years old and things might just break on it. No, if anything goes wrong with it, it has to be someone's fault and they must pay the maximum price. No jackpot or "boe-nanza" for her. Ooops, she gets 20$. I wonder if she's still so admiring of JM?

 

56 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

contractor wants to be paid: 

This was all kinds of awesome. It started badly, since the contractor plaintiff just takes his signed contracts for jobs amounting to over 30K and tosses them in the trash. He never thought he'd need it, you see.  Contracts? We don't need no stinkin' contracts! Idiot. However, it was just lucky for him that it was easy to prove that def is a huge crook who forged his name to insurance checks and pocketed all the money. She had a weirdly flat affect to JM's castigation of and disgust in her. Seriously, if my criminal acts and lies were being showcased for millions of viewers, I would die of shame but it fazed her not at all. I would have found this a lot more fun if def. weren't in charge of two young children. THAT is what is truly disgusting. I really have to hope they'll be taken away from her, as someone so amoral with her sociopathic demeanor should never be allowed to raise kids.  OH, but anyone is allowed to have as many kids as they like, even if they aren't fit to be entrusted with the care of a snail because it's their right! Sadly, the kids have no rights at all to have a decent and reasonable parent.

 

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

another contractor case - but this time contractor is plaintiff's tenant: 

Funny! Def is a Yogi, who just shrugs when asked why he hadn't done the job he'd been paid for, since it's been two years. He just didn't, that's all, since plaintiff was dumb enough to contract for def. to do the work "at his leisure." Well, to him "his leisure" might extend for many years to come. I"m always amazed at how guillible and naive so many landlords we see here are. You'd think they'd have learned more about human nature and not to blindly trust just anyone.

All these cases make me so thankful that all during my long working life, I never once had to deal with the public.

[babs j.]

When I watched case #2 today and Judge MM yelled at the defendant I thought daughter and sister of contractor.  Something like that may have happened to someone in her family.

[teebax]

I liked all three cases too. I should have clarified,  it's not auto cases I hate, it's cases when someone buys a used car and wants the warranty of a new one. The window case was funny to me because she sued foe 5k and won 20 bucks. 

It does suck when you bring your car to the shop and something else isn't working when you pick it up, but that's the nature of older cars. Shit breaks, and you fix it. If her 99 Mercedes is in good enough condition to drive from Delaware to NYC, I'm sure it has been lovingly maintained.  I would've sympathized with the plaintiff had she not sued for 5k.

The only thing I didn't understand about the stolen insurance checks case was why on Earth he sued in small claims court. Maybe he figured a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. If she's going to jail, he wasn't gettinf anything out of her. She was oddly calm for someone in so much trouble. Then she told Doug she only received a ticket. WTF?

[AngelaHunter]

59 minutes ago, teebax said:

The only thing I didn't understand about the stolen insurance checks case was why on Earth he sued in small claims court. Maybe he figured a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

Exactly. At least here he knows he'll get 5K which is better than zero, which is what would have happened in any other court. Even if he won a judgement for the whole amount he would never have seen a penny. I really doubt she was going to start working two jobs (if she's not in the slammer) for years to come to pay him his money.

I can't imagine what "ticket" she was talking about. There is something very wrong with her.

 

Quote

Oh, and don't you love to hear homeowners who find their contractor when they run into each other at a convenience store... hey, dude, I see you're wearing painter pants, how bout coming over and giving me an estimate cuz I need tens of thousands of dollars worth of crap done to my house - don't worry, I have State Farm footing the bills

Haha! Funny, SRTouch! But really, we've seen women here hook up with guys that way and take them home.

Edited October 19, 2017 by AngelaHunter

[Florinaldo]

3 hours ago, teebax said:

I liked all three cases too. I should have clarified,  it's not auto cases I hate, it's cases when someone buys a used car and wants the warranty of a new one. The window case was funny to me because she sued foe 5k and won 20 bucks. 

