The People's Court - General Discussion

[ElleMo]

18 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Hmmm, I missed the "lost wages" portion of the claim, and may well have jumped to the conclusion that he was living off his parents. To be fair, he and his friends could all be gainfully employed, each kicking get in a portion of the rent for their joint club house.

 

Plaintiff did mention at the beginning that he had looked at the place about a year before renting.  At the time, he didn't have enough money. Eventually, he did and he mentioned he had some friends who contributed too, so that is when he rented the place.  Nice change from all the people who rent and then stop paying because they have no money and think that it is an OK excuse.    Really sleazy landlord, especially since the property sat for a year with no one renting it.  You are getting some money for this space.  Don't push it and squeeze the poor renters for everything you can.

[meowmommy]

23 hours ago, SRTouch said:

1. So, as mentioned, he raises the rent, then cuts the space they can use, took away bathroom privileges, made them build a wall to keep them out of the rest of the warehouse. (I actually see the reasoning behind the wall. 

Somehow, the topic of building walls seems rather painful right now.

[SRTouch]

1. TRIP AND FALL SCAM ATTEMPT: I could be all wrong, but this sure seemed like a scam as soon as the plaintiff started telling her story. Supposedly she's at the ice cream shop having dessert with hubby, son and his wife, after her birthday dinner. After finishing up, she decides to walk the mile and a half home, not because of any fight, just to go for a walk (this DOES NOT look like a lady who does a lot of walking). Now, I realise there may be some reason why she went on her solo walk, maybe hubby and sonny both drove and needed to drive the cars home. But, at least in my family, elderly retired ladies do not go for mile long walks alone. Much more likely in my family for son and/or daughter in law to insist on walking with her, even if only to extend the visit, and then have hubby take them back for their car. (My Dad had bad knees.) Anyway, on the way plaintiff claims she tripped, fell, and was injured requiring expensive dental work and medical treatment. As she's describing her injuries MM calls up hubby, her witness. Turns out hubby is one of those who tries to run things, interrupting and talking over wife and judge. Takes zero time before I dislike him, and by the end of the case I wonder if he might not have knocked her upside the head - no basis for the thought except how irritating he is and she seems awfully meek. Anyway, back to her story, she trips and falls, is knocked out, and wakes up to some passerby telling her the cops and ambulance are on the way. Across the aisle to defendant, who owns the property where defendant supposedly fell on the horribly maintained and unsafe sidewalk. (Oh, plaintiffs have pictures of the "dangerous" sidewalk. From what I see, that sidewalk is in better shape than my patio. The cracks they show looks to be nothing at all.) I think only reason defendant and her two witnesses are here is to say they were on TPC, because she could have mailed in her defense and won. Defendant says since she doesn't live there, the first she heard of the "accident" was when her cleaning crew found mail left behind by tenants who moved out. Uh oh, bet plaintiffs are wishing that old mail hadn't been found. Turns out plaintiffs have already lost this case in a different court, and now MM has that court's ruling in hand. Turns out in the earlier case they hired a lawyer, and in that case plaintiff also claimed to have a broken hip, and now MM has a signed, swore statement from plaintiff claiming a broken hip which she now denies ever claiming. MM takes a recess to go off to review the case, don't know why because she couldn't overrule the ruling anyway... maybe it's just time for a break. After the recess she comes back and tells the plaintiffs her independent study of the laws in their jurisdiction agree with the previous ruling. Heck, according to the statutes in their town, defendant would not be liable even if the sidewalk had been unsafe - at most, if I heard correctly, she would be fined not liable for medical damages. In hallterview plaintiffs still maintain their lawyer never told them the ruling from the first case. 
2. NOT YOUR TYPICAL USED CAR DEAL: plaintiff gets the bright idea to buy an old motor home to live in, thinking he'll save money paying lot rental instead of apartment rent. Dude, the lot fee is just the beginning - registration and insurance will eat you alive, not to mentioned routine maintenance and gas, and that's assuming your new/old RV is in halfway decent shape. He finds defendant and his old 1988 Pace Arrow and buys it for $2k. (Initial thought was way too much money, but quick and dirty search shows a NADA low value over $8 grand for low retail for base model with no options.) Problems pop up from the beginning. It runs, but is not registered for public roadways. Plaintiff doesn't worry about legalities, $10 in gas and he's off driving - illegally... but only gets 3 miles before running out of gas. Gets it towed and parks close to Mommy's house on a public street and moves in. 3 days later cops come a knocking - guess what, you can't just park an RV anywhere and set up house - and remember this thing is not legal to be on the road, parked or driving. Since he never registered it, when cops run it they figure it's stolen and idiot doesn't have drivers license or ID. It takes a while to get a hold of the seller, so dummy ends up staying in jail for three days. Now a comedy of errors, or just two really stupid guys. RV sits in storage racking up storage fees while these two twiddle their thumbs because buyer has the paperwork and seller is registered owner. Eventually, the tow company gets title as an abandoned vehicle, and auctions it off for $800. In another twist, 30 minutes before court, defendant called tow yard. The buyers from the auction never showed to pick it up. MM takes a recess and calls and talks to tow yard, and they've agreed to turn to vehicle over for $800 to whichever litigant shows up by COB Friday. Hurray, all the tow and storage charges are gone for the low low price of $800. MM gives plaintiff first crack, but tells defendant if plaintiff doesn't meet the deadline he can have it ... and defendant says he'll happily pay the $800 if plaintiff doesn't, then sell it again. Ah but plaintiff shows, so defendant's hopes of another payday are dashed. Couple unanswered questions remain. DMV supposedly wanted a bunch of money in back registration fees because the vehicle was on a public road illegally. Did those fees vanish when tow lot got title as an abandoned vehicle, or will someone show up looking for money from the seller, the legal owner when it was impounded? Also, it was mentioned AAA was going to charge big money, I think $1400, to tow it from impound - how much did plaintiff end up paying?
3. UNUSUAL PHONE CASE: well, yes it's a phone, but not the normal nonpayment when someone is added to a plan case. This time it's a guy who buys cheap stuff and sells it on ebay. Dude sells a phone to sister of an acquaintance, over a year later girl has only paid $270 of the $800 cost. Both litigants receive lectures. Plaintiff really never set a payment plan, isn't positive of the price and was one of those pay whatever whenever dudes. Defendant is feeling harassed because guy is asking for what she promised to pay over a year ago. She's one of those entitled people who feel that her debt should be forgiven because she lost her job. Luckily, MM has a bunch of texts she can shift through looking for what the phones was supposed to cost and how much has been paid. Plaintiff ends up getting $530 plus court costs and interest. Course he wanted way more than that, over 2 grand, because of the hassle of chasing girl for the money. Which makes countersuit even funnier. Not only does defendant feel her debt should be forgiven because she's a student who lost her job, she argues guy told her to pay what and when she could, then harassed her demanding the money - dude even came to her house and knocked on the door because she stopped returning calls/texts for crying out loud.

