AngelaHunter March 9, 2019 Share March 9, 2019 14 hours ago, AZChristian said: The only thing comparable she found by that same manufacturer was available for $19.99. JM's contempt for that mush-mouthed, lying, money grubber was rolling off her in waves and rightly so. 4 Link to comment
SRTouch March 11, 2019 Share March 11, 2019 (edited) Allergy to restaurant food: P claims she told waitress about her food allergies (allergic to peppers) - was served dish with the green pepper she's allergic to - when she had an adverse reaction she was accused of faking to get out of bill - D demanded she pay bill before she left for hospital - suing for hospital bill and dinner she had to pay for that sent her to hospital $1853... defendant: admits her dinner had pepper in it - but says her dinner charge has already taken off bill - says he has already paid for the 2 epi-pens she used, and not willing to pay any more after woman slammed his restaurant on social media..... ok, not understanding either side here - I will never understand people with severe food allergies who eat out in unfamiliar restaurants without making sure their food will be safe - and telling the waitress isn't enough in my book, there's too much chance the info won't be passed along - thing is, many people shrug off allergies without realising how serious - deadly even - they can be - if your allergy is bad enough to carry epi-pens make darned sure everyone who will be handling your food (and plates, and eating utensils) knows.... I equally don't get restaurant owner/manager's appearance here, even though he doesn't want MM telling us restaurant's name - dude should be bending over backwards apologizing for the screw up, no matter who messed up the order - cook, waitress, whoever, doesn't matter - not coming on national tv... testimony: ok, P says she's been allergic to peppers for years, and always makes sure restaurant staff knows - says she was out with son and his friends celebrating a birthday, but made sure she told waitress and had waitress check with cook what she ordered would NOT have peppers - problem was, turned out red pepper was used in the breading on her dish, so as soon as she took a bite she had a reaction.... ok, bad on cook for not double checking ingredients, but comes back to customer, too.... ok, she says no one in party completed their meal, she reacted to her first bite, son rushed to get her epi-pens and everyone else gathered around - she says kerfuffle with waitress, first denying peppers used and she's faking to get free food, then says she dug out peppers out of food and put pieces of paper in waitress' hand, so waitress goes back to kitchen, finally cook admits peppers were in food, waitress insisting she pay before leaving.... not looking good for restaurant, especially since, if I heard correctly he took price of her dinner off the tab, but not rest of party's $150 bill.... ok, over to defendant, who it turns out was the cook - he admits waitress told him about customer not wanting peppers, but he "interpreted" that to mean she didn't like spicey food - dude not sounding good here, blaming waitress for not making allergy clear when doesn't matter, so he let the red pepper slide because - not sure, WTH he's saying, either he knows better than the customer whether the food is too spicey or is he saying he was told no green pepper but red peppers were ok, either way he'said wrong.... MM trying to impress upon him how serious food allergies can be and a$$hole coming off as some fancy know it all chef foody primadonna.... ok, didn't think much of P position when it seemed she didn't stress her allergy enough, but now I'm not sure how big a hammer she would have needed to knock this 'chef' over the head with to get him to listen - I would have leaned toward making P partially responsible for her own damn health bill, but am disliking this D enough to make him solely on the hook - especially as he sort of accepted partial liability when he paid for 2 epi-pens and comp-ed her (uneaten) meal, but demanded payment for the rest of party's uneaten meal and the $1700 hospital bill (yes, he acknowledges she needed treatment at hospital - but again with blaming her for not saying she's allergic to "all" peppers) - oh, and he doesn't help his case any when he says back at the restaurant they now call P "the red pepper lady".... ok, MM has slammed D enough, now she starts in on P, asking how many times she has had to use the epi-pens at restaurants (twice) and questioning why she eats out.... oh, and we learn the $1700 actually is just her out of pocket, actual bill "much more" according to MM. P gets everything she's asking for roomy kerfuffle: P claiming D gave her the boot and put her stuff out on the street, and some of her furniture was ruined - wants 3 grand... defendant: D agrees stuff was put outside, but says nothing was rained on, and besides she didn't put the stuff out there, it was the landlord who gave them the boot and put stuff on curb, so P is suing wrong person... testimony: hmmmm, when P starts talking sounds like intro clown got everything wrong - but easy to understand the goof this time because I'm having trouble following WTH P is saying - apparently she needed out of her old place, her good friend D was thinking of renting her downstairs, so ) ended up moving in - then some nonsense about a fight about putting food on the grill, and friendship started going downhill - ah, MM is doing her routine where she gets litigant to relax and say too much for their own good - P smiling, acting like MM is her bestie, while telling us about the various kerfuffle the two got into after she moved in.... thing is, she has testified about the rent she was to pay, so sounds like she was a legal tenant - which would make D a landlord and mean D was required to know what a landlord can legally do when they have a problem tenant.... hmmmm seems D's lease was ending, and she told P early Oct that everybody had to be out November 1st according to real landlord - if I'm understanding her correctly, P was very loose with her rental agreement, not paying on time and expecting D to cover for her when she was late, after all she had covered for her in the past - yep, she says, no big deal if she's late with her rent, and I love to hear MM say it IS a big deal whenever you short your landlord, since they have bills they have to pay and are depending on you to pay on time - ok, so first kerfuffle was over food on grill, then there was rent not paid on time, now something about P washing her BF's laundry (who wants to bet D's real problem was P not kicking her share of expenses (food, utilities, freekin' tide pods) along with being late with the rent. Anyway, trying to jump ahead a bit, if I understand what P is saying she unilaterally switched to a week to week agreement beginning in Oct, paid $300 for first 2 weeks (should have been $350) - everybody to be gone November 1st - when period she paid rent for ends SOMEBODY puts her stuff outside - D says wasn't me!.... hmmmm, D not making much sense with that line - who else would have come in and put the stuff outside, not HER landlord, since as far as he knew lease still had a couple weeks to go. Ok, that whole line is intro clown smokescreen - she ends up admitting to moving stuff outside - Oh, and now sounds like after D got the boot P decided to stay - uh, and sounds like the laundry kerfuffle happened mid October after period P had paid rent for and P had her stuff there, but wasn't actually living there, just came back to do bf's laundry in D laundry room (and messed up the dryer in process).... ok, whole case confusing, and yes, I have had plenty of coffee - not worth backtracking - ok, guess bf laundry was straw that broke the back, rent not paid up, dryer overloaded or something with bf's stuff, and when D texted to complain P says she can use P's washer and dryer to wash whatever the hell she wants - big kerfuffle, and I bet D locked P out and moved her furniture out just as soon as she could. I get why D would, but just because P may have been a lousy tenant doesn't mean D can toss her stuff and lock her out. Oh yeah, and despite D trying to spin things, MM gets her to admit she put P's stuff out. Ok, D just lost, but how much will P get? Does she have anything showing value, or will D get to pay extra for not following landlord/tenant laws? D tries to brush right over MM telling her she broke the law and just admitted to a misdemeanor in their jurisdiction (NY). OK, MM is ready to talk damages, but P's evidence is sadly lacking - D admits to putting stuff out, but nobody has pictures and P doesn't keep receipts, so this could be Goodwill thrift store junk or expensive top of the line. Apparently when D learns her stuff was put outside, she just abandoned it. My guess is we're talking about crappy particle board stuff that fell apart when it got wet (D says it didn't rain, P claims it did, but some of that low end stuff gets ruined if left out in a heavy fog)... ok, to further complicate things, P claims she was still making payments on the furniture - but again, can't produce anything showing what the stuff cost or how much she paid - oh and the d, our landlord who admits to illegally locking out her tenant and committing a misdemeanor by putting tenant's belongings outside now claims P was trying to sell the furniture for $500.... no good guy litigants here, I really don't like P, but then D deserves a spanking for the lockout..... absent anything from P showing the value, I'm going with D's claims she wanted $500 (P eventually agrees she was asking for $500), and tacking on an extra grand for the lockout, so, my rough justice decision would be $1500. MM is much easier on D - yells at her, tells her she actually broke the law with the lockout and putting P's property outside, but only gives P $575, the value of furniture (plus $75 for a mattress) - nothing for the lockout.... hmmm, I know on Hot Bench they sometimes access punitive damage amounting to whatever the fine would have been when a litigant admits to a misdemeanor, wonder how much D would have been fined for the misdemeanor she admitted to committing? tow case: P says he was parked legally, went to court and proved it, wants fees returned - suing for $320 defendant: says he was called to town car by cops after they ticketed car for blocking driveway - he did job he was contracted to do, if P has a case against anyway it isn't him and his tow company ..... yep, sounds like yet another case where tow company will win.... testimony: huh? Not sure how P got ticket dismissed from what he's saying.... says he parked his car, admits blocking a driveway, but claims because there was no sign saying it was an "active" driveway it's legal to park there? Soooo, it's legal to block a driveway unless it there's a sign? Well, here in court he claims he wasn't blocking the driveway, even though MM says in his papers he admits he was (well, admits his car was a couple inches into driveway). Oh well, doesn't matter except for entertainment value, he could be totally right that it was a legal parking space, if all tow company did was perform as contracted they deserve to be paid. Oh, and P admits he was ticketed... not sure, but could it be that the laws in their jurisdiction prevents the driver from suing the city for a tow when the city wrongfully has a car towed/impounded. Again, not sure it matters, because everything P is saying indicates to me he was illegally parked.... ok, more chuckles - he's not suing for the cost of the tow, no he wants double because instead of going to pick up his 1997 caddy at impound, he paid to have it towed back to him at 10pm - well well, guess what, P has the dismissal papers from traffic court, and sure enough according to the city that is NOT a driveway... I'm assuming it once was, but now it's fenced off and no longer a driveway - though I would think it should be marked no parking to be left for fire/emergency vehicles to get to the school yard/building through the gate shown in pictures... ok, as expected, P told he may have case against the city and cops (MM tells him to drop her a line if he sues NYC), but tow company did nothing wrong, and they keep fees they earned Edited March 11, 2019 by SRTouch 4 Link to comment
