The People's Court - General Discussion

[AZChristian]

12 hours ago, DoctorK said:

Same here, not a new show. There have been a bunch lately of "new" episodes that I could swear I have already seen, but that may be because after years of watching, we have seen everything before, just with different names.

I represent to you that this is probably true.  (Channeling the defendant who told the judge all kinds of hearsay, but thought she would buy it when he said, "I am representing this to you, your honor.")

[Zahdii]

17 hours ago, DoctorK said:

Same here, not a new show. There have been a bunch lately of "new" episodes that I could swear I have already seen, but that may be because after years of watching, we have seen everything before, just with different names.

All a show has to do is insert something new into it and it can be called "new".  Take out a scene and replace it with something not shown the first time and voilà, in television parlance, you have a whole new show.  That might be what is happening here.

[NYGirl]

Today's episode.

I don't know about you guys but I hate music rights cases.  They are so boring and I have no idea what's going on.  The one today was worse than others as I had a hard time understanding half of what they were saying.

I cannot discuss more of this episode as I am still in awe of the plaintiff in the landlord/tenant case's hair!  I thought it was a fur hat.  I kept pausing and trying to see if it was hair or a hat and it distracted me from the whole case!  Then Doug helped me out by asking about it in the halter view!!  Thank you Doug.  For those who missed it take a look.

Case #3 roofer..ugh boring boring boring.

Edited October 12, 2018 by NYGirl

[SRTouch]

13 minutes ago, NYGirl said:

Today's episode.

I don't know about you guys but I hate music rights cases.  They are so boring and I have no idea what's going on.  The one today was worse than others as I had a hard time understanding half of what they were saying.

I cannot discuss more of this episode as I am still in awe of the plaintiff in the landlord/tenant case's hair!  I thought it was a fur hat.  I kept pausing and trying to see if it was hair or a hat and it distracted me from the whole case!  Then Doug helped me out by asking about it in the halter view!!  Thank you Doug.  For those who missed it take a look.

Case #3 roofer..ugh boring boring boring.

for those who wondered why no recaps lately - either I'm getting jaded or pretty much this whole batch of new cases are boring????. I've recorded, but have yet, to watch yesterday's or today's.?

[Broderbits]

2 hours ago, Zahdii said:

All a show has to do is insert something new into it and it can be called "new".  Take out a scene and replace it with something not shown the first time and voilà, in television parlance, you have a whole new show.  That might be what is happening here.

So true, but the titles and very brief descriptions on my guide had nothing to do with the content of the rerun episodes.

[Brattinella]

45 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

for those who wondered why no recaps lately - either I'm getting jaded or pretty much this whole batch of new cases are boring????. I've recorded, but have yet, to watch yesterday's or today's.?

Yes, but....   FUR HAT!  LOLOL!!!

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, NYGirl said:

I don't know about you guys but I hate music rights cases.

Me too, especially when a case that should take 5 minutes (no contracts, no proof) drags on and on. After a million repetitions of "basically", "Whatever" and "Whatnot" and tales of a girl being held prisoner in some bedroom and couldn't leave because she was in Jacksonville where it seems going outside is verboten and these two fools constantly texting gossip and stupidities but never anything to do with their agreement, I got a headache. Must be Levin the Sleaze who chose to subject us to this garbage.

1 hour ago, NYGirl said:

 I thought it was a fur hat.  I kept pausing and trying to see if it was hair or a hat and it distracted me from the whole case!

I know! Is this the "Medusa" style? WTF was that on his head? I still don't know. This case was educational, however. I'm never moving to NYC because no one in NY gets a dishwasher and you get no heat on weekends. I was so with plaintiffs - Medusa/fur hat notwithstanding - until I heard they thought it was a brilliant idea to get a Husky puppy. Fools. Dogs aren't like knick-knacks, you know.  Landlord trying to charge them 1K because some guy at HD told her it's nearly impossible to just replace the rubber strip along a door and you need a whole new  door? Nice try. Hilarious and oh, so stupid. I've replaced those rubber strips and miraculously, I kept the same door!

The roofing contractor case made me glad yet again that when I had my roof done, my kitchen updated and my bathroom renovated, I got HD's contractors, who are licensed, bonded and insured. I may have paid a little more but this way I could be sure they wouldn't hire some guy walking down the street, who may or may not have any qualifications, to work on my projects or someone who's debilitated or afraid of heights to help redo my roof. When there was a problem with two of my newly-installed kitchen cabinet doors, I just called the company and they came immediately to fix it. Try that with some unlicensed, bargain-basement priced handyman from CL. The cheap really does come out expensive!

Edited October 12, 2018 by AngelaHunter

[Florinaldo]

1 hour ago, NYGirl said:

I cannot discuss more of this episode as I am still in awe of the plaintiff in the landlord/tenant case's hair!  I thought it was a fur hat.

I initially thought that a potted plant dropped on his head as he was walking on the sidewalk and he just left it in place, to grow and fructify.

[SRTouch]

Quick summary of Thurs cases - which I'm finally watching now - and I understand some folks missed due to scheduling screwup... whoa, all three bogus cases - the hutzpa of plaintiff in 2nd case worth the watch when reruns come around, other two not so much

1.  1st case - 15 grand remodel job for which no one thought they needed a freekin' contract - homeowner suing contractor - I stopped watching when contractor claimed homeowner sent him naked pictures of herself masturbating, and how she had told him of her rape fantasies because she had been raped by her grandfather, dad and brother - geez, not what I want to watch... didn't even stop for the decision (though saw she was second out to hallterview) 
2. towing case: this is entertaining, and only one of 3 worth watching when reruns come around - summary - P lives in gated community with limited parking, so each home only has 1 parking space - management is quick to have violators towed - since both hubby and wife have vehicles, they scout around and find spaces assigned to empty units and use it for their second vehicle - claim everyone with 2 cars do it - on their way to church (of course, had to get "church" mentioned) they notice their second car has been towed - suing for the whopping 200 bucks they were charged - but they aren't suing management, not even suing their fellow tenant they claimed lied and complained to management because complainer wanted to park her second, unauthorized vehicle in this unassigned space, nooooo they're suing the contracted towing company, which just did its job and has a signed tow sheet authorizing the tow - on the theory that the person who signed the authorization was the complaining tenant instead of the security guard who escorted the tow truck to the car and waited to escort tow truck out the gate
3. 3rd case - evicted tenant suing ex-landlord - wants $4200 - claiming she had to leave behind her fridge and baby crib when eviction judgement ordered her out after months of not paying rent - ended up skipping most of this one - same old story of tenant not paying rent, getting evicted, leaving stuff behind after date judge ordered her out, now trying to play games and take home lottery win because.... not sure, didn't watch the rest

Edited October 13, 2018 by SRTouch

[Broderbits]

8 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

Quick summary of Thurs cases - which I'm finally watching now - and I understand some folks missed due to scheduling screwup.

I wonder if that 1st case was the reason we had a rerun? It sounds like an episode that needed a TV-MA warning; glad I missed it.