It does suck when you bring your car to the shop and something else isn't working when you pick it up, but that's the nature of older cars. Shit breaks, and you fix it. If her 99 Mercedes is in good enough condition to drive from Delaware to NYC, I'm sure it has been lovingly maintained.  I would've sympathized with the plaintiff had she not sued for 5k.

The only thing I didn't understand about the stolen insurance checks case was why on Earth he sued in small claims court. Maybe he figured a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. If she's going to jail, he wasn't gettinf anything out of her. She was oddly calm for someone in so much trouble. Then she told Doug she only received a ticket. WTF?

Those car buyers are really annoying; it's always difficult to say what wins out in their head, their delusions about the degree of mechanical perfection one can reasonably expect from an older car or a sense of entitlement. The mix may be in equal proportions.

I agree with others that in the forged checks case the plaintiff figured out, or was explained, that he stood a good chance of winning the whole of the kitty available for each award considering the apparently strong criminal case against the forger. Payment is guaranteed since it comes from the show's production company, whereas she would probably have found ways to evade payment obligations from another court, especially if she goes to jail.

"Ticket" may be a euphemism for a citation to appear or the act of accusation that she uses to make her situation look more presentable when she has to discuss it with other people.

Edited October 19, 2017 by Florinaldo

[SRTouch]