AngelaHunter March 11, 2019 Share March 11, 2019 23 minutes ago, SRTouch said: dude should be bending over backwards apologizing for the screw up, no matter who messed up the order - cook, waitress, whoever, doesn't matter - not coming on national tv. Honestly, I thought the same thing. Def sounded ridiculous, cheaping out on the hospital/dinner bills, and not bringing the waitress was suspect as it always is when defs do this. He sounded also like an asshole with his, "The red pepper lady." We're not talking about getting hives or being served something you don't like, but life or death. I guess people with deadly allergies need to do what JM said, and emphatically inform restaurant staff that they could DIE if given whatever. 27 minutes ago, SRTouch said: roomy kerfuffle: I listen to litigants here and wonder what kind of jobs they can get with such terrible grammar. If a potential employee said to me, "Wouldn't never been no problem" and "ordacity" and even the dreaded, "conversated" I wouldn't hire that person. Def was kind of a dull-witted idiot, who thought she could just throw her tenant's stuff on the street. Plaintiff gave the, "I was short 50$ but it was no big deal" defense. As JM pointed out, it's never a big deal to the person doing the stiffing, but might be to the person not being paid. Plaintiff was looking for a "boe-nanza" of 5K for her stuff which she was forced to admit she was trying to sell for 500$. And of course, the pics showing her stuff ruined by rain were missing from her phone - some unknown entity deleted those - and she didn't bring the proof that she had paid this furniture off. 32 minutes ago, SRTouch said: tow case: He was only blocked that entrance by a few inches. What's the big deal? How dare the cops order his '97 Caddy to be towed? This happened on Febawary eiff. Maybe that bizarre grill he had made him speak this way? Nope, it didn't. Go sue the city. Tow driver did nothing wrong. Duh. I just had to put some of this through a grammar checker. The results are mildly amusing: 3 4 Link to comment
SRTouch March 12, 2019 Share March 12, 2019 (edited) 'nother tow case: yep, picking up where we left off yesterday, 1st case today is another blocked driveway, ticketed car getting towed with driver insisting he did no wrong, with a couple differences - today's P is angry black man suing about damages he claims tow driver caused... actually only watched beginning and ending - took shower in middle thinking I'd rewind and watch if sounded interesting - it didn't, so I didn't - what I caught was the nicely dressed P, who looks so dignified in his suit, screaming on video about tow driver stealing his car, claiming race card, in general acting like an idiot. What's funny is he's going off on tow employees about coming in to the neighborhood and stealing from the black residents, yet car was ticketed and towed because a neighbor reported the blocked driveway, asked cops to ticket car, then the neighbor called asking for the tow. His claim had to do with damage to the car, so MM asks about any pre-existing damage - no, he claims, damage was from tow - ah ha! says sleuthy MM, what about this here paper where you put in for insurance claim 2 days before the tow - case dismissed (may be another example of me giving up early due to low caffeine blood level - may go back and watch later) limo no show: older gentleman planned big night out with wife, hired D's car service to drive them to some expensive wingding - Driver was a no show, repeated calls unanswered, then it was too late to make it to the show - says D offered to refund everything, including cost of tickets, but didn't come across with any money - wants $2500 for the tickets and ruined outing... defendant: claims it was simple schedule mix up, says P longtime customer, and this is first time she's seen him so unreasonable - besides, says he could have just called for Uber ride.... thinking the uber bit is intro clown shtick - would a car service actually come to court recommending their long time client call uber.... oh, and claims tickets he wants 2 grand for actually cost $99.... testimony: right off bat, MM confirms last bit of D's intro - P suing for $99.30 for the theater tickets, plus $2400.70 for the ruined evening.... good thing this recorded earlier, as power just hiccupped and now I'm waiting for satellite to reset.... ok, didn't take too long, just time for quick coffee run.... ah well, no riveting legal battle here, more like retired guy substituting night out at theater with fun day spent on TPC, he and the wife probably going to go out to lunch with the $99 afterwards.... thing is, I didn't find him nearly as entertaining as MM apparently does - I hit FF before he finished his opening soliloquy... when I stop MM is playing Monty Hall, laughing it up with both litigants - yeah, P wins, not only gets his $99 but a couple round trip fares for future car rides to Manhattan tenant wants treble damage security refund: quicky summary - Odd Couple story with P renting room from D. P complains about D complaints when she left tomatoes on counter - D complains of dirty dishes and P not cleaning up after herself - somehow this ends up escalating until cops are called. P moves out, but here looking for court max of 5 grand because D withheld her deposit - oh, guess she wants rent she paid refunded, and added on punitive damages to get to the max. D says she left a mess and owed back rent, so she's within her rights to keep deposit. Silly case - betting starting from CL ad, and probably no written agreement, and D probably another person playing landlord without knowing the law..... ok, not really interesting, and I zip through most of this one, too. As expected, when I tune in for decision we hear defendant didn't followed law requiring written notice of why security was withheld within 30 days, so even if she could show damages she wouldn't be able to keep deposit (MM says what she claims as justification for keeping deposit fails even had she given the written notice) P wins, in that she gets back deposit, but other nonsense tossed - $400 to P, not 5 grand (somehow a puppy is involved, not going back to figure out how, but I gather puppy ate stuff it shouldn't have when P didn't pick up after herself - gotta puppy/kitten/baby proof when you have little ones, no matter how many legs they have) Edited March 12, 2019 by SRTouch 5 Link to comment
Florinaldo March 12, 2019 Share March 12, 2019 (edited) 4 hours ago, SRTouch said: 'nother tow case: A double-team of plaintiffs talking over each other, arguing against the facts, making it up as they go along, and claiming nefarious intentions (including racism). The usual fare in such cases. 4 hours ago, SRTouch said: imo no show: How is it that just about all the litigants JM gushes over are the ones I dislike almost on sight? With this one it started with his buttering-up-the-judge opening statement. I think that the final settlement was at least one round-trip too much. 4 hours ago, SRTouch said: tenant wants treble damage security refund: Another landlord who does not know her legal obligations, another tenant suing for the moon and then some. Predictable outcome; I lost interest. Edited March 12, 2019 by Florinaldo 4 Link to comment
AngelaHunter March 12, 2019 Share March 12, 2019 3 hours ago, SRTouch said: 'nother tow case: "It's the case of, "Look at this" x 15!" I love how so many people think small claims court is a kind of lottery where you alway score. "Emotional distress" over a tow case? Poor plaintiff. Everyone - the police (who somehow divined his race when they ticketed his car), the government, the resident who protested his/her driveway being blocked, and yes - even JM (who bends over backward to be PC) are all in a big conspiracy against the plaintiff, because they're all racist, every damned one of them. This case was decided before he even appeared here because everyone is racist and out to get him. There was nothing wrong with the car! Oops, except for the call he made to the insurance company before the tow because of damage. Lie once and your goose is cooked. I love Doug. In the hall he tells plaintiff it looks like he was trying to "rip off" the tow company. Plaintiff protests he and his wife have plenty of money. Even so, I guess a free 5K boe-nanza wouldn't hurt any. 2 hours ago, Florinaldo said: How is it that just about all the litigants JM gushes over are the ones I dislike almost on sight? With this one it started with his buttering-up-the-judge opening statement. He annoyed me no end. Say what you like about JJ, but she would never have allowed this pontificating old gas bag to ramble on and on of the history of his trips to Off-Off-Broadway as though he were auditioning for a stand-up gig, especially when he's trying to score 2500$ for no reason, well, other than his anxiety or whatever. Oh, but he's doing it for the conscience of the community or some outrageous bullshit like that, not trying to line his pockets. JM adored him of course because if she is ever biased, it's in favour of old people (and young women her daughters' ages) no matter how obnoxious. One free trip wasn't good enough for the ol' money grubber. Def. was put on the spot severely and unfairly and had no choice but to give the old con artist two free trips. He should have gotten back his 99$ - period. Hated him. 2 hours ago, Florinaldo said: Another landlord who does not know her legal obligations Why should she? No other landlords have even the slightest clue about landlord/tenant laws. 400$ to clean dust off the baseboards? I bet def has never dusted a baseboard in her life. Yes, plaintiff's room was a mess but 1. "Mess" does not equal damage and 2. What the hell was that squat little troll doing filming her tenant's space anyway? It's too bad plaintiff's jewelry business is so unsuccessful she has to hunker in a room in some stranger's house. I hope she's doing better. 5 Link to comment