[SRTouch]

18 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Is this the "Medusa" style? WTF was that on his head? I still don't know. This case was educational, however. I'm never moving to NYC because no one in NY gets a dishwasher and you get no heat on weekends. I was so with plaintiffs - Medusa/fur hat notwithstanding - until I heard they thought it was a brilliant idea to get a Husky puppy. Fools. Dogs aren't like knick-knacks, you know.  Landlord trying to charge them 1K because some guy at HD told her it's nearly impossible to just replace the rubber strip along a door and you need a whole new  door? Nice try. Hilarious and oh, so stupid. I've replaced those rubber strips and miraculously, I kept the same door!

 

Ah, today, like yesterday, only has one case worth watching. Sooooo, skipped cases #1 & #3 after reading the comments. #2 not much of a case, but I agree medussa/fur hat is eye catching - probably would have skipped it when I heard a dog was accused of the damage - but WTH, sitting here with 2 days of TPC, and puppy barely mentioned. Yet another out-of-stater renting an apartment sight unseen. I've never lived (or even been to) NYC, but my understanding is that for the amount that you'd pay for a dump there you could rent a 5 bedroom home here in SW Oklahoma. So, these folks from Carolina (not sure if it was North or South) are underwhelmed by the what their money gets them in Brooklyn - and for which they pay thousands without ever getting a signed lease. @ANGELAHUNTER summed things up for me - P had me on their side until the husky....

Mini-rant... no No NO! Huskys are not apartment dogs - they're working/athlete dogs that needs lots of physical activity. Not even a breed, but a generic term for sled dogs - well, except for Siberia Husky - usually picked for their look with no regard for dog's future mental welfare/happiness. Unfortunately, they're popular now with people looking for latest "fad" dogs because of Game of Thrones https://abc13.com/pets/dog-rescue-surrender-of-huskies-rising-due-to-game-of-thrones/2255385/  they join the list of other "fad breeds" - German Shepherds from Rin Tin Tin and Roy Rogers,  collies from Lassie, dalmatians from 101 dalmatians, etc - all working/athletic dogs who are ill-suited for many who fell in love with them on a screen. Plaintiffs are actually lucky that all their puppy damaged was the weatherstripping - well, I guess they only lasted a month, so they got out before he/she really went nuts cooped up in the apartment... end rant 

Thing is, isn't long before big mouth landlady, with her $1000 for weatherstripping, 9 grand in un paid rent for a month to month tenancy,  plus money for security system because they unplugged it to use the power outlet. P wants  $1800 deposit back - but agree their dog damaged door weatherstripping. D expects lotto win - filed 5 grand countersuit, but claims they owe way more. Rough Justice - MM let's D keep $250 for weatherstripping, ordering she return $1550 - and countersuit goes poof. (9 grand in unpaid rent based on lease she never gave tenant to sign.)

Edited October 13, 2018 by SRTouch
Cleaned up some auto-correct

[AngelaHunter]

12 hours ago, SRTouch said:

I stopped watching when contractor claimed homeowner sent him naked pictures of herself masturbating, and how she had told him of her rape fantasies because she had been raped by her grandfather, dad and brother

What the...??? I didn't get that one.

[babs j.]

My DVR is set up to record only the new eps of the People'c Court but Thursday, when the last case came on, I recognized it.  This may have been because of the wild weather we had Thursday - thank you, Matthew.   Not anything like in some places - a lot of wind and rain and some power outages - thank goodness.

[aemom]

On 10/10/2018 at 5:31 PM, AngelaHunter said:

Talk about "cheap" - that describes the plaintiff perfectly. The Vegas-style black chiffon, the bulging cleavage, the low-rent accent, the 3-inch long, fake blue talons (who is telling women that this is a hot, chic look?) the tats all over - omg. It must be some competition where she took 2nd prize. She was even tackier than her pimped-out Honda.

This made me laugh because it was true.  Thank you.

 

The plaintiffs with the flower pot (TM Florinaldo) on his head - I loved them because the very first thing out of her mouth was "my boyfriend and I" and not "me and my boyfriend" or the even better "me and him."  The landlady was a bit of a loonie-loo: No dishwasher for you and the heat is only turned on for weekdays.   This case also made me think: Remember not that long ago, MM was getting her knickers in a twist because the litigants kept saying Workman's comp and not Worker's comp?  Well, how come landlord is still OK?

 

I did not get those cases on Thursday.  I got the repeat of the guy where the tree-trimming defendant was one of the smuggest assholes we've seen in a while and get his ass gloriously handed to him by MM.   I checked to see if the other cases might be new.  I don't remember them, but they were repeats too.

 

I also find that many of the cases lately have been the types of cases that could be solved in 2 minutes but get dragged out to 15 for unnecessary DRAH-MA!

[CrazyInAlabama]

This morning's rerun where the man sold a car for $2100 to a 21 year old woman (who looks twice as old), she never paid for it, claimed the 'as is' car was all kinds of broken, and one night the car breaks.   However, the car was never paid for, and never reregistered into her name, and that was because her license was conditional.     She had at least one DWI, could only drive between work and home, and when the car breaks, it was in front of a bar.       The mechanic that looked at it said it was full of pot, pot roaches, trash, and the legal papers that said she was suspended because of the DWI.    I disagree with the judge, who gave her the car, some money back, and now she can drive anywhere her drunken self wants to.     I hope it will get registered, and titled in her name before she gets loaded, drives over and kills a few people, and the idiot ex-cop buyer gets sued for everything. 

At least where I am, the 10 a.m. showing is usually the new one, but it's the rerun of the sofa/babysitting kerfuffle case, and it was boring the first time around.    So much for new episodes.      

Edited October 15, 2018 by CrazyInAlabama

[SRTouch]

2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

At least where I am, the 10 a.m. showing is usually the new one, but it's the rerun of the sofa/babysitting kerfuffle case, and it was boring the first time around.    So much for new episodes.      

Well, guess hiatus in recaps will continue - my Direct TV guide has reruns all week - says next week will be new, but has "no information" listed for the cases... today's cases were recapped back on page 92, and not something worth watching a second time

[AngelaHunter]

Levin's on a run, giving us repeats of some of the most sick-making cases. Sofa/"babysitted" battle: I've had disagreements with friends, one so serious (and not over a "gnarly" sofa) I ended a 15-year friendship, but I do not recall telling her that I wished she would die and that her family would die. Disgusting, lowlife cretins. "What's wrong with you people??" JM asks in despair. If she finds out I hope she shares it with us.

The scripture-quoting case was just as amusing this time though. JM asks plaintiff why he kept giving money to ass-kissing scumbag def.(who could have "pawn-ded his watch, rings or necklace for gas money, no?) when he never paid him back.

Plaintiff: "Nonononononono! He ASKED for the money!"

[SRTouch]

Rerun from January 30 (recap on page 94). Actually enjoyed this more than most of current run of "new" cases. 

Case #1 - idiot pays some dude who comes up to him in parking lot "restore" his car's paint job. Fun part here is P, who was dumb enough to pay D,  tracks D to his home and claimed to be a DEA agent while demanding his money back. Dude has a lot of gall, suing for 3 grand instead of the couple hundred he paid guy. I wouldn't have given him anything, but this is another time where a litigant offered to settle, settlement rejected, only to have MM enforce the offer.