Edited November 11, 2016 by SRTouch
Wording changed

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

I could be all wrong, but this sure seemed like a scam as soon as the plaintiff started telling her story.

I could be wrong too, but the instant she said it was daylight and she saw the street was rough, I thought, "You lose." Outrageous, money-grubbing witch. She fell. It happens, and someone else doesn't always have to pay. Her lawyer dropped the case but she doesn't know why? I do - because she had no case and even the sleaziest ambulance chaser would know that. I loved how when JM asked her why her lawyer's letter said she'd fractured her hip, when she hadn't. "I don't know," says scammer and then changes subject. So not only does she have to pay for her own stitches and veneers, but the court costs for all these cases she filed all over the place. Oh, and if anyone needed the 1 1/2 mile walk home, it was her husband. Take Tubby home and forget about the suing stuff. Defendant should have gotten some money for all the ridiculous harassment those con artists put her through.

The RV case - omg. Now we had a 28-year old man who is as utterly dumb and clueless as a newborn baby. He parks the old RV on the street and walks away, thinking, "Oh, it'll be fine," except it's not. He has no ID - his wallet got stolen - so he ends up in jail for three days. He had to leave the nest at  Mommy's home because stepdad is mean to him. I can understand it. Stepdad is fed up to here with having a man who's pushing 30 hanging around the house. I don't know what def's excuse is for being so stupid at his age. Both of them got on JM's last nerve with their major DUH-ness. How do these people function in the world? Neither of them could walk and chew gum at the same time.

Last case was a bore. Cell phones with Dumb and Dumber. Even someone who has a marginal job/no job really needs an 800$ phone.  Maybe Snapchats and explicit selfies look better on such a phone? I wouldn't know, since mine cost 109$. Bitch is one of the Overly-Entitled generation, who thinks an expensive weave job and a lot of makeup absolve her from her responsibilities. "Why would I send him a check (for the money I owe him)?" Why, indeed? What a nerve he had, bothering her for the money she owed him. Someone needs a little of the School of Hard Knocks. I hope plaintiff got a clue from all this.

[Taeolas]

On 11/10/2016 at 5:51 PM, marny said:

What makes you think he doesn't have a job? He was somehow able to pay rent for the space so he's getting that money from somewhere.  He and his friends are allowed to have a hobby.  In fact, I think he also tried to get "lost wages" which presumably mean he has wages.

I agree, the skater seemed to be on his game. My cousin ran his own skateboard shop when he was that age as well, and did well; there is money in that sport, both for the skaters and the ones who sell to them. Usually those skateboard parks are kept clean (if a bit grafittied) and in good shape since they don't want to be rolling over broken stuff (or at least stuff broken in the wrong spots)

 

I suspect he was so well prepared because of the skater stereotypes. Either his friends helped him prepare or he was ready to go against type in general to put a good apperance and it showed. Glad it worked out for him, and hope he and his friends have a better spot for this winter. 

[momtoall]

9 hours ago, OhioSongbird said:

The young man in the skateboard case was a cutie!  I'd be all over that if I were 40 yrs younger.....;-)

And I was also impressed at how prepared he was.  Landlord was a POS.

I'm in a "get off my lawn" mood due to the pain I'm in from a bone spur on my rotator cuff (old injury) so I guess I don't see what everyone else does regarding the plaintiff.  I think he just looked good because the defendant was such an ass.

[AZChristian]

48 minutes ago, momtoall said:

I'm in a "get off my lawn" mood due to the pain I'm in from a bone spur on my rotator cuff (old injury) so I guess I don't see what everyone else does regarding the plaintiff.  I think he just looked good because the defendant was such an ass.

You need more pain meds.  The kid was adorable.  (Hope you feel better soon.)

[teebax]

I'm nursing a sprained ankle due to a nasty spill I took down my parents' front steps. I missed the last step and went ass over head. It would never dawn on me to blame anyone other than myself for my injury. Sometimes people fall because of negligence. Most of the times, we fall because of carelessness. 

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, teebax said:

I'm nursing a sprained ankle due to a nasty spill I took down my parents' front steps. I missed the last step and went ass over head. It would never dawn on me to blame anyone other than myself for my injury.

I'm sure if you try, you can find someone to pay. Try "GoFundMe" if you can't find someone to sue.

That aside, hope you're up and about soon and glad it wasn't worse!

[momtoall]

Get well soon teebax.  Missed you .....

[teebax]

6 hours ago, momtoall said:

Get well soon teebax.  Missed you .....

Thanks. I haven't left; I'm usually lurking. You guys seem to cover things well enough by the time I've watched the episode that I don't have anything to add!

[AngelaHunter]

53 minutes ago, teebax said:

Thanks. I haven't left; I'm usually lurking. You guys seem to cover things well enough by the time I've watched the episode that I don't have anything to add!

You always have something good to add!

[SRTouch]