babs j. March 12, 2019 Share March 12, 2019 It seems like a whole lot of landlords on the People's Court are just trying to make money and have no idea how to be a landlord. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that the laws of landlording in any particular state are available on line. 1 2 Link to comment
Bazinga March 13, 2019 Share March 13, 2019 3 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: There was nothing wrong with the car! Oops, except for the call he made to the insurance company before the tow because of damage. Note that he was recording the car as it was being brought out to him and immediately was screaming about the damage as if he somehow knew already that there would be damage after being recorded saying he would get the $200 fee back. Curious. 1 5 Link to comment
VartanFan March 13, 2019 Share March 13, 2019 6 hours ago, Florinaldo said: How is it that just about all the litigants JM gushes over are the ones I dislike almost on sight? But...YALE! YALE! YALE! 4 Link to comment
SRTouch March 13, 2019 Share March 13, 2019 can't buy love: tired story, but still hard to believe. P is gf who showered unemployed fugly D with trips and money for everything from rent to child support - now that they broke up she wants every penny (asking for 5 grand) she spent on da'bum - that's not the hard to believe part, that part is par for the course with TPC litigants - what's hard to believen is that fugly found someone to have his kids, then found P to foot his bills and, to top it off, found other woman to cheat on P with.... well, course that's par for course, too, but mind-boggling every time. Didn't get much past intro before I was holding remote playing with FF button. P practiced her lines about cheating humpty dumpty, and is a little thrown off when she's telling MM had she had to pay for their trips (and freekin' child support!) and MM tells her no, she could have dumped his ass... What is with people who think being unemployed means it's time for a road trip?... Yada yada, same ole same ole, only way she gets anything back is if she has something, texts work, but promissory note would be golden, where he acknowledges he was to pay back anything, and even then there would be a limit on how much she can collect if she kept throwing money away on dumpty while he wasn't paying anything back - ok, liberal use of zip button is made so not trying blow by blow recap - yep, while zipping through I see MM holding a phone, I stop and hear her reading texts where P is asking for money, and instead of dufus saying these things were never loans, he's asking for more time before paying... zip zip... next stop, MM has some paper which I guess P prepared showing all the money she lavished on da'bum - well, ok, but MM is sort of scoffing at the self-serving list purporting to be a promissory note, not believing dufus ever agreed to these amounts..... ok, thankfully time running out, so rough justice time after commercial break (if I ever make it into the gallery for one of these court tv programs and they start on one of these 'money can't buy love' cases, I'm getting up and walking out).... ok, first we get to hear a little drama, seems she has video of one of their kerfuffles, we hear he was arrested for domestic abuse, oh, and turns out P is one of those sainted single mothers whose baby was there for the kerfuffle (zipped through too much to hear who her baby daddy is, hope not dufus, but he IS paying someone support)..... ok, rough justice - MM announces both litigants are lieing, but she's trying to be fair instead of just tossing them out - dufus owes something for rent, since he was still there shacking up with P after they're fighting over money in the texts..... oh dear, MM dragging this out, looks like case will take up half an hour on this nonsense.... rough justice has MM awarding $1450 of the 5 grand P was seeking - some of the rent and I guess part of a trip (guessing she found something in texts where he talked about paying her back).... just realised I skipped so much of this I never heard dufus talks until hallterview - and totally missed story of how P catches dufus cheating - not going back to listen..... wants deposit on apartment she never moved into: P wants deposit back, claiming when she went to move in her future landlord refused to let her, rented place to someone else, and refuses to return deposit - defendant says nuhuh, it was P who backed out after changing her mind.....so, MM will get to do some sleuthing to determine who changed their mind, and when - enjoy these cases much more than 1st case type, since you actually have to listen to more than 1st 30 seconds before knowing the ending.... testimony: ok, P put down a grand deposit to hold an apartment until 1st of month move in ('bout 10 days) - thing is landlord kept right on showing apartment, and another potential tenant was willing to move in right away and pay prorated rent for the partial monthly - so, now landlord asked for an additional $250 to hold the apartment..... uh, no, deal was already struck, apartment to be held for $1000 so no more potential tenants should have been shown place - no bidding wars allowed.... crossing aisle, MM asks for landlord's story - hmmmm, maybe be little language problem, but sounds like D agrees that she accepted a grand to stop showing apartment and hold it, but then turned around and wanted additional $250 because someone else was willing to take place right away..... uh, sounds like she just admitted she was one to change deal, so she breached agreement, deal unwound, P gets full refund - oh and reason P only suing for $500 is because landlord generously refunded half the deposit when she reopened negotiations after reneging on original deal.... ok, commercial break - and shockingly, MM's hair changes color when I look up to see preview (too much blond) - course it's back to previous color after commercial.... ok, case over unless there's a switcheroo in works, which doesn't appear likely - we come back and waste time with MM going over D position a couple times trying to explain why she can't do what she did - not sure if D is a little slow or just trying to play like she doesn't understand English - geez, 2-3 minutes explaining, re-explaining, and going over it again, and D still not getting it and trying to restate her position - not changing anything, just saying same thing a third or fourth time - I give up and zipped through the nonsense.... thing is DirecTV must have given up, too, since I get several minutes of black screen and commercials, then Judge Mathis - don't see last 20 minutes 4 Link to comment
AngelaHunter March 13, 2019 Share March 13, 2019 2 hours ago, SRTouch said: can't buy love: tired story, but still hard to believe. P is gf who showered unemployed fugly D with trips and money for everything from rent to child support Gee, I was thinking the same thing. So Crazy Cleopatra decides to get knocked up by some guy who had the sense not to stick around, then while enceinte, thinks moving in with the silly, fugly, blobby loser def. - he doesn't work. He has no money. He's epileptic, he says. He has a kid. He doesn't pay child support or any of his bills - yeah, I can see why Cleo was so smitten! Okay, I'm just not seeing the seductive charm of Joshua, stud extraordinaire. Maybe something wrong with me? Casanova wants to take lots of trips, but well - he has no money, so Cleo (who must either have a really good job or lots of credit cards) is more than happy to foot the bills. That's not bad enough, but Lover-Boy has another woman who sees him as a tower of strength, irresistible I guess, and Cleo goes ballistic. Def says that they broke up because he "didn't agree" with how Cleo was raising her kid - this from someone who doesn't even support his own kid! That people to whom I would not give a hamster are allowed to breed at will never stops making me nuts. Anyway, I had enough of these clowns, particularly the snot-sniffing Cleo kept doing. How am supposed to enjoy my butter chicken and Basmati rice with that going on? Ugh. This is the way these people live. "IT IS WHAT IT IS!" 2 hours ago, SRTouch said: wants deposit on apartment she never moved into: Landlord is a smiling thug who tried to extort more money from plaintiff and nothing JM told her changed her mind because she wouldn't shut up long enough to hear anything. 2 hours ago, SRTouch said: thing is DirecTV must have given up, too, since I get several minutes of black screen and commercials, then Judge Mathis You didn't miss a whole lot. Over-aged, wimpy hipster-ish type guy tells JM how his beloved Grandma gave him jewelry when he was 14 and how he cherished it, blah blah, but the second Granny assumed room-temperature he hustled the jewelry down to a pawnshop, where he was given a check for 509$. He says def told him which bank to go to cash it. JM tells him he can go to whichever bank he likes. Plaintiff purses his lips, giggles and says "Oh." He didn't need the money, he says, so didn't cash the check and ended up losing it. Goes back to the pawnshop for a new check and is told to go pound sand. Pawnshop owner is the def. He's an obnoxious, smirking, pallid little jug-eared true hipster, nu-male type (I'm surprised he wasn't wearing a wool beanie which seems to be the symbol by which hipsters identify each other) who says he's been scammed before, therefore even though he says he called the bank and the check had not been cashed, he's keeping the money and the jewelry. No, he's not, even though he showed a pic of a fabricated, brand-new paper sign in his shop saying that if new checks need to be issued there is a 100$ fee. Twerp loses and has to pay the money. It remains annoying and obnoxious til the very end. 1 1 Link to comment
Florinaldo March 13, 2019 Share March 13, 2019 3 hours ago, SRTouch said: can't buy love: A desperate obsessed plaintiff trying too hard to achieve a sophisticated look and a dweeb defendant trying to weasel out of a debt. She lies, but still gets what she was strictly entitled to and not what she was overreaching for, probably because he also lied; she was lucky to have escaped the harsh guillotine of the "clean hands" doctrine. 3 hours ago, SRTouch said: wants deposit on apartment she never moved into: Surprise, surprise. For once it's not a potential renter changing her mind arbitrarily who's at fault but a landlord's shady practices. In the pawned jewelry case, I thought the two litigants were jerks. Plaintiff was an idiot for not depositing the check immediately, while the shop owner should at least have suggested issuing another one, minus the bank fees associated. Although I am not sure plaintiff would have been intelligent enough to even listen to such a proposal, much less understand it. 4 Link to comment