Case#2 - landlord gave tenant check for their deposit, but then stops payment. Fun part here, landlord trying hard to come up with justification for keeping money and resorts to introducing pictures taken right after place had been renovated as his before pictures - neglecting to say other tenants had rented the place before these tenants moved in. Not good when MM discovers date on pictures by going ghrough guy's phone. Didn't agree with this decision - I figure tenant should be awarded value of the check plus any bank fees they were stuck with trying to deposit it, plus extra for wasted time. Instead, MM decided there WERE a few things wrong above normal wear and tear - no argument there, tenant doesn't deny them - asks tenant what she thinks would be fair for landlord to have charged for - she ends up letting landlord keep $250 and returning the rest

Case #3 - only decision I agree with 100%. Homeowner pays for sod to be laid in yard - sod subsequently dies - landscaper offers to replace dead sod -  no labor charge this time, but homeowner has to pay for the sod - homeowner refuses, he wants his money back.  Thankfully, this time MM doesn't enforce landscaper's offer to do job a second time without being paid for his labor, instead dismissing the case. Maybe because, this time, homeowner's testimony has him underwatering the sod - which is why it died - though he argues landscaper used too much/wrong fertilizer.

[AngelaHunter]

New cases today, but not too interesting.

Woman (and JM is smitten with her beefy biceps and wants to know how she has time for all that working out) suing yet another spineless baby-man boyfriend because he scuttled away from their apartment leaving her with huge payments for breaking the lease. Baby-boyfriend - who obviously can afford his gym membership since that is of prime importance -  decides he's not responsible for anything and he'll let landlord track him down. Catch me if you can! Sadly, he has a child who will probably grow up like her dad, trying to weasel out of any obligations. Plaintiff forged def's signature, which doesn't help her case even though she denied doing so til the bitter end ( I don't remember... we signed so many documents... not to my knowledge...)- as JM correctly deduced, ball-less boyfriend would never have signed anything because why would he agree to what he owes? JM awards plaintiff half of two month's rent, which should be long enough for landlord to get another tenant to mitigate the damages.

Over-aged, dissipated-looking party boy buys a 17-year old POS "party limo", for him and his other "boys" to go to games, get drunk, at whatever places -  with the floor completely rotted out and hires def to fix it and put in new carpeting. Def. tells plaintiff that the windows on the heap "Leak like a sieve" which is the reason for the rotted floor. Plaintiff gets hoopty back but the carpet is bunching. He brings it back to def. who says he fixed carpet, but then he puts it outside his garage and leaky windows result in further damage. I guess I missed why plaintiff never went to get this limo for over a month. It's again full of water but JM awards plaintiff the 2K he spent on fixing his adolescent fantasy. I don't know why, but I'm not a judge!

Then we had another installment of wig/hair wars, but I lost interest.

[Zahdii]

Yeah, people complaining about a bad wig, haircut, perm, etc don't usually interest me either.  I'm a wash it and ignore it kind of girl.

I do remember a really interesting case on the original Peoples Court where a woman was suing her hair stylist for butchering her hair, and I do mean butchering it.  She'd had short hair for years and was trying to grow it out, so she only went to the salon every two or three months to even up the ends.  Sometime after she last saw her usual hairstylist, he'd apparently gotten hooked on some really nasty drugs.  She didn't realize anything was wrong until he was actually cutting her hair.  He was snipping off chunks here and there, talking about really random things, waving the scissors about and had her in fear for her life if she did anything to upset him.  When he was done she even paid the bill and fled.

But when she calmed down she did everything right.  She showed up in court and had proof of what her hair used to look like in the form of a picture taken for a book she co-authored, reciepts of how often she went to that salon, pictures taken that night by a friend of her "new do", probably a police report although I don't think that ever amounted to anything.  Meanwhile the hairstylist was standing there completely out of it and barely able to claim that she wanted a new look and if she didn't like it and chopped off her own hair after that just to sue him, it wasn't his problem.  I mean this guy was on the verge of falling asleep right where he stood.  Obviously, the plaintiff won.

[aemom]

4 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

New cases today, but not too interesting.

This was actually a repeat.  But, I'm glad it was new for you!  :-)

[CrazyInAlabama]

Today's new ones weren't that exciting.     Another tenant who doesn't pay rent, and wants their security deposit back, another landlord (who sold the property months ago) who feels hurt that he was screwed over, and another tenant to put on your list of people never to rent anything to.

The slashed tires (eight tires, on two cars owned by the plaintiff) was interesting because the allegation it was the former roommate, and her mother, slashed the tires.    Both the landlady/friend, and the mother and daughter had been friends for years.     The plaintiff received money for the tires, but the former roommate will still only have to pay $30 a month for the phone that was purchased for her, since she was up to date.  

The featured case was a woman who rear ended another car, and hired a private eye to find video of the accident, because she was told by someone else that the person driving the car wasn't the person who claimed to be driving the car.    The private eye did his job, and got his money.   The plaintiff was not only a rotten driver, but stupid too.    How did she decide that it wouldn't be her fault no matter who was driving the car she hit?    

The reminder at the end about don't text and drive is because a staffer's child was killed by a texting driver.   The accident where the distracted driver killed the child  was a bus driver (not the regular bus driver but a driver of a jitney bus or something like that) and I believe he went to look at his cell phone. He hit a light pole and it struck the baby in her stroller. (This is from another poster on here in 2015). 

Edited October 22, 2018 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

3 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

The featured case was a woman who rear ended another car, and hired a private eye to find video of the accident

The worst part of this case, other than that plaintiff truly feels that if someone in front of her stops she "has no choice" but to slam into them, is the way JM let her babble over her constantly. She never shut up! Stupid blabbermouth is incapable of listening to anything. Of course her insurance - if she had any -  had to pay the person she hit.  Another scammer looking to score 5K for nothing. "Pain and suffering"! Private eye worked. It's like hiring someone to find water and dig you a well. Satisfactory results are not guaranteed but you have to pay for work done.

3 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

The slashed tires (eight tires, on two cars owned by the plaintiff) was interesting because the allegation it was the former roommate, and her mother, slashed the tires.

"My daughter can't hold her tongue for nothing!" says momma. Obviously. "Cookie", instead of hooking up nasty def. with the latest iPhone, should have sprung for birth control for her, since she is now another Sainted Single Mother-of-Two. More high drama, tire slashing (you know Momma and her baby girl did it) over disrespeck and "down talking". Ugly, all of it. Poor kids, with that hard-rode harridan for a mother.

3 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

 Another tenant who doesn't pay rent

She also, she proudly states, doesn't "do" receipts, well, except for the one she made up to prove she paid rent when she didn't. Def brings a whole bunch of papers concerning the sale of the property, but the one needed that had signatures on it, he didn't bring with him today. "It's at home". Of course it is. JM gives him a week to prove. I forced myself to listen to the sleazebag outside to see if that happened, but the creep never mentioned it. I see the show still has the huge "Don't text and drive" at the end. Levin, have you no shame? Oh, stupid question.