1. Personal trainer leaves her sore: plaintiff hired personal trainer and wants money back because she was so sore after second session she couldn't lift her arms. First thought, if you're hiring a personal trainer to help you lose weight, you're going to be sore after the first few sessions. Along with that, most gyms and physical fitness programs that you pay for up front have a no refund policy - simply because so many who start give up  and quit. I don't know, though, I heard a couple things that set off alarms. (It may be hard to believe looking at me now, but once upon a time I was not only in good shape myself, but as an Army NCO I was trained to lead soldiers in physical training sessions.) A BIG part of physical training is proper warm up and cool down stretching. Without stretching beforehand you risk injury, and without proper cool down blood can pool in the muscles, leaving built up of lactic acid and soreness the next day. At a minimum I expect a personal trainer to make sure these important steps are done. With a new client coming to you because she's out of shape, I would expect a professional to be there watching and helping. Sounds like this guy didn't. Just as important is making sure exercises are done properly - especially with resistance training. Here this professional trainer has a new client doing unfamiliar exercises (the dead lifts) and he's playing with his phone - he doesn't even deny it, just excuses it by saying how busy he is with all his clients? (I'm not knocking resistance training, especially not deadlifts which are great for working multiple muscle groups. But, part of the benefit after training with a partner or in front of a mirror is so that you can stop cheating and use the proper form... here plaintiff is paying someone to monitor her, and he'says off doing something else. Done wrong, deadlifts can cause all kinds of lasting problem BECAUSE they work all those muscle groups.) Not saying she should get the refund she wanted, but I think I would have given her half, $50, because dude needs to get the message that he needs to pay attention to the client he's with. MM doesn't agree, she dismisses the case.
2. Messy painter - got what she paid for: boring case has plaintiff moving from West to East Coast. She gets at least three quotes for painting the living room and bedroom in the new apartment - a 1 bedroom for her, her husband and their two kids. Quotes run from $600 to $1500. She chooses to go with the low bid, which is half the next closest bid, and gets a messy job with drips all over, painted fixtures, etc - but then what do you expect from a painter who shows up to a job without a ladder or even a pan for his roller. Oops, any tradesman who shows up without the minimum tools needed for the job is not going to start work in my house. Lady has some serious credibility problems, as MM catches her in a couple lies. I also have questions about the timeline. As I understood it, this was a 1 bedroom, and he was not going to paint the bathroom and kitchen. He gets there between 7 and 8 in the morning, then leaves at 8 (according to him) or 10 (according to her). Heck, in that amount of time he surely had plenty of time to properly prep and spread tarps. Also appears he doesn't know how to cut in along fixtures and edges. Ah well, here comes one of plaintiff's little lies. Just after she tells MM the guy was coming back the next day she tries to claim she didn't know he was coming back to finish up. Her hubby (who sent a letter because he couldn't come to court) called handyman dude and had a fight over the phone and told him not to come back. Then they tried to stop payment on the check, but dude had already cashed it. For the second time today I disagree with the judge. She makes the guy return $200 of the $600 because of the obvious messy job. I don't think plaintiff deserved anything. Yeah, admittedly it was a terrible job, but we don't know what it would have looked like had he come back as planned. Well, maybe a little something for dripping on the bedding and furniture. Oh, and lest we forget, lieing plaintiff not only wanted all her $600 back for a free paintjob, she sued for over $3300.
3. Auto shop kerfuffle: another of those cases where a litigant tries to get more than he deserves. In this case, plaintiff's 03 Audi is damaged by store employee at a tire shop. Tire shop manager agrees to pay for the damage and sends plaintiff to a auto shop. Body work gets done, but plaintiff claims he now has a transmission coolant leak. A lot of back and forth, with plaintiff wanting things fixed which auto shop claims were preexisting problems, and besides plaintiff isn't his customer, the tire shop is, so plaintiff should really be going back to that shop to get authorization for more work. At this point it could go either way, depending on who you believe, but plaintiff has to go one step further and produces a questionable estimate from a second auto shop. Really three problems with this "evidence." First, it's just a printout with nothing to identify this shop and the mechanic; second, it just quotes what plaintiff supposedly told this new shop, nothing really about what they know from looking at the car; finally, plaintiff is trying to say now that he had no other transmission leaks, yet he had the car towed away from defendant's shop because of leaks, got some of them fixed, then drove around for weeks before the tranny overheated and cooked. Nope, defendant does not buy guy new tranny.

Edited November 14, 2016 by SRTouch
Spelling

[Broderbits]

28 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

got some of them fixed, then drove around for weeks before the tyranny overheated and cooked.

I know it's probably a mistake due to auto-correct, but I just love this sentence! A Freudian slip for these times.

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

. She gets at least three quotes for painting the living room and bedroom in the new apartment - a 1 bedroom for her, her husband and their two kids.

I got stuck on the 1-bedroom for 4 people. Like, really?  Anyway, thanks for the recap! Where do you live that you didn't have Obama, looking exhausted or high, butting in and yakking for like a frickin' hour?

A few years ago I decided, since I was home, to paint the whole house. I'd never painted before, but even I knew to go get brushes, roller trays/rollers, etc. Even I didn't get paint on ceiling fixtures. What a mess this guy left. But, as JM always says - "The cheap comes out expensive."

I guess I don't care that I missed the third case. Sounds boring and anyway, I can check it out on YT tomorrow.

Quote

Personal trainer leaves her sore: 

Annoying, valley-sounding girl sues Jughead - I mean "Jarhead." If I paid anyone to do anything and they had a cell phone clamped to their ear, I'd be pissed too. If all these people got transported back to a time before cell phones, I think they'd shrivel up and die.

Edited November 14, 2016 by AngelaHunter

[SRTouch]

15 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

I got stuck on the 1-bedroom for 4 people. Like, really?  Anyway, thanks for the recap! Where do you live that you didn't have Obama, looking exhausted or high, butting in and yakking for like a frickin' hour?

You mean there's actually a benefit to watching my court TV on a MyNetworkTV affiliate channel. All my court shows, except JJ, are now on the same Wichita Falls, Tx, channel. I didn't even know Obama had a news conference until I googled Obama to figure out your comment.

[AngelaHunter]

27 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

You mean there's actually a benefit to watching my court TV on a MyNetworkTV affiliate channel.

There certainly is. If anything happens - if it snows, or rains, or there's a speech that cannot wait, etc. they WILL butt in to Judge Judy and/or The People's Court. No other show - no matter how trashy - ever gets constantly horned in on, to the best of my knowledge.

[califred]

I can't believe someone sued their trainer for being sore.  I had to call my best friend I was so astounded.  Plus the price she paid of I heard correctly was unbelievably cheap to start with.

 

Who doesn't stop a painter that comes with no equipment???

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

I can't believe someone sued their trainer for being sore.

I guess he was standing over her with a taser, forcing her to work out. This is one of the entitled generation. If there's something they don't like, or that makes them feel "uncomfortable" they don't feel they should have to pay for any services rendered.

Just watched the car moron. "The radiator was pissing out fluid." He said it twice - a grown man speaking this way to a judge. I really don't think he knew any better. No free work today on your 13 year old car that has 130,000 miles on it.

[WhitneyWhit]

I was stuck on the one bedroom apartment for four people as well, and since she was paying to have it painted, I'm going to assume it wasn't a temporary arrangement. I would have told the guy to kick rocks and that he wasn't getting a dime from me the moment I saw him dipping a roller into a gallon of paint. Also, did anyone else chuckle at the way the painter sort of sauntered in?