BigBingerBro March 14, 2019 Share March 14, 2019 That jewelry-pawning plaintiff was either super nervous or high. JMM basically spoke his entire testimony for him. Jerk defendant wins the "awful business-owner of the year" award for sure. It was so absurd I wonder if they were in cahoots just to appear on TV. 1 Link to comment
SRTouch March 14, 2019 Share March 14, 2019 unpaid child care: (neglect case with kids instead of animals - no good guys here, Douglas needs to call Byrd and the two of them give both these litigants a good "talking to") P wants to be paid for taking care of defendant's 3 kids for a couple months. Wants 5 grand... defendant: says he never agreed for P to take care of his kids - says when he started working nights his kids were supposed to stay with his cousin, not plaintiff, so there was never a child care agreement - says real reason for the lawsuit is he rejected P's advances after she broke up with previous bf... hey, that makes sense - finally get a litigant with a job, of course there's probably a flock of women chasing him.... anyway, he also wants 5 grand - says P 'basically' kidnapped his kids, and made false accusations of child abandonment to CPS.... lots of cross aisle glares and looks of disbelief while intro clown goes through his shtick... poor kids, if these two are the best guardians they could find - from intro I don't see how either side gets a penny, just hoping CPS keeps an open file with a case worker checking on the kids.... Testimony: ah, P's 5 grand claim is not just for child care, seems she also wants money for a phone the kids broke while in her care... P tells her story, throws in a little digs to bash D's gf, saying when other kids wanted to fight D's 14yo daughter, the gf refused to stop the fight cuz she was too busy eating - anyway, she says she (P) broke up the fight, and since that time has been watching over the daughter, especially as daughter and P's niece became besties - time goes on, P claims kid spending more and more time at her place - says D 'put 14yo out' and eventually 3 of D's kids were living with P - course D denies ever 'putting out' any of his kids - oh, and we learn the 14yo isn't his biological child - says he only has two biological kids, an 18yo and a 9yo - the 14yo's mother is one of his kids mother (probably the 9yo but whole sordid mess getting too confusing to follow) and apparently baby mommy split and disappeared in the wilds of Virginia to do god only knows what, leaving the 14yo and whichever other kid she birthed with D for D to raise (or let run wild).... whole time D is telling his story, P standing there glaring at him with her hand on her hip - I'm waiting for MM to tell her to stop, but really hoping Douglas goes over, bops her upside her head, telling her to keep her eyes to the front.... ok, worst neglect case in a while - I skip animal abuse/neglect cases because I don't want to hear what A-holes people can be, and this case is another neglect case, but with kids instead of cats or dogs.... time to zip ahead - one thing before I zip - P claiming D's 3 kids living with her, yet despite being repeatedly asked sounds like at most it was just the 14yo who was 'basically' living there, and 'most nights' sleeping there, and never with daddy's permission - and I never heard anything about daddy agreeing to pay P anything - just 'I got you' when asked to help buy food.... ok, zip time as P going off rails with nonsense I don't care to watch - didn't even slow down for decision or hallterview, though I notice D is second out of courtroom.... tow case with a twist: this time P isn't suing tow company, instead going after neighbor who called and got his car towed - says neighbor doesn't like him for whatever reason, waited till P went on vacation, then called and got the car towed, which ended up costing P $722.46... defendant: says "not me!" says he never called to get car towed and doesn't know why P decided it was him - says P was parked in no parking zone, so anyone could have reported it, or perhaps cops ticketed it and had it towed for being illegally parked for who knows how long while P was off vacationing in Costa Rica..... don't know if D reported car or not - if car was illegally parked doesn't matter - but surely tow company would have records of why car was towed and who authorized the tow.... another non-case which should be easy to judge if anyone brought evidence.... testimony: even with CC having hard time making out WTH P is saying - ok, seems these two have been feuding over parking ever since P moved in - in past they've traded getting the other in trouble for blocking the driveway they both claim/use... nice that P actually brought pictures of the crime scene.... unfortunately not the picture we need, since despite repeatedly asking for clarification MM isn't sure where these two live in relation to each other or whose driveway they're fighting over... maybe D can explain things better, this guy is giving me a headache... ok, in past P called to report D, which resulted in D being ticketed, now while P is out of country someone calls and gets P's mini Cooper towed, and to top it off, P is hit with storage fees because he's in Costa Rica and car sits in impound til he gets back... okkkkkk, this is second lawsuit P has filed about this tow - seems when he got back and went to get his car, he was told property owner authorized the tow - nope, owner denies authorizing it, and P sued tow company with owner as witness - turns out P wasn't ticketed, towed because someone claiming to be owner authorized the tow - judge in first case dismissed case against tow company - to recoup the money P's out, he starts tracking down whoever pretended to be the property owner - course D denies it now, but seems he admitted to P he was the one who got the car towed - problem now is P has no proof D admitted anything such thing - what he does have is a typed letter, in Spanish (do you read Spanish, he asks - yes, just so happens MM reads Spanish) from D's friend saying D told this friend he called.... lucky P, not only can MM read Spanish, unlike JJ, MM will actually read it.... ah, but the letter is about the worst hearsay - just a typewritten letter - and, despite P saying this supposed witness was D's best friend, D denies being friendly with the 'witness,' saying he's just another neighbor finally admitting they used to be friendlying - BTW, he's also feuding with witness and has a separate ongoing case where D claims the neighbor assaulted him... glad I don't live in their neighborhood!.... so, not like P's hearsay witness/letter writer doesn't have an ax to grind with D.... ok, even though the witness might just be lying, MM takes P up on his offer to call neighbor letter writer up - not much comes of the exchange, but when she's finished with the call MM finally spends more time asking D questions.... personally, I think D called the tow company, but not sure P proved his case - letter & phone call questionable at best - course, standard in small claims gives MM lots of leeway, and she believes D made the call - P wins.... as is washing machine (?) sale - yep, washing machine: old guy bought used washing machine - turns out to be junk - wants money ($200) back... defendant: younger old guy, says machine was 2 grand new, P just doesn't know how to use the fancy machine.... started to say MM would automatically side with P cuz of age, but then D isn't a youngster, either - ok, I could see why D would refuse to take it back and refund the money, but I would - after making sure P didn't screw it up trying to get it to work - preview adds into mix P was once a washing machine repairman, so why would he buy a piece of junk without testing, and even more reason to question what he might have done trying to 'fix' machine - I retract my previous offer of taking back machine and go with AS-IS sale means as-is (minus some written warranty or guarantee, of course).... testimony: ok, P bought it without testing because D had moved out of house and water had been turned off - which D says was why he was willing to sell expensive machine for $200 - didn't own house and needed it out, and guess he figured better to be rid of it than store it til he could sell for better price - P has pictures - yeah, big fancy front-end loading machine, can't help but notice access panel has been removed, so no, I would not want to take it back - ok, next thing which catches my ear - P admits he 'played around' with machine, something about machine would only use cold water... so, something wrong with a control panel, maybe? - anyway, still stuck on as is sale and especially not willing to unwind sale with P admitting to 'playing around' trying to fix machine - and enjoy look on D's face when he learns P was once repairman - ok, P has no case, but D gets a hard time because once he unloaded the machine he didn't return P's calls after P reached out that something was wrong - makes you wonder if he didn't know something was wrong when he sold it... maybe shady, but still as-is sale of used machine, bought without ever seeing machine work because buyer "trusted" the stranger who was selling it through a third party (D's gf, who was neighbor of somebody or something, I forgot just how they came together).... funny thing is when MM says as-is sale means buyer beware, the P agrees, so MM laughs and asks why he sued, and P answers cuz I wanted my money back.... case dismissed 6 Link to comment
AngelaHunter March 14, 2019 Share March 14, 2019 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: unpaid child care: (neglect case with kids instead of animals - no good guys here, Douglas needs to call Byrd and the two of them give both these litigants a good "talking to") No kidding. A "talking to" that will make a serious impression. I couldn't deal with this one - kids locked out, running wild, baby mammas and ex-baby mammas in parts unknown, and the grammar - omg. Just a word of advice for plaintiff (even though I do give points for you not being one of the mass legions of SSM): If you insist on displaying your enormous breasts - and I doubt JM was impressed - at least get a bra that fits properly so you don't have all those odd bulges and overflow. It was distracting. As my mother used to say, "Ten pounds of flour in a 5-lb bag". Def? Sorry, but you're not cute or charming in the least. Really, you are not. You are the opposite of cute and charming. Although you may be "Father of the Year" that girl is NOT your stepdaughter. She is the daughter of your girlfriend, who apparently called child protective services on you. A heartwarming family tale it all was. 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: tow case with a twist: What struck me most about this case is that the litigants spoke English as a second language, yet their grammar was WAY better than we heard in the first case. Sad, disgusting and really kind of shocking. Still, I was hoping the guy on the phone didn't speak English at all because I love hearing JM speak Spanish. Turns out his English was just fine, better than that of the first litigants. 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: as is washing machine (?) sale - yep, washing machine: Of course, JM was totally charmed by the plaintiff, who appeared to be in his late nineties or early hundreds. Age doesn't matter when someone buys some old "as is" item without checking it out, finds out it has problems and thinks he can return it, as though he'd bought it from Sears or something. 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: makes you wonder if he didn't know something was wrong when he sold it... maybe shady, but still as-is sale of used machine, bought without ever seeing machine work because buyer "trusted" the stranger who was selling it through a third party Maybe he was shady, but it's not his job to get the item checked out. If plaintiff is still totally trusting of anything a stranger tells him I'm surprised he's lived as long as he has. 3 Link to comment