[CrazyInAlabama]

Have we ever had a dumber plaintiff that the new episode eviction case this morning?     When the marshals tell you to get out on a specific date and time, and anything left after that time is no longer yours, and you leave a boat behind, then you're out of luck.      I also want to know how taking insulation out of a floor causes a bruise so high on your thigh that it's almost on your butt?   The woman was a total loon, and I feel sorry for whoever is her landlord now.  

Edited October 23, 2018 by CrazyInAlabama

[SRTouch]

3 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Have we ever had a dumber plaintiff that the new episode eviction case this morning?     When the marshals tell you to get out on a specific date and time, and anything left after that time is no longer yours, and you leave a boat behind, then you're out of luck.      I also want to know how taking insulation out of a floor causes a bruise so high on you thigh that it's almost on your butt?   The woman was a total loon, and I feel sorry for whoever is her landlord now.  

1. I actually started to recap this mess, but gave up when I couldn't listen to loon and her nasally nonsense. I lasted until MM tried to ask loon about her medical bills. Loon doesn't know where the the 2 grand plus figure in medical bills came from (uh, the papers she filed) but she has over a grand in bills. Ok, MM says, let's see those bill. Looney passes up her doctor bill, no medical records saying why she went to doctor just that she paid a hundred bucks and change - nowhere near the revised thousand bucks. I pretty much stopped watching, but left it running as I went for coffee. Yep, final eviction notice said she had to be gone with all her property on such and such date. Ah, but she didn't figure that meant she really had to take everything with her - after all, she and landlord were such good friends. As MM points out, such good friends that landlord had to hire a lawyer and go through eviction court to get her non-rent-paying butt out of his house. MM can't take anymore - she cuts the case short at 15 minutes. P still doesn't get it - after case tossed she leaves muttering get about this miscarriage of justice.
2. botched car deal: P backed out a car deal after putting down a deposit - suing for double the deposit back. Same old deal - customer not understanding that a non refundable deposit means you don't get it back when your credit is so bad you can't get approved for financing. Hey, at least P tried to dress up for court - unlike D who is dressed for a picnic. Ah ha, of course, reason P thinks he's due twice the deposit is pain and suffering.  Hey, not quite as cut and dry as I thought. D really led P along - promising time after time to return the deposit through texts, saying she's putting it in his bank, it'll be there by the end of the day, if it's not there by the end of the second business day call her, etc etc. leading dude on for weeks. Her explanation - she tried to return the money once, he was really annoying, pestering her asking where his money was, yada yada. Sooooo, guessing intro about it being nonrefundable is just her defense thought up after the fact when she got sued. MM is so disgusted with D repeatedly promising to return the deposit, she actually orders D to return the nonrefundable deposit because of the way she played around with P.  Oh, and another short case - clock just now at 35 minutes so hope last case is worth half the show.
3. 'Nother tenant suing for belongings: P intro claims illegal lockout and landlord refusing to return stuff - wants 5 grand. D intro - oh great, another case of judge ordered eviction and tenant expecting free storage after final 'get your butt out!' Date. And if that isn't bad enough, landlord claims tenant left behind a big mess - including broken toilet and sink - and he's filed a 3 grand countersuit for the cleanup and damage. Ah, but preview clip has landlord jumping the gun and changing the locks a month early, so not so cut and dried as first case where tenant ignored final notice and left property past move out date. D tries to dance around, talking about how they was a verbal agreements that P would leave before the final court appearance. Uh, no, "verbal agreement" doesn't allow property manager to come in and change the locks a month early while P is out for the day - especially when there's still pending court proceedings on the eviction court docket. Oh, but your honor, the power had been turned off... so what, dude may have been in process of moving, you can't just change the locks without a court saying you can. This one may be a wash. Have to see what each side can prove to see if anybody gets any money.... can P show 5 grand worth of stuff or how much it cost for housing for the time he was locked out - and can D prove the damage claim (nothing for cleanup, as lockout prevented P from cleaning up) heck, maybe even painting, putting in new floors, etc and completely renovating the place had he not been illegally get locked out. Hmmm, actually really looking good for P if he can prove what he's out - but then I skipped ahead and know he comes out first - have to watch and see why. Well, turns out D has before and after pictures. Before - P was first tenant after a remodel - pictures show place immaculate. After - a freeking mess. P claims he doesn't know when D took those pictures, but place was cleaned up when before he left - but no, he has no pictures to show. Uh oh, P was looking good, but his non evidence is going to bite him in the rear. Dude just said toilet had been broken, but we saw a brand new toilet in the before pictures. So, not believing him, and not willing to just hand him 5 grand. D might have had a case - if he had just followed the law. Now, we have the illegal lockout, no mandatory notice of why he kept the deposit, etc, and again no receipts of what the cleanup and repairs cost. Okkkkkkk as predicted, since neither side can prove anything, nobody gets anything. Actually,  both sides catch a break here. P doesn't get back his deposit even though D didn't send a itemized explanation of why he withheld it as law demands because MM believes that there more than enough evidence in the pictures to show damaged in excess of the deposit. D could have been slammed for the lockout and not sending that notice,  but MM let's that slide after seeing the mess left behind and hearing P repeatedly claiming to have cleaned it up - which had her mad at P. Soooooo no one gets anything.

Edited October 23, 2018 by SRTouch

[SRTouch]

23 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

She also, she proudly states, doesn't "do" receipts, well, except for the one she made up to prove she paid rent when she didn't. Def brings a whole bunch of papers concerning the sale of the property, but the one needed that had signatures on it, he didn't bring with him today. "It's at home". Of course it is. JM gives him a week to prove. I forced myself to listen to the sleazebag outside to see if that happened, but the creep never mentioned it. I see the show still has the huge "Don't text and drive" at the end. Levin, have you no shame? Oh, stupid question.

Just now watched yesterday's cases, this was only one I found interesting, and we may never know if rotund ex-landlord ever produced the required proof that he was the "ex" landlord when the water was turned off. I did get a laugh when MM interrupted his monologue and asks gimpy fat dude if he even remembers what her question was - cuz I had actually forgotten.

[AngelaHunter]

3 hours ago, SRTouch said:

botched car deal:

I kind of admire people who deal with the "credit-ally challenged" = deadbeats who want stuff they can't finance without paying 200% interest. The def shouldn't have kept telling him she'd give him his deposit back, since she had no obligation to do so after he decided he didn't want the beater after all. That was dumb and she screwed herself over here. But no, no "pain and suffering" boe-nanza for a contract case. where

 

3 hours ago, SRTouch said:

'Nother tenant suing for belongings: 

"Listen to me, and listen to me good" says Antwan, which is one of the few things he said I could understand. I was expecting JM to rip him a new one, but she lets that slide. Yes, of course - strangers entered the place and dumped a ton a crap in there after he got evicted. How the hell does anyone break a toilet, anyway? That place looked like a pack of wild animals lived there. I used to live in apartments before buying a house, and never did I destroy any of them. I don't get it. Anyway, little hobgoblin def. hastily typed up some sort of fake estimate he says he got to repair all the destruction in the place, but it was obviously not legit.

 

3 hours ago, SRTouch said:

I actually started to recap this mess,

That witch had more nerve than a sore tooth. Where do these moochers get off thinking they can sue when they didn't pay rent? Her evidence? Oh, well - she doesn't have it and simply cannot understand that when you get evicted for being a squatter, you need to take all your crap with you. Get out, all of you.