The workout case is proof that you can truly sue for anything in this country. I mean, really? Can I sue because my flu shot hurt when the needle went in?

[AZChristian]

9 hours ago, WhitneyWhit said:

Can I sue because my flu shot hurt when the needle went in?

Good idea.  Mr. AZC and I will join you, and we can make it a class-action suit!!!

[AngelaHunter]

39 minutes ago, AZChristian said:

Good idea.  Mr. AZC and I will join you, and we can make it a class-action suit!!!

Hey, my flu shot kind of hurt the last time I got one. I don't think the doctor cared about my feelings. I'm very sensitive. I'll join you.

[Watermelon]

Oh Hey. I saw the first part of today's episode. FYI, the judge takes a tumble coming off the bench 

[OhioSongbird]

Whoa....what case?  I've got the TV falling/ripped off? the wall.  She came down but didn't trip.

Y'all get cases I don't get for a while...don't know why...JM is on here 2 times a day but one is usually an old one....so I like the snark in advance so I know what to watch for on the new ones.

Carry on wid your bad selfs......

[SRTouch]

Whoa, MM takes a bad tumble just before commercial break in second case. That's the kind of face plant that can break a wrist when someone tries to catch themself, but luckily she comes back from commercial and gets some applause when she announces she's  fine.

1. bad tv install: Guy buys a new house and wants flat screens mounted on every wall. Hires the defendant, defendant mounts the 5 TVs, then defendant has a tough time getting his money. Plaintiff is older guy, but like a lot of entitled young folks sees no problem with making the installer wait a week for money which he should have ready upon completion of job. Plaintiff says defendant did a lot of cussing after making repeated attempts to cash the NSF check, defendant says no cussing, I side with MM here, had it been me I'd be pretty hot, and might let a few not so nice words slip. Anyway, real case is plaintiff is suing complaining of a shoddy install job which left 1 TV falling off the wall and a second starting to sag. Seems installer dude decided to use toggle bolts in the drywall instead of mounting into studs. Til now I was all on defendant's side, but this "IS SHODDY" work from a professional charging over a grand to install wall mounts. Defendant tries to dance around this by going on about the how much weight each bolt is rated to hold. Dude, the bolts didn't fail, the dry wall did. Doug brought that up in the hallterview when he correctly pointed out the amount of weight those things are rated to hold is straight down. Put a TV on the end of a swing/pull away wall mount and you're creating a fulcrum with the TV as a lever. Then there's all different types and thicknesses of drywall. This type of install as an accident waiting to happen, something done by a beginner DYIer not the what I expect from a pro. Anyway, MM gets the name of the wall mount manufacturer, takes a recess and checks online for instructions, and what does she find? Instructions clearing say mount into studs. Plaintiff wins, gets $900 of the $1200 he asked for (wanted full replacement cost for the 5 year old TV that fell). So, if you have one of the 3700 TVs this guy claims to have mounted, check it out or you may be buying a new TV.
2. silly bumper car case (which, BTW is another example of intro not matching testimony): plaintiff's big day of college graduation is marred when defendant cuts across lanes and clips her car. To make matters worse, defendant was test driving someone else's car, and uninsured. Pretty plain from damage pictures that defendant's story makes no sense. Luckily it's a glancing blow at relatively slow speed, so no major damage. Defendant seems to think plaintiff should just let it slide and buff out the marks, but she has an estimate over $600 and wants the money. OK, I get there's no major damage, but the guy needs to realize lots of people would rather pay that $600 than buff it out. He's got an answer for that though, as his family has a body shop and he offers to buff it out. Defendant puts on quite a show trying to explain the accident, but all the evidence makes it clear he owes the money. Even the plaintiff is having a hard time not laughing. (Oh, when MM falls she's on her way to the board to make sense of his story. As she's falling he looks over and says "OMG" as Douglas is shown being too late in breaking her fall.) 
3. Tenant wants his money back: duelling accents here, he's a Ricky Ricardo and she's asian. Strange start to the case, as plaintiff asks MM to have defendant turn towards him as he isn't sure this is the lady who was his landlord for a few hours - but it is (says she has different hair style, now). Dude finds a room on craigslist, looks at it and takes it, pays $1150, and moves in. He moves in at 8pm, and at 9-9:30 pm he gets a text saying she doesn't want him there, and please move out the next day. Defendant really doesn't dispute his story, just says after agreeing to rent the room and taking his money she decided he made her uncomfortable. Huh? The time to decide not to rent is before you take the money. Not sure about the guy's story about having nowhere to go, though. It's the middle of the month, he finds a room on craigslist and moves in the same day, then claims it takes him 3 weeks to find another place. Hmmm, could it be he was kicked out of his previous place, and defendant just took a little time to spot that he's kind of iffy. Ah well, guess it doesn't matter as she had no right to take the money and tell him to move an hour and a half later, but it does make me wonder. She says he repeatedly got into her personal space when they talked, and that she returned the $750 deposit, and he agrees she returned $750. Ah, now we get to the discrepancy, the amount of time he stayed there. He says she told him it wasn't going to work that first night, and he moved out after a couple days. She says, no he was there for 1-2 weeks, he paid $400 in rent up front for half a month, so she gets that money because he was there. Hmmm, wonder if we'll find out why he's suing for $1700? Now her witness and landlord comes up. He doesn't really add anything, but he's worth a chuckle as he says defendant is having trouble understanding (strong accent and English is her second language). He really doesn't help though, as her story stays the same. Now we find out how he gets to $1700. Seems he wants defendant to pay the rent his "friend" charged him for the 2-3 weeks he stayed after he moved out of defendant's room. Tough case to figure out, because no one has anything to show on long he stayed, or when/where/how long he lived with the friend, or how much friend charged, if anything. Hold on, dude remembers he has text messages. MM doesn't her text message snooping, and finds nobody was tight... not 2 days and not 1-2 weeks, but he gives her the give and she gives him the $750 six days after he moved in. Break out the calculator, hit a few buttons, plaintiff gets back $225. Odd note on the text snoop - somehow defendant texts perfect English. Actually, maybe not so odd. It's been years now, but I used to be able to read and write passable Spanish, but my pronunciation was terrible. Also, something odd happened after the case was over. I actually listened to Harvey, something I usually FF through, and he told us that in many jurisdictions notice is not required when renting in a room in a private home... hmmm, something I need to look into if I decide to rent my now empty bedroom.