Florinaldo March 14, 2019 Share March 14, 2019 (edited) 16 hours ago, SRTouch said: unpaid child care: At one point D said "I don't know nuttin' about nuttin' ". Truer words were never spoken since he obviously did not have to put much effort into playing dumb. 16 hours ago, SRTouch said: tow case with a twist: P did the necessary legwork and gathered enough evidence, including written and telephone testimony, to win on the preponderance of evidence (some of it circumstancial). D was a lying slimeball who obviously likes to make life difficult for people towards whom he develops some antipathy, for whatever arbitrary reason. The kind of neighbour you do not want to live on the same block as you and even in the same city. 16 hours ago, SRTouch said: as is washing machine An old coot trying to rewrite a sale to include some form of warrantee. For a used washing machine of all things! Boring case, as if the show was scraping the bottom of the barrel; the only thing that could have made it really interesting would have been to shove P into a working washing machine and have him go through 2 or 3 spin cycles. Edited March 15, 2019 by Florinaldo 3 1 Link to comment
zillabreeze March 15, 2019 Share March 15, 2019 6 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: I love hearing JM speak Spanish. Me too. Totally cracked up when she said something like "this is America, you should speak Spanish" 3 Link to comment
AngelaHunter March 15, 2019 Share March 15, 2019 19 hours ago, Florinaldo said: At one point D said "I don't know nuttin' about nuttin' " Le sigh. I bet he's one of those who gripe that (whoever) "didn't speak English." Maybe they do and just can't understand whatever garbled bullshit that spews out of your illiterate flapping lowlife piehole. He teaches his kids "right." Not if they grow up talking like morons. 1 Link to comment
zillabreeze March 15, 2019 Share March 15, 2019 Hang in there today AH. Yes, dog in 2nd case, but 1& 3 are good for the giggles. #1 has two viscious neighboring beasts tormenting the living hell out of each other. Acting like wild animals over some innocuous perceived "disrespect" Calling the cops, throwing trash, videos...the whole shebang. Each looking for a Bonanza. So MM gives a smackdown, telling them to grow up, etc. Zero for everyone. Get out to the hall and they both are are all fluttery eyelashes. "Yes, the judge was right, all I ever wanted was peace"☺️🤣😂🤣😂. Really? Damn I missed the part where you brought cookies and apologized? Was that before or after the screeching banshee scene you inflicted upon your neighbors at 2 AM? Hallterview gold. #3 Starts and proceeds like your normal "I bought an old ass hoopty, it doesn't run, I want my money.". Yawn. But wait for the gavel slam! Then Plaintiff starts hopping and jerking around, running off at the mouth about MM don't understand that they have lemon laws in HIS town that are different from everyone else. "This ain't over yet". Still squawking out in the hall about getting "his lawyer on this". I enjoyed it. 1 3 2 Link to comment
SRTouch March 15, 2019 Share March 15, 2019 (edited) Feuding business owners: when intro clown says P owns a highend ice cream shop next door to D's low end hair salon, I figure feud must be because D did that to P's hair - that looks to be a cross between a bozo 'do and an afro that is seldom, if ever, combed - anyway, P wants nice quiet atmosphere for her ice cream parlor, but claims D caters to the loud music, pot smoking, trashy crowd - apparently P confronted one of D's customers, and 'physical altercation' ended with P with an injured wrist and knee - these folks must be California nutcases where the nuts get to sue for 10 grand max... defendant: claims she's a celebrity hair stylist, and she's had to deal with ice cream lady for past 2 years - not sure how good a stylist she is, but I wouldn't go to either of the two on the defendant side if today's look is an example of their 'stylist' work - course, D filed a 10 grand countersuit...... ok, from intro I get that these two hate each other, but must have missed exactly what it is they're suing each other over, so have no idea how it will end - from the looks of the litigants it may end for me when I hit the zip button.... testimony: P says part of her business plan/goal is to give back to community, doing kid story times, etc while selling desserts - doesn't sound too nutty, yet - says problems started as soon as D rented the neighboring storefront - ok, part of problem is P lives above her storefront, so these are not only neighboring businesses, but dwellings - actually, sounds like problems may have pre-dated D moving in, P starts to talk about problem with D's landlord - so, when landlord was there she was in her storefront all hours, blasting music, kids running wild outside, lots of loud, yelling, profanity laced back and forth within the salon.... sounds like previous neighbor was typical neighbor from hell stuff, but WTH does that problem have to do with this defendant - still waiting to hear what she thinks is worth 10 grand.... ok, when D first rented salon things were good - up til she started living in salon - once D actually started living there back to loud music/noise in middle of night - P claims she reported noise violations and cops came and cited D, but has no proof of the reports/citations and D says never cited - ah, maybe we're finally getting to actual damages - seems P was having one of her community outreach programs in her storefront, and one of Hair salon customers parked in loading zone in front of ice cream parlor - cops arrived and ticket car - salon customer blames P, though she says she didn't call in the complaint, kerfuffle, yelling screaming, P pushed and falls down - uh, but what did D do, that was her customer/client, says MM - P tries to say D should be held liable for her customers actions - MM scoffs at that idea, saying she, MM, sure doesn't want be held responsible for actions of litigants - P backs away from that PDQ, and shifts to D putting her trash in front of the ice cream shop.... uh, maybe a code enforcement issue, but surely not a 10 thousand small claims case - doesn't matter though, as no proof of any trash just like no noise complaint proof.... ok, again with other people doing stuff, P says she has video from her security camera of friends/customers/family putting trash in front of parlor - MM again says doesn't count in case against D, and gives P time to produce any video of D doing anything while she chats with D for awhile - just like with P, defendant sounds surprisingly normal when she finally gets a chance to talk - unlike P's timeline with no problems until D moved into salon, D tells us problems started before she even rented the salon, going back to when she was just renting booth space from the previous salon - says P worse than Gladys Kravitz (noisy neighbor on Bewitched) - D would be working on client, look up and find P with nose pressed against window.... hey, maybe P was just looking for ideas on how to control that mop on her head.... ok, not getting much here, so MM drifts over to question D's claim to being 'celebrity stylist,' asking what celebrities' hair D does - D hesitates, names a couple names I've never heard of, but that really doesn't mean much since I don't recognize a lot of today's celebrities.... ok, again with trash - now it's D saying P was leaving trash out on porch, and that there were times she picked up P's trash.... ok, I can just imagine D being steamed when she finds P trash scattered by feral cats/dogs/rats, or maybe just wind, cleaning it up and putting it back on P's porch - don't know if that happened, but might explain video if P ever produces it... hmmmm, sounds like we're getting to counterclaim for harrassment already - D says P has made numerous calls to police about noise, cops came, interrupting her working on clients but never once citing her or even asking her to turn down loud music.... ok, lots of flapping gums, but not seeing/hearing any actual evidence from this side, either, and I'm about over this non-case - 'bout time to go back to P and see if she ever found the video she claims will damn defendant as real hellish neighbor.... uh - no idea what video is supposed to show, but can't watch it as it's hand held video shot while she was driving in her car and about to make me seasick.... really, going back to Gladys comment, P apparently takes it upon herself to go out in middle of night to video D because she left the salon and came back an hour later - yep, nutcase P just lucky D isn't really the trashy pot smoking gangster she thinks she is - P's evidence isn't doing much for HER case, but might help D's counterclaim for harrassment.... MM goes into lecture mode, both of them have lots of video and testimonials from people in neighborhood damning each other, this drama bad for both businesses, how do you live like this, yada yada....times up, case and counter tossed.... as MM is telling them her decision I get a flash of a scene from a church service where someone in congregation is shouting 'yes' as preacher preaches and expecting an 'amen' when MM finally gives them the boot dog attack - skipped as soon as I got to remote - going to have to carry the thing with me when I get up for coffee refills between cases As is means check the thing before you close the deal: have to laugh at the intro - big muscled P with a high and tight haircut apparently paid for old clunker, hopped in and thing wouldn't start - pushed it out of seller's backyard and then calls a mechanic - mechanic says it needs a new engine... defendant: says P noticed old veeHICkle in her backyard, asked if he could buy it, she said sure, but it has problems (which might be why it was in back yard) - he said he could fix it and bought it - his problem now, let him park it in HIS backyard.... unless intro clown left something out, no case here, dude has new yard sculpture... testimony: ok, P actually asking for more money than he paid for junker, paid $850 for truck, but now also wants money he paid mechanic to check it out, so wants total of a grand... apparently his case is based on notion that lemon law protects dimwitted idjits who purchase broken down heaps they find in other people's yard, want to scoff at his idea, but seem to recall that at least in one State, can't remember which one, that is, in fact, the law.... unless this jurisdiction has some super duper consumer protection laws, this case is over before P finishes telling us what a great truck this non running heap is - let's see, he thinks he got a great deal on this 18yo trunk that he is being told has mechanic issues, buys it from the little old lady he just met delivering a fridge without even trying to start the truck, and when gamble that it's an easy fix fizzles he wants to claim protection from court - yeah, and I'm sure if the problem was just a loose battery cable he would have gone back and offered old lady more money for the suddenly more valuable truck.... ok..... not worth recapping, just going to sit back and watch new level of dimwitted idjit (just to add, idjit knew truck had been sitting at least 1 year, though D says she told him it hadn't been driven in 4 years) - yeah, little old lady keeps money..... after decision idjit still claiming his jurisdiction lemon laws say he should get the money back Edited March 15, 2019 by SRTouch 4 Link to comment