Today's cases were a good lesson for anyone who thinks he/she might enjoy being a landlord.

[aemom]

On 2018-10-22 at 5:05 PM, AngelaHunter said:

The worst part of this case, other than that plaintiff truly feels that if someone in front of her stops she "has no choice" but to slam into them, is the way JM let her babble over her constantly. She never shut up! Stupid blabbermouth is incapable of listening to anything. Of course her insurance - if she had any -  had to pay the person she hit.  Another scammer looking to score 5K for nothing. "Pain and suffering"! Private eye worked. It's like hiring someone to find water and dig you a well. Satisfactory results are not guaranteed but you have to pay for work done.

I think that she thought that if she could prove that they had lied, that she could get her insurance to pay for her own damage or something.

 

10 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Have we ever had a dumber plaintiff that the new episode eviction case this morning?     When the marshals tell you to get out on a specific date and time, and anything left after that time is no longer yours, and you leave a boat behind, then you're out of luck.

 

Seriously, how are you that stupid.  Even when the judge explains it to her like she's a toddler, she STILL thinks that they were friends and it would be ok. 

Good God, you can't fix stupid.

 

3 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

"Listen to me, and listen to me good" says Antwan, which is one of the few things he said I could understand. I was expecting JM to rip him a new one, but she lets that slide. Yes, of course - strangers entered the place and dumped a ton a crap in there after he got evicted. How the hell does anyone break a toilet, anyway? That place looked like a pack of wild animals lived there.

Nah, you have to call her "ma'am" to get a new one ripped.   ;-)

That place was disgusting.  You hear jokes about college boys living like pigs, but that was a family with small children.  How do you live in that filth along with such disrespect for other people's things to damage them so badly?

What is wrong with people?  Have people just lost all sense of decency, self respect, and manners?  I really hope that's only true for a very small segment of society and that is the segment that we see on TPC.  The cases for the last two days are just filled with winning examples of humanity.

Edited October 24, 2018 by AEMom
Typo

[DoctorK]

53 minutes ago, AEMom said:

Good God, you can't fix stupid.

True, ignorance can be fixed, stupid is inherent. However is possible to be both stupid and ignorant, we see this often enough on these shows.

[SRTouch]

late start, so not a full recap. But first case struck me as best in awhile

1. used car (lemon): (takes awhile, but this one gets interesting) dumb and dumber father son teams. Anthony and Anthony, the Plaintiff team, bought an old junker, thinking it would be a 'reliable' car - only to have the t***** go as they were driving home. (You can tell the Anthonys apart easily - sonny hasn't gone to fat yet.) Daddy on defendant side didn't come today - probably too obese to fit out the door, and defendant sonny so gimpy he has to have a seat for the proceedings. Part of his defense is that it was days before the Anthonys reached him to say there was a problem - well, yeah, say Ps, it was days because D blocked his phone as soon as they were out of sight. In what should have been an easy slam dump AS-IS case, there's a slight hiccup when we learn car seller, D,  is selling a car not registered in his name and doesn't even know name of person he bought it from - in fact, in preview clip MM is all over him to dig through his pile of papers and come up with a name. Ok, that sort of trumps AS-IS idea - if dude jumped title was there even a legal sale?... heck even if hooptie had been a great daily driver, sounds like P couldn't register the car - I mean problem with title, seller blocked his phone so Anthonys couldn't even call to ask for title, etc ... assuming he ever tried to register and insure the car. Just from intro and preview, I would say unwind the deal and give Anthonys back their money - minus the tow fee... see they want what they paid for junker, plus the money they paid to tow it home.  To show what hutzpa D has, he wants over a grand for harrassment because Anthonys demanded their money back - when they finally figured out how to reach him. Testimony begins and we learn poppa Anthony was buying 18yo sonny Anthony his first car - car they settle on was nice looking 2002 Jeep... Guess poppa was using this as a training session in how NOT to buy a car... ahhhh seems sonny was using his own money - money he earned stocking and bagging at the grocery store.... anyway, instead of having 16yo jeep checked by a mechanic, poppa checks the fluids, then sends sonny and bf of daughter - self proclaimed jeep expert - off on a test drive. Some disagreement on how long and far the test drive was - poppa Anthony says 15 mijutes, sonny says 10 minutes, D shaking his head at both, and his intro claims they drove maybe 60 miles (later he says 45 minutes). But, hey, that should be fine - who needs a mechanic when sister's bf knows all about jeeps. So, just like intro said, on the way home jeep acts up - rather than take a chance and keep driving, they get it towed to sonny's place since it's the closest. Soon as the jeep breaks down they're calling D - and calls are being blocked. Poppa calls from different number and reaches D right away, no problem, but of course D hangs up as soon as he catches on it's an Anthony. Eventually, poppa goes to D's house looking for answers - hence the harrassment countersuit. Now that they have the broken down jeep home, they finally get a real mechanic to check it out, and they have a mechanic's report to show the judge. 'Nother nail in scammer D's case, seems whole time he was showing and selling the jeep he was claiming to be 'Eddie,' but when poppa gets to the house scammer's parents are calling him 'David.'  And what's-his-name refuses to come out and talk with Poppa Anthony ... isn't Eddie/David/seller/scammer a tad bit old to be living with mommy and daddy? ... oh my, first time we're hearing from D and dude doesn't waste any time sticking his foot in his mouth. Talks about how sainted mother was just getting home from hospital with heart problems, how aggressively poppa Anthony was, but when MM asks why he left dad and frail, sick, momma alone to deal with aggressive poppa Anthony, first he says he was upstairs, then thinks maybe he wasn't even at home... Ok, we had dumb and dumber on plaintiff side - sounds like dumbest is on D side - no wonder daddy D chose not to come with sonny D - just wonder why daddy D was named in the lawsuit with scammer/Eddie/David/whatever... ok, now's when MM is at her best - tearing into ridiculous litigant's story, poking holes and making them look even more ridiculous - this time it's fish in the barrow and this guy is truly the dumbest of them all. Ah, he even tries to school the judge on the law when she questions him.... and for those keeping track, while dufus D is arguing he gets away with the dreaded 'ma'am'... this could have just seemed like MM was a meany, bullying poor mentally deficient D, but he just keeps yakking and sticking his foot in it - and is he turning red faced as he's yakking?... oops, now he's done it. Just got caught in a lie when MM asked how many cars he's sold in the past year that he doesn't remember who sold him this car. He insists just this one car, but Poppa Anthony is quick to provide proof that he has a website site offering multiple vehicles for sale... oh, and we get an answer to why poppa D is named in lawsuit - seems he's in cahoots with sonny D in this illegal online car dealership... uh oh, wondering if this tape can be used to shut down his little car dealership, which poppa Anthony says the local law enforcement already have on their radar... oh, and new way to give a litigant the boot - first MM tells him to stand up when she's talking to him, then when he interrupts one too many times she tells him "Sally on out of here, Sally on out" and Douglas escorts him out the door. Oh my, in announcing her decision MM quickly tosses harrassment countersuit and awards everything the Anthonys asked for - but then asks what about the jeep? Normally, she says, she'd order the Anthonys to give the car back to D - but in this case she toys with letting them keep it since dufus D has no proof it was ever legally his. Course that wouldn't be right either - so she recommends they call local police to come impound the vehicle. Says if cops don't want to impound it, the Anthonys can junk it and maybe get a couple hundred more out of the kerfuffle. Surprise - no hallterview with dumbest litigant in long while (which is really saying alot) ... really took some effort to make the Anthonys look smarter than dumbass dumbest litigant D.
2. Bridezilla vs wedding photographer: simple contract case - but of course what seems simple can get emotional fast when we're talking about a bride's big day. I never enjoy these cases - so skipped to decision. Seems photographer was paid $1400, took a lot of pictures, but only edited a handful - contract still not completed a year and a half after wedding and bride tired of getting runaround. Bride wanted full refund plus money for someone else to complete contract. Nope, says MM, but she does award a thousand. (Oh, now that you all have me listening for it, after decision, winner says "thank you, ma'am")
3. homeowner vs contractor: P paid D to replace a damaged awning on his house - replacement smaller than original and says he paid for same size - wants bo-NAN-za, 5 grand max. D intro claims he measured old awning and made the new, custom replacement exactly the same size. I'm kind of bummed about this one. Sounds like it might gave been interedting, but my satellite was in and out so I missed some of it. Apparently, D not only had his word that he measured the awnings, but brought in google earth pictures of the old awning, which when compared to the new one shows it appears to be same size (MM breaks out her magnifying glass for the comparison). To that, all homeowner can do is repeat over and over, "I've lived in my house 12 years, and know the replacement is smaller." Case dismissed.