1. dead beat dad/son in law: plaintiff suing her ex-son in law  over a loan - oh yeah, and dude hasn't been paying his child support and her daughter and grandkids were evicted. Defendant says plaintiff wrote the rent check directly to daughter's landlord, and shortly thereafter he repaid the loan by giving the money directly to the daughter. Uhm...either intro is totally out of whack (which is fairly normal) or it  will be an easy case as soon as dude presents his evidence... ah, who am I kidding, evidence?!? who needs stinking evidence? let's just have both sides air their laundry in front of a national audience. Oh, and were sweet daughter/ex-wife and kids really evicted, or is that more mud slinging? Of course, dude figures as long as he's being sued, he might as well file a countersuit for  $400 for missing work. Ah, dude, when granny starts with dude being behind in child support dude makes MM dig to find out how much he was behind. Dude, she isn't going to accept "a few thousand" in arrears - just tell the judge how much you owed... and if you really aren't sure - well, that REALLY makes you look like a dead beat. He finally admits maybe 5-6 grand, but with all the stalling who knows how much he really owes. Oh, and if anybody needs more evidence of his "deadbeat-y-ness" he has to pause and think how old his kids are (ok, to be fair, he could just be someone who doesn't think about age - like me.) Course, it really isn't pertinent to the case, but MM wants to know what kind of Dad he is... and it doesn't look good when granny says he doesn't see his kids, and he admits it. Course when he says ex-wife makes it difficult to see the kids, that sets off a rant from MM about how he should fight to be in their lives. Ok, back to the case. The ex-wife (and, why isn't she in court, anyway?) calls mom/granny, - week is already two weeks late - ex hubby, Carlo, wants to know if you'll front the money to avoid pending eviction - Carlo expecting a check, and promises to pay you back. MM says she's already reviewed the texts, and plaintiff was clear that this was a loan to Carlo, and he was to pay her, granny, the money back when he got this expected check. Carlo admits MM has it right, plaintiff was loaning him the money and he was to pay HER back. I suppose that makes sense, otherwise could claim it as a child support payment - course maybe it was, but that would be between Carlo and missing ex-wife, not granny. Oh, and answer to earlier question... ex-wife and kids did end up having to move. And, a little more on how far behind dude is in support - granny brings out that dude was in family court the previous Wednesday, so he should know EXACTLY how much he currently owes. So, more digging (dude every time you make MM dig you drag it out and look worse)... previous Wednesday he owed 14 grand and change, but he made a 10 grand payment - so he's ONLY $4200+ behind now... as MM points out, enough that had he been paying ex and kids may not have had to move in with granny. Ok, this case is going nowhere... dude is a deadbeat and family oriented MM will rant, then lecture him, then slam him... everybody knows it, dude is NOT entertainment ingredients and about to put me to sleep when he talks. I hit FF at the 8 minute mark. I stop and listen to Doug ask Carlo what he thinks about how MM laid into him (just as I thought - not worth going back to listen to) and Carlo comes out with some nonsense about "the truth will prevail, in the future" huh? When asked, he tells Doug that he IS a good Dad, and granny and the ex just make him look bad, the courts just favor the mother over the father,  he's spent thousands fighting in family court (wonder if he's talking about the 10 grand judge made him pay the previous Wednesday, so that he'd only be 4 grand behind in support).... yeah, sure, Father of the Year Candidate who is habitually thousands behind in support while ex and kids fight eviction every month until they move in with granny. Have to love Doug! "Well, if you'd just paid granny the $2100 you owed her you wouldn't have had to be here today."
2. accountant suing client for nonpayment for services: well dressed plaintiff says he gave defendant a break by letting guy delay payment because defendant owed government money, but it's been long enough, and he needs to pay up the  $173. Defendant says the reason he owes back taxes is that inept plaintiff didn't send in his tax form, so he shouldn't have to pay when plaintiff got him in tax trouble. Plaintiff appears to be trying hard to sound like he knows what the heck he's talking about, but what he's saying is coming out like a bunch of double talk... not saying he's crooked - it could be he just can't translate his professional language into something I understand. Nah, after some more listening, MM can't make heads or rails of his story, either. She gets frustrated with dude, and crosses the aisle to see if defendant can make sense of it. Ok, now I get it. For whatever reason, defendant's 2015 taxes were never filed. Plaintiff says he prepared the forms, defendant admits he received the comelted form and says he mailed it in, but IRS and NY State say they either never received it or there was a mistake... so dude can't file 2016 until the screw up is fixed. Sounds like everyone just threw up their hands and no one tried to fix the problem... plaintiff saying it's up to defendant tried out work it out with the IRS, while defendant says he paid guy to do the 2015 return, so it's on plaintiff,  and oh, BTW he isn'the paying for 2016 until plaintiff fixes the 2015 problem. Ah, dude, you just testified plaintiff completed the 2015 form and gave it to you to mail in... you can't not pay him for 2016 because the 2015 form was lost after he gave it to you. Ok... another case which maybe shouldn't have made the case. First we have plaintiff who can't communicate, and then animated defendant who can't see that he has no defense and isn't the least bit entertaining. Hmmm, maybe just me, but for second time today I hit FF (well, second case, but third time, since I hit the button twice in 1st case).
3. bad car deal: hmmm, sounds more like buyers remorse than a bad car. According to intro, plaintiff picked out a car signed the contract and put the deposit on his card, then decided too many extras were added, so wanted out of the deal and stopped payment. Now, he's suing because the dealer allegedly put the charge through a second time a couple months later, his bank put it through and charged his account. Defendant says he got the financing approved, accepted the deposit and yayhoo was supposed to pick up his new car the next day when he showed proof of insurance. Says plaintiff paid the deposit then disappeared for 5 months. Deposits are non-refundable. Had plaintiff contacted them maybe they could have worked out a partial refund, but after his disappearing act defendant feels he deserves to keep the whole $2500. Oh, and defendant disputes the plaintiff's timeline... says he made repeated calls when plaintiff failed to show up when it was time to pick up the car, dude hung up on him and then ignored his calls, and didn't try to dispute the charge for a month after charge was made - no putting in the charge a second time two months later nonsense... gotta admit defendant is more believable, especially about the repeated attempts to contact flakey  plaintiff because "I work on commission and don't get paid if dude backs out." Yep, once again a waste of time case where all the evidence (defendant produces lots of paperwork while plaintiff just has yakity yak) makes for a simple slam dunk case. Paperwork shows plaintiff signed a contract, applied for and was given financing, make a clearly non-refundable deposit, then waited 6 weeks before disputing it. Not sure how he expects to win anything... ah, and of course, he admits he didn'the bother to read all that stuff before signing.  Ok, case is pretty much over, but with ten minutes we still have plenty of time for plaintiff to act the fool. And, he doesn't disppoint... he insists he shouldn't have to pay because, after the paperwork was all signed the salesman got up and walked away. Huh, maybe he went to talk to the salesmanager, or maybe ran out to see another potential customer he had been working with who just arranged, or maybe just a quick trip to the loo... what about him walking away would undo a legal contract. Ok, maybe it's not too late to get a partial refund, you know $2500 for the trouble/work of several folks getting him approved may be considered unjust enrichment - but nah, I believe he disappeared and left them hanging, maybe a $2500 lesson is in order. It definitely doesn't help his case to argue with the judge when she is holding the paperwork he signed which proves he's wrong. What looks even worse to me, I believe defendant's that he disappeared and ducked them, never trying to work a compromise, but instead going straight to trying to dispute the charge and not coming back to have a face to face until he lost the dispute. Heck, they say even when he finally showed back up in April (he signed the paperwork way back at the end of January) they were willing to let him use the deposit for a different vehicle, but not willing to give him anything cash. Oh, boy, I just realized all this is over a year old. A year ago January they offered to let him transfer the full $2500 deposit, but he wasn't ready to buy. Now, a year later, they're not nearly as ready to forgive and forget... no now, over a year later, even though they could say his deposit is gone, they're willing to give him $1000 deposit. Ah, but he feels they should give him credit for the full $2500, so he decides to sue and demand a complete refund. Actually, this is disputed, defendant says they were still willing to give him a full $2500 credit, but he insists they told him $1000. Doesn't matter, once he filed suit they say enough, we're holding him to what he signed.... yeah, after the timelinevent is cleared up, I'm not willing too give him a partial refund, either. Yep, he gets nothing.