Carolina Girl March 15, 2019 Share March 15, 2019 On 3/11/2019 at 2:53 PM, AngelaHunter said: Honestly, I thought the same thing. Def sounded ridiculous, cheaping out on the hospital/dinner bills, and not bringing the waitress was suspect as it always is when defs do this. He sounded also like an asshole with his, "The red pepper lady." We're not talking about getting hives or being served something you don't like, but life or death. I guess people with deadly allergies need to do what JM said, and emphatically inform restaurant staff that they could DIE if given whatever. No wonder he didn't want the name of the restaurant given out when the case was heard. 6 Link to comment
AngelaHunter March 15, 2019 Share March 15, 2019 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: Feuding business owners: All I got from this is that the plaintiff seemed to be mentally not all there. One thing I did note, and it's something we've heard many times either in videos or recorded phone convos: Why do so many people think if they latch on to one phrase and repeat it 10- 15 times, it will somehow resolve an issue? "Why you rollin' up on my car and takin' videos of me?" I didn't count that, but I'm sure it was at least 10 times. What's the deal with that? I mean, if you get no answer the first 5, 6 or 7 times, why keep asking? 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: dog attack - skipped as soon as I got to remote I skipped as well but listened to the summary and verdict. Plaintiff was awarded all her vet bills (5K I think?) for her dog who died. My memory sucks, but I seem to remember a case with the same circumstances where the dog died after being attacked and the plaintiff dog owner got awarded not one cent of his vet bills BECAUSE the dog died. I'm confused. 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: As is means check the thing before you close the deal Omg. Mush-mouthed George Foreman clone invokes Lemon Law for an 18-year old vehicle. That's the only thing - other than him accusing def of knowing the car was a dud - I could understand from him. How JM could decipher what he was yakking on and on about, I have no clue. Lemon Law indeed! But in HIS town, there is a Lemon Law. Should have gone to small claims there I guess. Poor def had to have this lamebrain bugging her endlessly for this nonsense when she clearly wrote "AS IS" on the sale paper. 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: . apparently his case is based on notion that lemon law protects dimwitted idjits who purchase broken down heaps they find in other people's yard Yeah. 🤣 3 Link to comment
AngelaHunter March 15, 2019 Share March 15, 2019 1 hour ago, zillabreeze said: Still squawking out in the hall about getting "his lawyer on this". 😂Yes, I'm sure someone who took a year to scrape up 850$ for a non-working, ancient heap keeps a lawyer on retainer. 4 Link to comment
SRTouch March 15, 2019 Share March 15, 2019 8 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said: I skipped as well but listened to the summary and verdict. Plaintiff was awarded all her vet bills (5K I think?) for her dog who died. My memory sucks, but I seem to remember a case with the same circumstances where the dog died after being attacked and the plaintiff dog owner got awarded not one cent of his vet bills BECAUSE the dog died. I'm confused. Laws for compensation of lost/damage of property often seems skewed when the 'property' is claimed to have sentimental value - and nothing has more sentimental value to me than my critters (well, except for whichever cat puked up the furball in the hallway that I stepped on in the middle of the night - that one I'll give away - and Silly I think it was you!). None of my cats cost a penny to purchase - but if someone's negligence caused their death/injury the statutory max wouldn't cover my loss. But, depending on local laws, and judge hearing case (and sometimes just the mood of the judge on any given day) I MIGHT get reimbursed for my out of pocket cost of treatment. And I'm not even talking cost of cremation and urn. Course, like I said that goes for everything when sentimental value enters question. Remember Dolly Parton's song "Coat of Many Colors" about a poor girl's coat made of rags stitched together with love? Wonder how much the girl would get if she sued the dry cleaner who lost the coat? 2 Link to comment
AngelaHunter March 15, 2019 Share March 15, 2019 SRTouch, I'm not talking about sentimental value for pets or the cost of the value of the animal, since in the law dogs are property like any other, I just don't understand why one plaintiff whose old dog died as the result of the negligence of the defendant couldn't recoup any of the money spent on vet bills trying to save his dog because the dog died, yet today's plaintiff, under the same circumstances, got all her money back for the vet care for her old dog, which also did not survive. The dog dying does not negate what must be paid to the vet. 6 Link to comment
Broderbits March 15, 2019 Share March 15, 2019 2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: Omg. Mush-mouthed George Foreman clone invokes Lemon Law for an 18-year old vehicle. That's the only thing - other than him accusing def of knowing the car was a dud - I could understand from him. How JM could decipher what he was yakking on and on about, I have no clue. I couldn't understand him either, but thought it was just because I was playing an iPad game while this was on. Glad to know it wasn't just me! 2 Link to comment
Florinaldo March 16, 2019 Share March 16, 2019 4 hours ago, SRTouch said: I figure feud must be because D did that to P's hair I think she simply has a habit of putting her fingers into a open socket each time she is putting herself together before going out. If she added white streaks she could make a case for starring in a remake of The Bride of Frankenstein. 4 hours ago, SRTouch said: As is means check the thing before you close the deal: A double idiot: not only does he not have the car checked before buying it, but he seems incapable of understanding (or is being deliberately obdurate) that lemon laws do not apply in his case. He also said in the hallterview that he will pursue it elsewhere, despite Doug reminding him he signed papers which makes this arbitral decision final. Okay, triple idiot then. 3 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: My memory sucks, but I seem to remember a case with the same circumstances where the dog died after being attacked and the plaintiff dog owner got awarded not one cent of his vet bills BECAUSE the dog died. I'm confused. I have long ceased to expect consistency from these judges, even within their own show, and certainly not between the various court shows. 4 Link to comment
AZChristian March 16, 2019 Share March 16, 2019 Interesting factoid . . . the lady with the upscale ice cream shop filed for bankruptcy in October, 2018. 2 4 Link to comment
AngelaHunter March 16, 2019 Share March 16, 2019 1 hour ago, Florinaldo said: I have long ceased to expect consistency from these judges It's not just lack of consistency, but verdicts diametrically opposed for what is essentially the same case with the same set of circumstances. Oh, well, I'm not a judge, so who I am I to "disagree with the judge's interpretation of the law" as one genius loser litigant did the other day. 1 3 Link to comment
Florinaldo March 16, 2019 Share March 16, 2019 18 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: It's not just lack of consistency, but verdicts diametrically opposed for what is essentially the same case with the same set of circumstances. I think they have slightly amended Emerson's famous aphorism to now read "A rational consistency is the hobgoblin of ordinary minds" and that is the principle they apply in their decisions. 1 Link to comment
AngelaHunter March 16, 2019 Share March 16, 2019 1 hour ago, Florinaldo said: I think they have slightly amended Emerson's famous aphorism to now read "A rational consistency is the hobgoblin of ordinary minds" I hate myself for going on about this. Normally I just accept whatever the judge says because, well, she's the judge. She went to school and I didn't. But in this case, she said, "Why should (plaintiff) have to eat the vet bill?" which makes perfect sense. But in the previous case, she ruled the plaintiff had to do just that. Why? I guess I'll never know. 1 Link to comment
Florinaldo March 16, 2019 Share March 16, 2019 (edited) 3 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: Why? I guess I'll never know. That is because, like me, you are not one of those lofty minds presiding over a TV court show. We are probably just lowly viewing peons in their eyes. Edited March 17, 2019 by Florinaldo 1 Link to comment
VartanFan March 17, 2019 Share March 17, 2019 On 3/16/2019 at 5:37 PM, AngelaHunter said: But in this case, she said, "Why should (plaintiff) have to eat the vet bill?" which makes perfect sense. But in the previous case, she ruled the plaintiff had to do just that. Why? I guess I'll never know. So, I watched it and here’s basically what I got out of it (NO! NOT BASICALLY!!). MM called the vet because her determination was based on if the vet pretty much said ‘you can try this but it probably won’t work’ OR thought that the dog could live. Apparently the vet believed the dog was getting better and might live and so the D had to cover the vet bills. They didnt’ seem excessive because the vet thought the dog might give (*had ‘turned a corner’ and was getting better). 1 2 Link to comment