[SRTouch]

4 hours ago, Watermelon said:

Oh Hey. I saw the first part of today's episode. FYI, the judge takes a tumble coming off the bench 

Yeah, she comes down off the bench during both the first two cases. I had read this before watching, so was watching during the first case. Didn't see a tumble but did notice she had on slippers. Wonder if that was a factor in the fall in the second case? That was a true face plant, too, the type of fall which can cause injury.

[OhioSongbird]

Yeah...I posted too soon.  It was the second case today.  Glad she's ok but you know she was sore for a while.  Hummmm.....you think she'll sue the set designers for faulty stairs?  ;-)  I took an ass over myself on the back deck but never thought of suing my contractor.

The dude in the crossing lanes case had me dying!  I want whatever he was smokin'......

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

Plaintiff is older guy, but like a lot of entitled young folks sees no problem with making the installer wait a week for money which he should have ready upon completion of job.

Both litigants were highly unlikable, but I think I disliked plantiff more. What a huge nerve he had, "Oh, well, sorry the check bounced. Come and get a new one." Ugh. I'd be cursing too if I were the def. I mounted a 21" TV on my drywall with butterflies, but would never do same with a big screen. Verdict was fair.

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

duelling accents here, he's a Ricky Ricardo and she's asian.

So I invite a man who is a total stranger to live with me, then get freaked out because he stands too close and tell him to GTFO. As JM said, what a nerve she had. Her witness seemed to want to act as interpreter, but turns out he just repeated JM's question, also in English. What a bunch.

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

plaintiff's big day of college graduation is marred when defendant cuts across lanes and clips her car

Plaintiff was that rare, almost mythological creature on court TV: Intelligent, articulate and not trying for a big "boe-nanza." I don't get why anyone found amusing the def's lying, clowning testimony. He seemed to be high on drugs or alcohol and I didn't find him funny or precious in the least. He's so stupid he didn't even realize he made a complete fool of himself. If JM had to take a tumble and hurt herself, it should have been for a more worthy cause than this idiotic loser. The only exception I had to take with plaintiff had nothing to do with the case, in which she was 100% right,  but I hate people who announce, "I'm always late," as though it's cute or a virtue. I had a friend like that (HAD) who saw nothing wrong with making everyone wait for her all the time. No, it's not fashionable or admirable. It's just incredibly rude and selfish.

[Jamoche]

One of the first things I did as a little kid helping my grandfather around the house was use the studfinder to find studs for him, and that was just for my grandmother's picture frames. There is no excuse for putting bolts in drywall.

[teebax]

1 hour ago, Jamoche said:

One of the first things I did as a little kid helping my grandfather around the house was use the studfinder to find studs for him, and that was just for my grandmother's picture frames. There is no excuse for putting bolts in drywall.

And charging $200 per set to do it! I hung up two TVs for a friend and all I got was a six pack of beer. I guess I bid too low!

[califred]

$1000 seems excessive for 5 tvs.   I agree though neither of them was a great person.

[AZChristian]

We recorded the show as we were out all day.  That was quite the header MM took, and she still looked a little shaky when she first came back onto the set.  Glad she's okay!

We all got quiet the chuckle trying to see the defendant in that case move those little toy cars around to make himself look innocent.  Suck it up, buttercup . . . just admit you screwed up and pay the lady!

Edited November 16, 2016 by AZChristian

[SRTouch]

59 minutes ago, teebax said:

And charging $200 per set to do it! I hung up two TVs for a friend and all I got was a six pack of beer. I guess I bid too low!

What, didn't even spring for pizza?

[meowmommy]

So you've got enough to buy a house and then contract to pay $1000 for someone to put your five TVs in instead of doing it yourself, but you apparently live so paycheck to paycheck that you don't even have $1000 in your checking account and have no funds elsewhere you could move to the account.  

I have a ten dollar magnetic pop-up stud finder that I saw on I Want That and found on ebay.  It doubles as a really strong refrigerator magnet.  

[SRTouch]

1. Motorcycle repair shop kerfuffle: despite a lot of yakkity yak and flapping gums, case is simple. Plaintiff took his new old bike in for work. When he goes to pick it up everything on the estimate hasn't been done. Like I said, simple... estimate constitutes their agreement, shop didn't do the custom work as agreed, he gets his money back. Second part of the case has wife of first plaintiff suing the shop owner for her bump on the head as he tried to give them the old bums rush out the door. Again, open and shut, as defendant and son concoct a story about how the garage door was partially down and she bumped her head because she misjudged the height as she came into garage. Ah, but the cops came because of the kerfuffle, and police report has defendant telling police he accidently hit her head when he started to close the door. Defendant never saw the police report and thought it was he said/she said. He tries to brush aside the report, wanting the judge to look at a picture of the door partially closed. Course the picture doesn't prove anything, just like the picture plaintiffs show of where wife was standing after the accident. She wins, but gets nowhere near the $4,000 she's asking. Her out of pocket expenses from her dr visit was a couple hundred, and Dr said she was fine, and gave her some Tylenol. And no, you don't get thousands in pain and suffering if the doctor gives you Tylenol and sends you home. Oh, she also wanted to be paid for missed work, but wouldn'the you know it she forgot to bring that evidence. She gets her couple hundred out of pocket expense.
2. kitchen remodeling supply dude suing because of stopped check: defendant wanted to change the look of her kitchen so gets plaintiff to order new cabinet doors and drawer fronts. She pays half up front and rest when he delivers them, but when get leaves she stops payment on the second check. Ah, but the contract clearly says he's just supplying them with the hinges, someone else is going to install them... oh and the installer is supposed to get the screws. Defendant is positive there were no hinges, plaintiff equally positive there were. A classic he said/she said... what's the judge to do? Simple, she has defendant call up the guy defendant hired to actually do the install. Defendant does her best to tell the guy what to tell the judge, but MM stops her and she chats with the installer. Guess what? Installer shoots down her "no hinge" story, says the hinges were there, he just needed screws. There goes her defense. Actually, before the call I was thinking of all the times I've opened boxes, thrown away the packing, then had to go back and look through the trash to find something I shouldn't have throw out. I can just see those hinges wrapping in plastic or in a little box accidently getting thrown out. Assuming MM had decided supplier had "NOT" supplied the hinges, at most wouldn't he just pay for the hinges?
3. Convoluted car deal/impound/WTH case: plaintiff's story is he gave the defendant 2 $1400 payments towards the purchase of a 06 BMW, but defendant never gave him the car. He says he just knows the 60yo defendant as an acquaintance of his 27yo step daughter. (Remember the recent case where JJ made dude button up his shirt... defendant in this case must be his gramps.) Well, still going with plaintiff's story, gramps is buying the 27yo clothes and gives her the car. Now we get to the impound segment... the girl gets involved in a high speed chase 10 days after getting the car, gets arrested, and, you guessed it, car is impounded. Weird conflicting stories about why she was running, step dad says mental illness because of botched abortion and gramps says she ran because of a warrant. Oops, I think plaintiff is losing ground here, as MM tells him defendant is making a lot more sense than plaifftiff... not something a litigant wants to hear from the judge. Of course defendant has a WAY different story. Doesn't make anymore sense, but different. He says he was helping the girl clean up her life, helped her pay the down payment and cosigned the loan. When the car was impounded it sat in impound racking up fees, until eventually the finance company rescued the car to protect their asset. Gramps needed money for all the fees to get the car from the finance company, so he gets step dad to give him money by promising him the car. Oh, but once he gets the car he reneges on the deal, saying step daddy should sue the girl, not him. Weird sort of logic from gramps, but he feels justified because it cost him a lot more than the $2800 to get the car. Nope, not the way MM sees it. she says it was his fault his bill, return the guy's money. Don't know what the car was worth, but I wonder if he shouldn't have just let the car be repo'ed and suffered the blow to his credit for the cosigned loan. Impression I get is now gramps has the car, and the newly clean and sober girl is back with step dad and family. 