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

dead beat dad/son in law: plaintiff suing her ex-son in law  over a loan

A perfect example of what's been puzzling me for so long. Def is a short, rotund, highly unattractive deadbeat dad - so what is it about him that makes not one, but two (at least) women want him? Maybe I can give wife #1 a pass - sort of -  since maybe she didn't know what a creep he is before she popped out two kids with him, but the second wife knows damned well he not only ignores his responsibilities, but the little pig gets his ex-mother-in-law to foot his bills and then tries to worm his way out of it. Hey, he has a new family, so why should he bother himself about the old one? His ex "wont' let him" see his kids, and family court is too much of a bother for him, so why should he support them? The kids will understand, right? Let them eat cake. The best part? He's countersuing for a day of missed work to come to the court. Wow. JM gave him a verbal thrashing, but it didn't even make a dent. I bet his new wifey is all kinds of proud of his appearance here. "Oh, honey - you looked magnificent!"

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

First we have plaintiff who can't communicate, and then animated defendant who can't see that he has no defense and isn't the least bit entertaining.

 Yeah, and yeah. Not entertaining the least. I don't know why anyone found it funny that he stiffed the plaintiff

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

bad car deal: hmmm, sounds more like buyers remorse than a bad car.

Remorse? It that what it was? I could barely understand a damned garbled word from plaintiff, other than that he has a baby! No one else has a baby! He should be released from a contract he signed (but never bothered reading - why would he read it?) because he HAS A FAMILY! What little he said that I could understand made no sense. Who spends eight hours hanging around a car dealer, for nothing? Another idiot breeding. Defs were highly credible - of course they want to sell cars. That's their bread and butter. As much as we all dislike car dealers, I bet they have to put up with moronic nuisances like this plaintiff all the time.

[SRTouch]

6 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

g. Defs were highly credible - of course they want to sell cars. That's their bread and butter. As much as we all dislike car dealers, I bet they have to put up with moronic nuisances like this plaintiff all the time.

Not only credible, but actually very fair to be willing to give dude ANY store credit after over a year on a deposit that was clearly marked non-refundable. Doesn't really matter if it was a grand or 2500, they didn't have to give him a penny. Course, then he sued, and the judge said he deserves nada.

Edited October 20, 2017 by SRTouch

[Jamoche]

accountant suing client for nonpayment for services

The end is worth watching, when she gets fed up and starts laying it out in very simple terms.