AngelaHunter March 19, 2019 Share March 19, 2019 More reruns, but I heard something I missed the first time. In the first case, with the belligerent, loud-mouthed, ignorant old man who admits he spent 30K renting cars because he's scamming the insurance company: "Nuttin' to do with this case" old fraud starts screaming and yelling at the def, telling him to take the "schmirk" off his face? JM agrees with this, also telling def. to stop smirking, with an admonition to "Respect your elders." WTF? It doesn't matter if a person is a vile, hateful, meat-headed asshole. If he's lived a certain number of years he deserves respect? JM has been a judge for so long, yet doesn't seem to realize that young or old, a nasty, underhanded asshole doesn't deserve any respect at all. She just laughed off how he's scamming the insurance, wouldn't give a straight answer to anything and she seemed to find something adorable about him. No wonder he's alone. In the hall, Doug asks def (who won) if this could have been avoided if he had just phoned plaintiff. "No", he says and he's right. Who could have any kind of reasonable discussion with that bone-headed character? I wouldn't even try. 5 Link to comment
AngelaHunter March 26, 2019 Share March 26, 2019 Today's cases were all new, right? Heard the word "dog" so skipped the first case. Then we had giant Baby Huey and his squeeze, Big Bertha with her 8" black roots, suing nitwit def for rent. Huey and Bertha's previous landlord threw them out with no notice, they say, so they found def, who wanted to rent a room in her crib. Yes, certainly - I'd take them in. They were in a hotel prepaid by their "preacher" because it seems they are unable to take care of themselves but aren't going hungry. It took JM a while to extract the information about who was footing their bills. The grammar was so bad it was painful to listen to them. Anyway, def seems to a be SSM, and when Huey asked if he could "watch" her 1 1/2-year-old baby, she got worried. She doesn't let any strangers watch her baby! Nope, but she does let two total strangers move in and LIVE with her baby daughter. She decides to check the backgrounds and finds out Huey was charged with sexual battery. They say the charges were dismissed, and Bertha kindly explains the legal term to JM. Of course, def only checks this after giving them a lease, even though the two gargantuas don't think it is a lease even though it IS a lease which they signed. Oh, and they found out def is only a renter too, and not allowed to sublet so they report her to the landlord, because all of a sudden plaintiffs are all about what's legal and right and what's not. Plaintiffs get back 216$ and def got evicted for the illegal sublet and went to live with her mommy, who I am sure is just thrilled. Plaintiffs? Put the damned forks down, learn how to speak English, get jobs and look after yourselves. Doug in the Hall hated them with passion and started giving them shit out there. 🤣 You go, Doug! Guy suing the alley mechanic for the broken window on his Mercedes: He sounded so reasonable to start, then says he's had other bad dealings with the def, so of course he asked him to fix his car, for which he claims he was supposed to pay nothing. Def would do the work fixing the mechanism so the door would work with the remote opener. then take the car to sell and they'd divvy up the profits. Def. couldn't fix it but didn't want to bother putting it back together properly and the window broke when the plaintiff took the car back. Seems no matter how many times def. screws over plaintiff, he just really wants to keep dealing with him. Makes sense, in some world. Def. has to pay 1K for the broken window. Link to comment
Bazinga March 27, 2019 Share March 27, 2019 (edited) 9 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: Today's cases were all new, right? Nope, repeat from April 24, 2018. This is what you thought back then, from Page 104. You did not change your opinion of these litigants. The cases were not memorable and the episode did not need to be repeated. On 4/24/2018 at 5:23 PM, AngelaHunter said: What I was waiting for was JM to do as JJ would have done here, and barked at def, "What's your friend's name?" Cuz you just know he would have either hemmed and hawed or claimed not to know the name of the person he left alone in his place. You just know the dog was sold and def probably got a share of the profits. JM did not question him nearly enough and seemed to accept what he said - which I'm sure was 100% lies - as fact. "Jerk?" I can think of a lot of other words for him, but not suitable for daytime television. The murdered English in this case nearly had me turning it off. How many people here who have an infant (or even if you don't) would rent a room in your apartment to those gross, malignant, ignorant hilllbilles who seem to subsist on McDonald's and the generosity of some "preacher" who apparently thought they - two able-bodied adults - deserved a 6-week, expenses paid hotel stay after they got thrown out of their last lair? Def didn't even bother checking them out until she let them move in! The mind, it boggles. I wouldn't let those two set foot on my property for any amount of money. Def wants a baby with some absentee baby daddy, then get a better job and pay your own rent. get a cheaper place or hit up the baby daddy. Woman has such horribly poor judgement she really shouldn't be in charge of a helpless baby. Ugh. Ooh, JM flips out too when someone rolls their eyes at her, and quite understandably. Edited March 27, 2019 by Bazinga 1 Link to comment
AngelaHunter March 27, 2019 Share March 27, 2019 Thank you Bazinga! I still have absolutely no memory of any of this. A little stroke I had messed up my brain - not that it worked all that great before!🤣 1 1 Link to comment
AZChristian March 27, 2019 Share March 27, 2019 17 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: Guy suing the alley mechanic for the broken window on his Mercedes: Makes sense, in some world. Def. has to pay 1K for the broken window. I was confused as to why the defendant had to pay for the complete repair to the door and window. The door was already broken (apparently because of a poor earlier repair) when the defendant started working on the car. Shouldn't the defendant have just had to pay to replace the window? 1 Link to comment
AngelaHunter March 27, 2019 Share March 27, 2019 2 hours ago, AZChristian said: Shouldn't the defendant have just had to pay to replace the window? I thought he did only pay for the window replacement, but the def. did take out parts and not replace them which is why the window broke, so more work than would have been necessary had he not messed it up further is why he had to pay? I'm not sure either. 1 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama March 27, 2019 Share March 27, 2019 There was the rerun of the nasty older woman who rented to the student, did everything she could to drive her out, and was found to have a long history of losses in court for the same behavior. Judge M told the student to go back to the local court, and when she gets a judgment against the woman, and the woman didn't pay (according to records shown, and a previous tenant's testimony the woman never pays) she could get a judgment for treble damages. I hope she did that. 1 Link to comment
AngelaHunter March 27, 2019 Share March 27, 2019 I got the repeat of the fence fight, with the crazy old plaintiff who was trying to romance def's lovely daughter. He must have known her since she was a toddler, but that didn't stop him creeping on her and watching her comings and goings. He's a shriveled, bald old man who can't even stand during the case, yet he fires off romantic missives to her. It made me wonder: Do men ever reach an age when they think they are too old for a woman, even when they're old enough to be the woman's grandpa? It's disgusting. I only rewatched this because listening to the daughter who was very articulate and could speak English properly was such a pleasure, before heading into, "I'm a vetrin and a cash recipitant." JM suspended her worship of "vetrins" long enough to correct that. 2 Link to comment
aemom April 5, 2019 Share April 5, 2019 (edited) OK, I think that I've finally caught up enough to comment without totally hijacking the thread. 🙂 The couple with the conspiracy tow - claiming that the tow yard damaged the car. That was so very shady - good on MM for seeing through that. I'm pretty sure that we've seen that tow truck guy before on another case, or someone who looked just like him. The retired lawyer with the car service who went on and on and on. I couldn't believe that MM didn't cut him off, but she clearly liked him. I don't really get why he was even there. The car service was willing to reimburse him for stuff - so how did it wind up in court? On 3/12/2019 at 9:50 PM, VartanFan said: But...YALE! YALE! YALE! Seriously, if Yale had been part of a drinking game, I would have had alcohol poisoning. He said it once or twice in each of his many sentences. The tenant/landlord with the battling messy rooms: I just love how so many of these landlords are absolutely clueless about what the laws are to be a landlord. Yet ANOTHER sad sack couple. She is pregnant with another man's baby and moves in with this guy who also has a child with someone else. Maybe y'all should invest in some birth control so that way when you go hopping from relationship to relationship, there aren't all these children involved? Or am I just too old fashioned? On 3/13/2019 at 5:34 PM, AngelaHunter said: Landlord is a smiling thug who tried to extort more money from plaintiff and nothing JM told her changed her mind because she wouldn't shut up long enough to hear anything. I had to stop listening to her. She just DID NOT GET IT. I couldn't even bear to listen to her speak to Doug after. On 3/13/2019 at 5:34 PM, AngelaHunter said: Pawnshop owner is the def. He's an obnoxious, smirking, pallid little jug-eared true hipster, nu-male type (I'm surprised he wasn't wearing a wool beanie which seems to be the symbol by which hipsters identify each other) who says he's been scammed before, therefore even though he says he called the bank and the check had not been cashed, he's keeping the money and the jewelry. No, he's not, even though he showed a pic of a fabricated, brand-new paper sign in his shop saying that if new checks need to be issued there is a 100$ fee. Twerp loses and has to pay the money. It remains annoying and obnoxious til the very end. It's not just the wool beanie. You can swap that out and replace it with the man bun/homeless beard combo. He was SUCH an asshole. I'm glad that the P got the interest too along with the full value of the original cheque. Edited April 6, 2019 by aemom Typo 1 2 Link to comment