Edited November 16, 2016 by SRTouch
Blame it on autocorrect

[BubblingKettle]

In the car deal/impound/wth case, that plaintiff didn't think twice about putting his stepdaughter's personal business on blast -- he just blabs about her botched abortion, her mental breakdown, and her drug and alcohol addictions on national TV! I wonder if he's still married to her mother.  And that hairy defendant was so slimy. He co-signed her loan and put her on his insurance?  And he may have said that he doesn't have drug problems, but his crackish twitchy jaw said otherwise. He was either her dealer or her boyfriend (blech). Too bad he wasn't on JJ -- she would have told him to button up his shirt to cover that furry display.

[AngelaHunter]

Perverted Santa alert! Another garden-variety dirty old man presenting himself up as a philanthropist, because he's best buddies with a drug addicted, messed up, pregnant 27 year old woman - a woman, who under those circumstances, really needed a BMW. He was so gross with whatever he was chewing on, and I really wish JM had said to him what JJ said to a litigant last week and told him button up his shirt. Did he think JM would be so dazzled by his fat, hairy chest she'd rule in his favour? It was especially hot when he picked something off his tongue. Eww.

Quote

Motorcycle repair shop kerfuffle:

"Speed-o-meter" x 10. God, plaintiff just could not learn the right word, no matter how many times JM corrected him. Co-plaintiff wants a lottery win of 3K for a 200$ doctor visit and some Tylenol? Maybe in some alternate universe.

 

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

Oh, she also wanted to be paid for missed work, but wouldn'the you know it she forgot to bring that evidence.

Well, she DID have it. She just didn't have it on her today.

Quote

kitchen remodeling supply dude suing because of stopped check:

I guess she wanted free cabinet doors, as do we all. What I do not get is someone upgrading someone else's house. I really want someone to come to my home and start making improvements, even though I own the home and all improvements will benefit only me. Defendant's witness on the phone was super helpful - to the plaintiff. I love seeing justice served this way.

[califred]

Was the cabinet person a renter? I kept getting phone calls.  I do have Canadian friends who do work where they rent but they've rented the same place for 15 yrs and landlord reimburses as long as they get permission first.

 

The speed o meter thing was getting annoying.

Creepy old philanthropist should quit handing out money and cars.

[SRTouch]

2 hours ago, califred said:

Was the cabinet person a renter? I kept getting phone calls.  I do have Canadian friends who do work where they rent but they've rented the same place for 15 yrs and landlord reimburses as long as they get permission first.

Yep, I understood her to be redoing a rented apartment. Well, maybe she thinks it European rules... do Germans still take their kitchen cabinets when they move. When I was there in the early 80's it was common for find unfurnished apartment with empty rooms, a toilet, bathroom sink and shower. Everything else, including the kitchen sink, gone.

Edited November 17, 2016 by SRTouch
Change the to there

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, califred said:

 I do have Canadian friends who do work where they rent but they've rented the same place for 15 yrs and landlord reimburses as long as they get permission first.

I hope they always grab the nearest crayon and roll of toilet paper and get it in writing!!

If I'm going to go through the inconvenience, mess, unexpected delays etc. of any renovations, it's not going to be in someone else's house.  When I rented, I asked the landlord to change the horrid, ripped, ancient kitchen lino. He said no, so I just lived with it for four years. Not a nickel, not a penny would I spend on his dwelling.

[meowmommy]

Defendant #1 looked like Boo Radley and sounded like Wolfgang Puck.

Case 2, MM asked for pictures of the cabinets without hinges?  What would that have proven?  Unless there was video of the defendant opening the boxes for the first time, pictures of missing hinges would have made as much sense as the pictures in the first case of the garage door half closed.

Case 3, at first I thought the defendant was wearing a prison jumpsuit.  And the story is just creepy.  

Edited November 17, 2016 by meowmommy

[SRTouch]