Oh well, dang rain messed up my court TV viewing and I'm not even sure who to sue!!!

Edited October 24, 2018 by SRTouch

[AngelaHunter]

55 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

Anthony and Anthony, the Plaintiff team, bought an old junker,

I had to just shake my head over this one, although it's an old, old story on TPC. Idiots buy an old heap from from some shady character, in this case"Eddy David" who is repugnant in the extreme. Of course they don't have a mechanic check it out first. Daddy's daughter's boyfriend knows all about old beater Cherokees. Except apparently he doesn't.  At first I thought this was just the usual - idiots buying old car "As is" - which they did - and then squawking about it but turns out def, who is old enough to have bags under his eyes and gray hair yet still holes up in his little bedroom at Mommy and Daddy's house, is a crook. Mommy must feed him too well, since Douglas had to go and fix his mic so he could sit his lard-ass down. JM is disgusted with his crook attitude, orders him to stand up and then throws the tub of shit out. He managed to walk under his own power, btw. I couldn't help but think that plaintiff daddy should worry more about getting his boy out of the grocery store and getting him educated - both of them had horrific grammar - and worry less about getting the kid the old Cherokee of his dreams. They're just lucky they couldn't register the beater or they'd have been stuck with it. Maybe they learned something, or maybe not.

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

Bridezilla vs wedding photographer:

I was surprised again. I love when that happens. Plaintiff is not a bridezilla, but suing shifty def. for the runaround he gave her for her wedding photos. Yes, his contracted said there would be two photographers, but well, his other photographer developed "issues" the day of the wedding and was a no-show. Then def's place of business was broken into three times. Sure it was. Excuses, excuses. Why the hell didn't he just give her what she paid for instead of showing up here and letting everyone within range of his studio cross him off their list of photographers? Oh, well. Glad the bride got the 1k back anyway.

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

homeowner vs contractor:

I did enjoy the awning def. who went all out to prove his defense was valid. "I've lived in my house 12 years" says plaintiff over and over as though that is sufficient proof that def. screwed up. No, he has no pics and no measurements to prove this and even Google Streets must be wrong because it clearly showed the size of his previous awning, which matched the new one. What a waste of time.

 

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

Oh well, dang rain messed up my court TV viewing and I'm not even sure who to sue!!!

Maybe sue the people who installed your antenna/dish because they didn't make it clear to you that rain might mess with the signal?

[SRTouch]

8 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

Maybe sue the people who installed your antenna/dish because they didn't make it clear to you that rain might mess with the signal?

Great idea! And, surely I deserve pain and suffering! Probably ought to sue direct tv, too, for harrassment. They call every so often with their offers of a gazillion channels - and now they'll even sign me up to AT&T

[SRTouch]

dog custody case ?? should have skipped this one - just made me mad, then sad, to think P, who apparently shouldn't have a pet rock, won and now has $1200 to go buy another puppy?... bad caterer, bad!  ??? sort of interesting - I first thought P might get partial refund, then nasty text exchange, BBB complaint, etc, but turned into wasted time as MM had her mind made up before entering courtroom, let testimony run until alloted time ran out, then dismissed case... phoney sneakers ??? skipped this one - these online collectible cases are almost as interesting as salon cases to me