[teebax]

I'm in the minority because I loved the accountant case. It might be because  I was an accountant in a past life, but I completely understood the plaintiff. If the AGI doesn't match,  you can't file electronically. I loved MM's example of ordering a Dewar`s and water (if that's her drink of choice, I love her even more.) I loved the litigants and just genuinely enjoyed this case. 

[califred]

Deadbeat dad owed like 16 grand I'm guessing that two years of child support.   Asshole oh I'll have more kids even though I don't support the ones I've already got here.

 

I just couldn't with tax return defendant. 

[mk04447]

21 hours ago, SRTouch said:

1. dead beat dad/son in law: plaintiff suing her ex-son in law  over a loan - oh yeah, and dude hasn't been paying his child support and her daughter and grandkids were evicted. Defendant says plaintiff wrote the rent check directly to daughter's landlord, and shortly thereafter he repaid the loan by giving the money directly to the daughter. Uhm...either intro is totally out of whack (which is fairly normal) or it  will be an easy case as soon as dude presents his evidence...

Really? This must be one of her worst and most egregious decisions I've seen. That poor guy simply wasn't articulate enough to defend himself, he should have never been ordered to repay the mother. The guy has an obligation to pay child support, not his ex-wife's rent. Why would he pay twice? You seem to be caught up emotion, like the judge, and cannot seem to think clearly. Paying the ex-wife is perfectly logical, he wanted credit for the payment in regards to his arrears; he didn't care about her apartment and shouldn't, that's simply what she needed the child support for. The dirtbag here is the daughter, clearly the mom had reservations about giving the money directly to her, the ex-wife should repay the mother. The guy needs a lawyer, or a better one. Terrible case and worse decision. 

[califred]

@mk04447 Perhaps ic he wasn't a deadbeat asshole and didn't owe $16k in back child support it would be different.  If he'd paid child support she could have paid her rent/. And regardless of what ex husbands think rent is part of providing for his children.  And if you listened closely he said they did give him credit for the $$ he gave mom in his final ridiculous dead beat amount.  He still owed her the money.  He was a deadbeat jerk.  You don't get to quit supporting your first kids just because you had second kids.  

@mk04447 Perhaps ic he wasn't a deadbeat asshole and didn't owe $16k in back child support it would be different.  If he'd paid child support she could have paid her rent/. And regardless of what ex husbands think rent is part of providing for his children.  And if you listened closely he said they did give him credit for the $$ he gave mom in his final ridiculous dead beat amount.  He still owed her the money.  He was a deadbeat jerk.  You don't get to quit supporting your first kids just because you had second kids.  

 

And now that I see you joined 44 minutes ago and this is your only post I'm going to assume you are him.  And stand by every word I said.

[AngelaHunter]

51 minutes ago, mk04447 said:

That poor guy simply wasn't articulate enough to defend himself,

Maybe he couldn't defend himself because there is no defense to owing something like 15K in back child support, or the fact that he has two new kids and doesn't bother trying to see the "old" ones AND he actually said he would pay back the MIL. He certainly doesn't have to support the ex-wife or care about her living conditions, but his children live with her and yeah, some of the child support goes to keeping a roof over the kids' heads (along with heat and food and clothes for them). He should care that they lost their home after they already lost their father. His first responsibility is to the first kids he helped make. Supporting them is not optional. It certainly isn't optional for custodial parents - the mother, in this case, who may very well be a deadbeat too (if she can't be trusted not to blow the rent money) but she's a deadbeat who has the kids and he's not paying his share. The MIL shouldn't have to pay his obligations. Big losers here? The first kids.

 

califred said:

Quote

And now that I see you joined 44 minutes ago and this is your only post I'm going to assume you are him.

Or the new wife. Calling the ex a "dirtbag" makes me think that may be the case.;)

Edited October 20, 2017 by AngelaHunter

[teebax]

"You seem to be caught up emotion, like the judge, and cannot seem to think clearly."

The judge is caught up in emotion and not thinking clearly? It sounds like someone is late to their MRA meeting to me.

Don't you just hate when women get all emotional and insist men pay for their children's support?