Two cases today

1. Road rage hit and run: Always wondered what happened to old Michelle, that hot tempered Florida beach bikini babe with Tat on her chest. (No, never actually met her.) Turns out, 20 years, 40 lbs and multiple teenagers later she's here on TPC. All that time on the beach has left her with florid blotchy sun damaged skin, but still the same old temper. According to her own testimony, she was motoring home from the beach with her two teenage daughters and an out of state cousin, having trouble with the crazies on the road. First it's some nut job in a Mustang who is tailgating, then some fool cuts her off when he enters the road. She whips around on his passenger side and starts yelling for him to pull over, as she really wants to give him a piece of her mind for endangering her kids. Ah, he not only won't pull over, he won't even roll down his window so she can yell at him properly. She tries to pull up and cut in front of him, but hooks his front bumper - don'cha know he just sped up and caused the accident. Now he pulls over, but he is claiming she caused the accident, when it's plain as day he should have had quicker reflexes and been able to avoid the collison. Oh well, she needs to hurry on home because the rest of the family will be waiting and she has the house keys. So, she leaves the accident scene. Really, plaintiff didn't need to say a word, but MM heard from both him and his passenger. Open and shut, Michelle has to pay both for his damages and her three tickets she got when the police caught up with her because of that nosy tailgating Mustang driver who got her plate number and ratted her out. In hallterview she's happy it's over and done with (and the bills aren't coming out of her pocket), but feels MM just wouldn't listen to her side.
2. Car loan case: 50 something couple sounding like dumb teenagers. Couple meet and after either a couple weeks or three months of dating he signs a car loan for her after her car bites the dust. couple more months, they break up and she splits with the car. First year, no problem, she makes the first 13 monthly payments. After that she stops paying and he takes over the payments to protect his credit. He figures he knows where she lives, car is titled in his name, he'll just hop in and drive it away. Nope, she out foxes him by towing it from Florida to New York. By the time she sues for the title he's like 8K into the car and still owes a couple more thousand. She not only wants the title, she wants him to pay for transporting it to New York and various other nonsense. She claims once she got to NY she parked it because the registration expired - and since it wasn't registered and she wasn't driving it, she let the insurance lapse. She drove it once in NY, just to move it to her new apartment, and the cops stopped her. Not only did the NY cop ticket her for the expired insurance and registration, they suspended her license and now won't let her register the car because the Silver Fox down in Florida won't give her the title. Boy, NY is tough, they catch you without insurance once, and bam, suspend your license and won't let you register your car. Obviously, he's the cause of all her problems, so she's suing. He has a countersuit for either the car or the money he's paid. I'm not sure why at the time, but MM takes a recess. when she comes out she makes sure defendant knows he's giving up any claim to the $3000 he's paid above her $5000 max. He says he knows that money is gone. Then we get an explanation for the recess. She awards him $5000, but makes it clear that she's seperating the amount still owed on the car and dismissing that portion without prejudice. So, if she fails to make those payments, and he gets to keep title until she does, he can refile and collect any future payments she misses. Guess that's why she da judge, I didn't even think of the outstanding 2 grand on the loan. He says he'd rather get the car. MM says sure, he's the legal owner, contact the sheriff and have it repossessed.

Edited November 17, 2016 by SRTouch
Wording changed

[califred]

My electricity is out I hope it's back on by one!  I'm assuming it's the whole neighborhood bc I heard the MPs on a megaphone asking my neighbor if theirs was also out.

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

Always wondered what happened to old Michelle, that hot tempered Florida beach bikini babe with Tat on her chest. (No, never actually met her.) Turns out, 20 years, 40 lbs and multiple teenagers later she's here on TPC.

Good lord. I thought it was bad that plaintiff was missing his bottom teeth, until I saw that Roseanne's super-trashy cousin had no teeth (and is in desperate need of a new, heavily reinforced bra). The accident wasn't her fault! She was just trying to cut him off in a "F you" gesture, the way she always does,  but miscalculated the distance. The accident wasn't her fault - she always drives like a looney. What's the problem? How did she get away with a hit and run?

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

 In hallterview she's happy it's over and done with (and the bills aren't coming out of her pocket), but feels MM just wouldn't listen to her side.

It's a real shame she got away with everything, but in a real court, plaintiff wouldn't have collected a dime. And yeah, JM heard plenty from this aggressive beast.

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

Car loan case: 50 something couple sounding like dumb teenagers.

Wow. I was always sneering at 20 - 30 somethings showing up with their mommies in tow. Here we have a 53 year old man who needed to bring HIS mom to court. I guess I understand. He's such a ditzy moron he buys a car for some woman he meets online and expects her to pay for it. Mom - you didn't teach your boy very well. It annoyed me when JM kept saying that plaintiff was "cute" and a "hot tamale." To me, she looked like a husky, unattractive man in drag. I know SHE thinks she's a hot property, by the way she was posturing and tossing around that dyed mane of hair. I'm not a man, so maybe there is something irresistable about her, but I couldn't see it.

[SRTouch]

11 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

Wow. I was always sneering at 20 - 30 somethings showing up with their mommies in tow. Here we have a 53 year old man who needed to bring HIS mom to court. I guess I understand. He's such a ditzy moron he buys a car for some woman he meets online and expects her to pay for it. Mom - you didn't teach your boy very well.

ROTFL

11 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

It annoyed me when JM kept saying that plaintiff was "cute" and a "hot tamale." To me, she looked like a husky, unattractive man in drag. I know SHE thinks she's a hot property, by the way she was posturing and tossing around that dyed mane of hair. I'm not a man, so maybe there is something irresistable about her, but I couldn't see it.

Well, I'm a man, and I couldn't see it, either.

[AZChristian]

3 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Two cases today

1. Road rage hit and run: Always wondered what happened to old Michelle, that hot tempered Florida beach bikini babe with Tat on her chest. (No, never actually met her.) Turns out, 20 years, 40 lbs and multiple teenagers later she's here on TPC. All that time on the beach has left her with florid blotchy sun damaged skin, but still the same old temper. According to her own testimony, she was motoring home from the beach with her two teenage daughters and an out of state cousin, having trouble with the crazies on the road. First it's some nut job in a Mustang who is tailgating, then some fool cuts her off when he enters the road. She whips around on his passenger side and starts yelling for him to pull over, as she really wants to give him a piece of her mind for endangering her kids. Ah, he not only won't pull over, he won't even roll down his window so she can yell at him properly. She tries to pull up and cut in front of him, but hooks his front bumper - don'cha know he just sped up and caused the accident. Now he pulls over, but he is claiming she caused the accident, when it's plain as day he should have had quicker reflexes and been able to avoid the collison. Oh well, she needs to hurry on home because the rest of the family will be waiting and she has the house keys. So, she leaves the accident scene. Really, plaintiff didn't need to say a word, but MM heard from both him and his passenger. Open and shut, Michelle has to pay both for his damages and her three tickets she got when the police caught up with her because of that nosy tailgating Mustang driver who got her plate number and ratted her out. In hallterview she's happy it's over and done with (and the bills aren't coming out of her pocket), but feels MM just wouldn't listen to her side.

In my opinion, she confessed her guilt in the halterview with those five words that are translated as "mea culpa":  "It is what it is."

[DoctorK]

Quote

five words that are translated as "mea culpa":  "It is what it is."