1. dog custody battle: P claims she left her pup with D, supposed to be only for 1 night, but now D won't return the dog - according to intro she's even been to the cops, dude was arrested and charged him with a felony - she's looking for the 5 grand max ($1200 for dog, rest is 'mental anguish')... not sure what to think of her and her witness as they make their entrance - younger bald witness dude, dressed in faded jeans and long sleeve shirt, opens door and marches in several steps in front of her, walks through the gate - but does pause and hold it open til she gets there - P comes in dressed in black - jacket over short skirt, stands at lectern playing with her phone while intro is completed. D also brought along a witness. His intro is that, while he offered to look after the dog because P was on hard times and couldn't care for it, he never actually took possession - says P just a nut... looking at his outfit, I'm having flashbacks to 70s - but no big hair - dude is a cueball... testimony starts -  and not sure how long I'm willing to listen to this lady's accent as she tries to tell a coherent story. Good grief, she can't even complete a sentence before MM has to interrupt and ask for clarification - she was on the boardwalk - what boardwalk - boardwalk on South Beach - South Beach where - Staten Island (yeah, that would have been my guess with the accent, but not first place most folks think of). Ok, this lady's story is all over - she's not making much sense. She met D at the beach, and had known him a few months when she says he offered to keep her dog overnight.... sorry, that makes no sense to me - not only because this was a casual acquaintance and dog supposedly worth $1200, but mainly because I'd place more value on my dog than the monetary value. Why in the world would you leave your dog with someone for 1 night anyway? Just the logistics of making sure he has the right food, a bed, maybe a kennel, had a place to walk the dog, etc etc has me wondering. I'd need a compelling reason to leave one of my pets anywhere, much less some casual acquaintance from the beach. Next part of her rambling is D calling on the 16th to tell her the dog had a broken leg - huh? How long after he got the dog for 1 night was the 16th? MM has the same questions and tries to get answers, but cuts ditzy off and asks if P is hearing her questions because she not answering... I got fed up, gave up on ditz, and hit the zip button. I stop a couple times, and sounds like MM sees some texts that has her believing D pulled an illegal rescue type deal, where he did decided ditz was too nutty to care for the dog. From little bit I heard, he may have a point - but unfortunately the dog is property under the law, and we can't have people taking others property without going through channels - like animal control/welfare (soooooo not going to tell the story of how Frankie or Spotty became my cats.) Can't argue with the decision - MM believes D took the dog, and orders he pay - the dog's value, not the mental anguish. Hallterview more of the same. D still says he didn't take the dog - wonder if that felony charge is still pending and he's smart enough not to admit he took it on national tv - Doug asks P again why in the world would she  give D the dog for 1 freekin' night in the first place - still doesn't have an answer
2. Wants refund from caterer: P contracted (orally - never had anything in writing) D to cater an event - put down a $500 deposit - changed her mind and hired someone else - asked for the money back - says she was told money already used to buy supplies for the event - asked for the supplies bought with her money - caterer refused - P sues. D says she did work for P and her event, turned away two other events on the scheduled day, only to have P cancel - which is why deposits are nonrefundable.... ok, seems simple enough - D wins if intro close to accurate. Seems P is another of those folks who throw their own party when they're the guest of honor. (At least she doesn't appear to be charging her "guests") This time, P wants a small retirement party for 200 guests costing around 2 grand. She's planning far in advance -  hires D - they schedule a meeting to go over plans at noon on a Sunday at D's house - P arrives at scheduled time and place to find nobody home - she calls from D's front porch asking where are you - gets a message  at 12:05 that D is still at church and she'll be there in 10-15 minutes. Huh, P may have a right to complain about D being unprofessional. Doesn't help much for D's defense when she's so lackadaisical with her answers when questioned by JM. P has plans Sunday afternoon - D offers a lame apology through text - P says we'll have to reschedule later in the week - tells us she expected D to contact her to reschedule, so when she didn't hear from D it was just more fuel to the flames - 2-3 days later P texts that she's going to hire someone else and asks for the deposit back... at this point seems to me D was the one who breached their contract - reasonable adults should have been able to salvage the deal, but how many reasonable folks do we see as litigants on court tv... ok, both sides expected other to reach out to reschedule (confusion added because, not only are these people corresponding by text instead of actualay talking to each other, but P has her smart phone using auto reply, apparently yet another "helpful" app which sends messages in your name that some moronic AI thinks appropiate). I'm thinking D breached and P should be able to get the money back - then text exchange starts getting nasty - to the point where P starts questioning whether D, who has been doing this for 25 years, is appropriately licensed - even bringing race into the issue (which makes no sense as these are both black women) when P hints D is reason some people don't hire blacks - and filed complaints with the BBB, trying to stir up trouble by reporting she's operating a business out of her home. Hearing this crap, and after learning D offered a partial refund, has me swinging over to D's side. Hmmmm all this talk, and when it comes to a decision as time is running out, MM trots out the old "default position is deposits are nonrefundable" and gives P nothing. I'm still thinking D owed a partial refund since she missed the scheduled meeting which caused the kerfuffle, but MM felt that missed meeting wasn't enough to justify canceling contract and refunding the nonrefundable deposit.
3. phoney collectible sneakers: P bought fancy sneakers, claims they're counterfeit, wants $450 refund. D says sneakers he sold were real deal, all sales final, no refunds ??? why would anyone buy a collectible anything sight unseen from some stranger online?!? Haven't these idjits ever heard "Buyer Beware"... yeah, I know, just like the fools who buy AS-IS and expect a warranty or the dummies who buy a boat before checking if it floats. Ok, didn't watch - but skipped ahead and see MM canceled the deal - fool buyer gets his money back and scammer seller gets the shoes. Might go back and watch later, as scammer dude must have really stepped in it if there was enough to prove he knowing sold fakes.

[arejay]

P in Dog, Gone! case is what Gina of Real Housewives of Orange County will be in 20 years, after Disney divorce forces her back to 'that' South Beach boardwalk.

[Brattinella]

@SRTouch  did you hear about the child vs doxie puppy in Lawton?

 

Sorry, Off-Topic.  The first skipped story reminded me of that.

Edited October 25, 2018 by Brattinella

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

dog custody battle: 

Two things stood out in this case: One, that JM had the patience and fortitude to repeat her question a multitude of times and in different formats - using everything but a universal translator, sign language or pictograms- to try and get the brain-dead plaintiff to answer her. Blank stares x 5. Two, that this is proof-positive that backyard breeders/puppymillers are utter filth, who don't give a shit what happens to their "product" once they have the money in their greedy, grasping hands. Plaintiff may be a homeless whack-job, but there is always lots of money for designer mutts and hair extensions. OMG.

Def. looked and sounded as though he were heading for an audition for a 3rd-rate, budget mob movie, that is after he made a detour to the tanning salon. A couple friends of mine say they don't believe the cases here are real, but I tell them that no one, not even Spielberg, could make up this sicko, insane shit.

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

Wants refund from caterer:

This was boring, except for JM accusing plaintiff of racism. Anyway, how far behind the times am I? Am I the only one who wouldn't organize and pay for a party (of any kind) for myself? Is this a common thing now, for people to throw themselves a birthday/retirement/whatever party?

Kanye West - the great talent of our age - is an expert in design of sneakers too. There's a Sneaker Exchange and sneaker experts, it seems. LOL! Kanye's fugly shoes are worth 900$. and there's a booming counterfeit market in ugly, silly-looking shoes. Only interesting part was JM attempting to decipher the illiterate texts from someone who can afford to pay 450$(485$?) for running shoes. It's an investment! Yeah, a lot of people (including a friend of mine) thought Beanie Babies were an investment too. 

[Broderbits]

Today's 1st case:

So the judge just decides for loopy plaintiff based on "feelings" instead of proof? I know dogs are considered property legally, but I "feel" that woman couldn't be trusted to take care of a stuffed toy much less a living breathing animal.

[Bazinga]

4 hours ago, SRTouch said:

MM trots out the old "default position is deposits are nonrefundable" and gives P nothing.

Wasn't it during a case this week that Harvey, after quizzing his street fools, was saying that the default position is that the deposit IS refundable, unless in writing otherwise?  Just recalled, it was the car case where the defendant promised the refund she didn't have to give but gave plaintiff a runaround.  The only reason plaintiff got the deposit back was because of the promise to refund and the subsequent runaround.  I thought Harvey was wrong then but Harvey's little commentaries never seem to match the case reasoning.  Just seems to go both ways on PC and JJ on deposits.

The plaintiff in the dog case had no proof of anything.  Why not something from the vet stating defendant brought her dog in with a broken foot in order to prove his having possession?  JM "feeling" that defendant stating he didn't think the plaintiff was fit to take care of a dog is proof that he took the dog is just plain wrong.  He could feel that way about plaintiff without acting on it.  She didn't seem competent to care for a dog or herself based on her actions in court alone.  His stating the obvious isn't proof.  She had the burden of proving her case not the judge deciding she thinks the defendant did what he was accused of especially when she comes off as incoherent and loopy.  She never could even explain why she gave him the dog in the first place in her version.  What about the police report regarding this case or was it the theft of her other dog where there was a police report?  Some sort of evidence beyond plaintiff's say so, the son saying the defendant admitted it to him, and the judge "feeling" D probably did take the dog because he thought the dogs were like kids was needed.  There really is no connection between his feeling she was incompetent to care for the dog (reasonable)/considering the dogs like children and undeserving of mistreatment (understandable)/offering to take the dog (considerate) and obviously taking the dog (unreasonable and illegal).  Sometimes JM just reads into things.  Yes, JM is the judge but there was no basis for that ruling, IMO.        