I agree in this case, but I have said that in a corporate environment when upper management has screwed the pooch and blamed it on lower level people who did their job correctly and got completely hosed by inept managers.

[ElleMo]

8 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Good lord. I thought it was bad that plaintiff was missing his bottom teeth, until I saw that Roseanne's super-trashy cousin had no teeth (and is in desperate need of a new, heavily reinforced bra). The accident wasn't her fault! She was just trying to cut him off in a "F you" gesture, the way she always does,  but miscalculated the distance. The accident wasn't her fault - she always drives like a looney. What's the problem? How did she get away with a hit and run?

2

She did get some tickets..  She is either really stupid or wanted a free trip because no one in their right mind would think they could get away with her story, especially when the police were involved, she got ticketed and there was a witness.

[SRTouch]

1. Lame Motown case: pitiful case of Motown celebrity impersonators coming on TV for some publicity. Plaintiff organizes the schedule for a group who go around impersonating various famous singers of yesteryear for tip money. The case is about the "Michael Jackson" singer supposedly having a temper tantrum and posting something negative about the plaintiff on his Facebook page. Seems she called to get him to come perform and talked up the possibility of maybe $10 in the tip jar (he helpfully brought a recording that we get to listen to a half dozen times where she mentions the tip jar). He gets all upset when she gives him $3 at the end of his performance, and according to plaintiff he posts that she's some nasty word starting with "B" and ending with an "H". Then some third person reads his past and posts a profanity laden threat. So, with have these two publicity seekers on TPC suing each other for 5 thousand each over 7 bucks.
2. $3k rim case: (lame intro says case is about a bad rim job gives credence to these introductions being written by street joker.) Plaintiff took his brand new ($930) rims and tires to defendant's tire shop to be mounted. Turns out the worker at the shop scratched up the fancy rims. When plaintiff comes to pick up his vehicle he's told they had trouble mounting the tires (no mention of any scratches), so rims are back in the boxes they came in. For some mysterious reason, he whips out his phone and takes a video of him inspecting the rims... Could it be they were damaged before he brought them in - and exactly how does the shop owe 3 grand for 2 damaged rims when he bought 4 for $900? Anyway, shop agrees to replace the rims, but seems nobody has them in stock and they're no longer made (but they are available online). MM grabs her calculator and tries to figure out how 2 damaged rims ($220 each so total damage is $440) resulted in a $2900 lawsuit, but gives up for a close look at the damaged rims which defendant polished up and has in court. She looks at one, announces it looks pretty good to her, plaintiff agrees it's not terrible, but he bought new and wants what he bought. Defendant says he offered to pay for the damaged rims, plaintiff says no that offer was never made, and besides he wants the rims not the money. Guess the suit got blown up because of the aggravation, missed work, and time wasted - oh, and since the particular rim has been discontinued, price has gone up and he wants defendant to actually give him rims so that he can make sure he has a matched set of 4. MM says no to all the add ons, and awards $440... Stupid case, if I was that dude I'd talk to the shop owner and find out how much he'd discount those two polished rims that he admits look pretty good. Heck, I bet by the time the tires need to be replaced the "damaged/polished" rims will be indistinguishable from the undamaged ones.
3. Longtime friendship breakup woes: 2 supposedly adult mature women join forces to get a couple of unrideable horses, just because they enjoy being around horses. (Notice the horse tat on the one woman's chest peeking out.) Really looseygoosey arrangment, where the women, who have been friends for 14 years, and one of the women's son, share the horses, apparently not really knowing what's involved. The hefty lady fronts the money for the purchase and has the land to house them, while the other is going to do the physical labor with the other's son helping put. The fencing around the property isn't doing the job, so plaintiff, with the horsey tat, unilaterally buys $760 worth of fencing panels without checking with her partner and land owner. She says her plan was to eventually buy property where she could house one of the horses, at which point she was going to buy one of the two horses and take the panels. They get into an argument about who feeds the horses in the morning, big kerfuffle, the one who was supposed to be doing the labor pulls out of the deal and friendship ends. Now she has a horse and wants her panels or to be paid for the panels she now has a use for. Other lady says no, plaintiff bought the panels who the two horses on her, the defendant's, property, so they now belong to defendant (actually, says they were a gift for the two horses). Defendant says she never asked plaintiff to buy the panels, MM says great, plaintiff gets them back. Now we get to defendant's silly counterclaim. Defendant says if she has to pay for the panels or give them back, the plaintiff should pay to plant grass where the horses have worn away the grass in the corral made of the panel. Wow, she really should not have shown those pictures. If she took the $900 to plant a lawn where pictured, that will be the only lawn in that "pasture". Seriously, the pasture looks like it's overgrown with weeds and brush, old fence posts and piles of scrap lumber next to an old stable - not someplace to keep horses. Are all these pictures from defendant? If they are I worry about those horses. Defendant evidently sees nothing wrong with letting the horses roam that property filled with scrap, and it sounds like she's going to tell us the gate across the driveway is her truck. MM cuts her off and rules. Plaintiff gets her panels back, defendant gets nothing. Doug let me down in the hallterview. He asks about the horsey tat, get her to show the whole thing, but I can't read what it says. Freedom, maybe? Wonder if that's her new horse.

Edited November 18, 2016 by SRTouch
Wording changed

[meowmommy]

On November 17, 2016 at 3:00 PM, SRTouch said:

Two cases today

1. Road rage hit and run: Always wondered what happened to old Michelle, that hot tempered Florida beach bikini babe with Tat on her chest. (No, never actually met her.) Turns out, 20 years, 40 lbs and multiple teenagers later she's here on TPC. 

I don't know who Michelle is, but that woman is a lot more than 40 pounds from a bikini babe body.

23 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Wow. I was always sneering at 20 - 30 somethings showing up with their mommies in tow. Here we have a 53 year old man who needed to bring HIS mom to court. I guess I understand. He's such a ditzy moron he buys a car for some woman he meets online and expects her to pay for it. Mom - you didn't teach your boy very well. It annoyed me when JM kept saying that plaintiff was "cute" and a "hot tamale." To me, she looked like a husky, unattractive man in drag. I know SHE thinks she's a hot property, by the way she was posturing and tossing around that dyed mane of hair. I'm not a man, so maybe there is something irresistable about her, but I couldn't see it.

Right off the bat MM asked about an age difference, because she assumed the plaintiff was much younger and the defendant much older than they looked.  

Edited November 18, 2016 by meowmommy