Edited October 25, 2018 by Bazinga

[Silver Raven]

The dog case ruling made absolutely no sense.  The plaintiff, who clearly has mental issues, had absolutely zero evidence that she gave the dog to the defendant.  She didn't even have any evidence that she ever had a dog, though the defendant admitted that. And then in the hallterview, she said she was happy with the decision.  She didn't care about that dog, because the defendant never even had it.

[SRTouch]

10 hours ago, Brattinella said:

@SRTouch  did you hear about the child vs doxie puppy in Lawton?

 

Sorry, Off-Topic.  The first skipped story reminded me of that.

Answered in small talk

[Schnickelfritz]

Did anyone else notice that the plaintiff in the Boardwalk dog case claimed that her other dog was taken by someone who drugged her and that individual was under investigation? I think she has had some sort of life altering event (stroke, drugs, mental illness) and has no idea if she is afoot or on horseback.

Edited October 26, 2018 by Schnickelfritz
punctuation is my friend

[AngelaHunter]

16 hours ago, Bazinga said:

Wasn't it during a case this week that Harvey, after quizzing his street fools, was saying that the default position is that the deposit IS refundable, unless in writing otherwise? 

Actually I believe it's the other way around - non-refundable unless stated otherwise.

Speaking of Harvey, I'm suing that shortass for intentional infliction of emotional distress, plus pain and suffering. I opened my homepage this morning, saw the following and against my will I heard a high-pitched screeching in my head, saying, "Booker? Clapper? HE HARDLY KNEW 'ER!!!!" Get out of my head, you little dirtbag.

 

 

[Katy M]

9 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

Actually I believe it's the other way around - non-refundable unless stated otherwise.

Yes, that's the way it is. Otherwise it would kind of defeat the purpose of a deposit.

[Bazinga]

3 hours ago, Katy M said:

Yes, that's the way it is. Otherwise it would kind of defeat the purpose of a deposit.

Yes, but I can swear Harvey said the opposite.  He said the default position was refundable unless it says nonrefundable in writing.  Think it was during this week's car deposit refund runaround case.

[bref]

I remember that as well, because it was a huge WTF to me. I loathe him more every day, I swear. Today's brilliant legal question to the crowd was whether farts or sulphur smells worse? He is USELESS.

The woman with the "missing" dog clearly had cognitive issues and should never have been put on TV. And I agree that Judge Milian's verdict made zero sense.

[Bazinga]

Today, Judge Milan said a countersuit was only brought for "rhetorical" reasons.  I think she meant to say reciprocal.  That is something one of the litigants would say.

[AZChristian]

6 hours ago, Schnickelfritz said:

Did anyone else notice that the plaintiff in the Boardwalk dog case claimed that her other dog was taken by someone who drugged her and that individual was under investigation? I think she has had some sort of life altering event (stroke, drugs, mental illness) and has no idea if she is afoot or on horseback.

As Judge Milian was talking to her, and the plantiff's story made NO sense, I could just hear Judge Judy looking at her and saying, "If it doesn't make sense it isn't true."  Regardless . . . this woman seemed unable to verbalize a complete thought.  How do we know the $1,200 receipt for the dog was the dog she was accusing the defendant of stealing?  She said she had a second dog, which also disappeared under questionable circumstances.  And if the dog had a broken foot and was taken to the vet, why was there no notarized affidavit from the vet (which Judge Milian DOES accept), confirming he had treated the dog in question?

The burden of proof in a small claims case is "more likely than not."  I don't think the plantiff's case came anywhere near even that minimum requirement.

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, AZChristian said:

I don't think the plantiff's case came anywhere near even that minimum requirement.

I think JM decided that case solely on the testimony of the Nutcase's son. I guess he was the only person there who seemed the least bit credible or coherent

 

2 hours ago, bref said:

Today's brilliant legal question to the crowd was whether farts or sulphur smells worse? He is USELESS.

I didn't listen to that - I never listen to Levin and his Nitwit Fan Club, but that he would want to discuss farts does not surprise me.

Today we had a woman who looked disturbingly like an Orc, shaking down defs after def hit her 15-year old hoopty. They paid her more than the junker was worth, plus bought more parts to fix it for probs that had nothing to do with the accident, but that wasn't enough for her. She came here to try and fleece them yet more, because of course her ancient car was in pristine condition before the accident. She gets nothing, but blabbers on to Doug in the Hall. I skipped that.

Rotten egg smell from water: It was nice to see civil litigants who could speak properly, but JM? "Hot water heater"? It's a water heater, since hot water doesn't need heating.

I  missed the 1st case, due to special bulletin for some new atrocity, act of violence or whatever that happened today.

Edited October 26, 2018 by AngelaHunter

[aemom]

I was surprised that the Anthonys had a leg to stand on with that hooptie since the cases never end well for the P,  but the D was such a lowlife scam artist selling cars that he doesn't even have the title to. Hopefully, the dad helps the son buy a better car next time. He seemed like a nice kid who worked hard at his part time job to earn the money for the car and was relying on his dad's advice to help him make a smart decision, when in fact the dad is clearly an idiot and knows nothing about buying used cars.

I was also surprised that the wedding photos case was not a bridezilla, but a very reasonable woman who had waited long enough.  That pinhead photographer wasn't even smart enough not to have his business mentioned.

The awning D was my favorite kind of litigant.  The kind that has bags of good solid evidence. The P never stood a chance and clearly has no idea how big his awning is.

The woman accusing the guy of stealing her dog. That was a really bizarre case. She was clearly not mentally stable. MM asked her the same simple question so many different ways, and she seemed incapable of understanding and answering it. I really don't know what to make of that case, but if he did steal the dog and actually got it a better home, then good on him.

The retirement caterer case was kind of boring.

The Yeezy case was interesting because as the mother of teenage boys, I hear about some of the kids at school and their ridiculously expensive shoes. Luckily, my sons are perfectly happy with regular running shoes at regular prices and laugh at these kids. This is good, because there's no way I would ever shell out for these things.  I actually got to see what one of these crazy pairs looks like. These $800 Yeezys are really ugly and I have to laugh at what people will wear in the name of fashion.  The P here was also smart with the evidence, and that's what won him the case.

Edited October 27, 2018 by AEMom
Typo

[zillabreeze]

4 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Rotten egg smell from water: It was nice to see civil litigants who could speak properly, but JM? "Hot water heater"? It's a water heater, since hot water doesn't need heating.

Join me in wineness.  My personal "NO" is a "PIN' number".  Is it a "personal identification number - number"?

I really do get the girl warmies when JM has a mechanical type case and calls it.  Her house repair cases are the best IMO.  She has a real grasp on how shit works.  Or if she doesn't, knows how to edumicate herself.

  I despise women that act stupid about crap around the house.  It's not cute.  You're not Blanche Dubois.  If you insist on playing helpless, then just pay the dude and STFU.  No backsies if you get overcharged.