aemom April 7, 2019 Share April 7, 2019 (edited) On 3/14/2019 at 5:27 PM, AngelaHunter said: Of course, JM was totally charmed by the plaintiff, who appeared to be in his late nineties or early hundreds. Age doesn't matter when someone buys some old "as is" item without checking it out, finds out it has problems and thinks he can return it, as though he'd bought it from Sears or something. Of course these days you would also be SOL if you tried to return something that you'd bought at Sears. 😉 On 3/15/2019 at 5:13 PM, AngelaHunter said: I skipped as well but listened to the summary and verdict. Plaintiff was awarded all her vet bills (5K I think?) for her dog who died. My memory sucks, but I seem to remember a case with the same circumstances where the dog died after being attacked and the plaintiff dog owner got awarded not one cent of his vet bills BECAUSE the dog died. I'm confused. I was remembering that too and it also bothered me a lot. I will say one thing in the D's favour: We see so many defendants who say all sorts of absurd things in defense of why they are not responsible for vet bills, but in this case, she was so upset by what happened, that she had her dog put down. At least she realized what her dog was capable of and never wanted to see that happen again. On 3/15/2019 at 5:13 PM, AngelaHunter said: Omg. Mush-mouthed George Foreman clone invokes Lemon Law for an 18-year old vehicle. That's the only thing - other than him accusing def of knowing the car was a dud - I could understand from him. How JM could decipher what he was yakking on and on about, I have no clue. Lemon Law indeed! But in HIS town, there is a Lemon Law. Should have gone to small claims there I guess. Poor def had to have this lamebrain bugging her endlessly for this nonsense when she clearly wrote "AS IS" on the sale paper. Yeah. 🤣 Why do they even have these cut and dried cases on at all? There was no interesting twist at all. Beyond boring and you know exactly how it's going to end. On 3/15/2019 at 3:49 PM, SRTouch said: I figure feud must be because D did that to P's hair Seriously. That was not a huge afro in a lovely cut - I've seen many of them that look fantastic. She just looked electrocuted. And I'm all caught up just in time to fall behind again. 😃 Edited April 7, 2019 by aemom Forgot something 3 Link to comment
SRTouch April 8, 2019 Share April 8, 2019 Hmmm, new cases long time friends in rent dispute: P says she let defendant, a friend for 20 years, move in when he got out of rehab - says he was supposed to pay rent. Things didn't work out, though, he never paid the agreed upon rent, made sexual advances, put his hands on her when she turned him down, and damaged her gopro camera - asking for $1422.50..... defendant, looking dapper in his 3 piece suit - says P had a bunch of people living with her - he moved in when he got out of rehab to get back on his feet - says he moved out because P is a hot head and was constantly yelling at him - says she owes him if anyone is owed anything because he says she stole things from him - he wants $500.86..... his intro doesn't mention rent, or damaged gopro..... testimony: ok, intro talks about these two being friends going on 20 years, but we learn right away that they hadn't actually been in contact for a couple years when D called up announcing he was getting out of rehab and needed a room.... so, what's a girl to do? Of course, she invites him to come bunk at her place - wonder what he was in rehab for and whether it was voluntary or court ordered - heck maybe D has that suit because he knows to get gussied up for court due to his frequent court dates.... anyway, she says she invited him so she could mother him and keep him from backsliding - say he moved in, everyone was happy at first, but then she got concerned because - claims he didn't appear to have a regular job - oh, and he was getting hands-y and looking for more than a momma figure - yep tried to get physical even though she says he was already juggling 3 gfs.... hmmmm, maybe rehab was for sex addiction..... uh oh, seems she let him stay after he made the pass at her, and days into his being there she tries to retroactively come up with a rental agreement.... uh, not unless he agreed to pay, sounds like 1st 12 days he was a guest.... ah, but her story has him agreeing to start paying rent, and even paying for the days he was there as a guest - says he told her he'd pay $400 the next day when the banks opened, but next day he admitted he didn't have the money, but that he'd start paying rent every month on the 19th since he moved in on 19th - ok, then her story goes off track a bit - seems she has another place in the Poconos, and invites D to come along and 'relax' with her - uh, so she's concerned about dude missing work, he doesn't have rent money, and she has already had to put him on notice when he made a pass.... is she mothering him and afraid he'll go off the rails if left alone, or was she interested in him physically and decided to spin it this way when things blew up.... ok, probably not a romantic get away, as we learn her daughter was along for the ride.... next kerfuffle is it seems when P's cat went missing P told daughter to get D to help look for the kitten since it probably got out when he and the daughter left the door open while bringing stuff in from the car - when Daughter told D mommy says come help find kitten he went off on daughter telling her to get out and leave him alone..... ok, getting bored with P - D was lousy guest, but I'm not seeing a case so far and am ready to hear from D.... yep, MM switches to D for his side and it takes zero time before I'm hating the stuffed suit - for whatever reason, P let him move in even though they hadn't talked in a couple years, now he's telling everyone how she had been drinking all day and was drunk, he was tired of listening to her and wanted to go to bed instead of helping her find a kitten, so dude had a temper tantrum and cussed out P and daughter.... ok, confirmed cat lover here who views a missing kitten as a "all hands on deck" type emergency, even though kittens are usually found napping in a closet..... anyway, kerfuffle serious enough that she called cops and he was advised it would be best if he found somewhere else to spend the night - part of his countersuit if for the money he spent to get back from Poconos after cussing out his hostess and daughter and getting the boot ..... he says he waited until Monday to go back to get his stuff, but she refused to let him get his stuff - some back and forth where his real mommy was trying to negotiate with P to get the stuff but that goes nowhere, says he called cops but they wouldn't help, saying it was a civil matter.... something off here, I'm wondering WTH he needed to stay with old friend he hadn't talked to in 2 years when he got out of rehab - I mean he went to live with grandpa when she kicked him to curb and then his mommy stepped in as a mediator so dude has family who wouldn't let him in when he got out of rehab - ding ding ding, there might be a reason family didn't want him back in their home.... ok, after 3 days he went to court and got papers saying he had been illegally locked out and he was escorted back to collect the rest of his stuff..... good news, MM asked and we learn the kitten was found safe.... ok, cop either gets a call or is lazy (or D is spinning a tall tale), as D tells us cop left before he got everything, says P called 911 to report D was breaking in, and he responds by calling 911, and same cop comes back.... uh huh, more nonsense - we learn that at least some of his countersuit is because he had no place to put stuff he got when police made her give it to him, something about how she 'obviously' had/hid the keys to his storage locker and he ended up throwing away stuff (another part of lawsuit is for the stolen/hidden/lost keys..... ok, I'm over this - not sure of timeline, so not sure exactly when he stopped being a guest and became a tenant, but I wouldn't give her anything for rent (still waiting to hear about the gopro in the intro) - likewise, I say he gets nothing - sure she jerked him around when he tried to get his stuff, but she doesn't owe him squat because of anything he tossed because he couldn't get into storage locker.... besides, jerk refused to help find the kitten, ah, but there's more.... seems D left a piece to his nutri bullet behind when cops were there - I'd say tough luck, he had his chance to get it, but P admits he left it behind, and instead of bringing it with her today she brought a freekin' picture of it sitting on her kitchen counter..... not sure what a used nutri bullet lid would be worth, but P deserves a hand slap for that.... rough justice - no money but P told to return piece to nutri bullet or she'll have to buy him a replacement vehicle barter fail: p says he traded old car ('03 caddy) for old Harley (04), but bike didn't come with clean title - wants deal unwound - well, he doesn't want caddy, he wants the $2500 he says it's worth... defendant: admits he didn't have paperwork for bike - says he told P that upfront, and he doesn't want to unwind deal and return the car because he put money into it fixing it up... well, heck, lucky for him P wants cash not the car, so just give D back the bike and give P Kelly be value of car - in preview D admits the owner of the bike died, and he got bike from owner's roommate and never had title.... testimony: convoluted story, P says he left caddy with his brother, and it was brother who traded car for the bike - says as soon as brother told him there was no title P started trying to contact D to undo deal - P says he told D's gf there was no deal, and asked her to tell D to contact him, but D was dodging him - finally he drives by gf's place and finds D there with the car - he calls in the law, but cops decide it's a civil matter since the trade was made with the brother - uh, but car still registered in P's name, so MM asks WTH? Ok, maybe since car was parked on private property with no plate, but few days later P catches up with D while he's at a gas station, so now dude was driving around public roads with either illegal plates or car registered to P.... according to P he was told cops couldn't do anything because they didn't catch D driving the car - heck, if D was claiming he wasn't driving car, did that mean the registered owner could have hopped in and driven it away (or towed it if he didn't have the keys)... ok, sounds like 2nd case with Barney Fife for cops.... over to D for his story - not sure what he could say to win, only question is how much P is going to collect.... oh, dear, D knows he doesn't have a defense - keeps looking down and turning red faced as he gets grilled on how he traded away a no-title Harley that he got a hold of when the owner died.... hmmmmm, when we come back from commercial things get a little squirrelly - seems D used to be roomies with P's brother who made the trade - say P gave him the title, but brother kicked him put in middle of night when he caught d with bro's gf, which is why he no longer has the title, it was left behind when he was kicked out..... hmmm, maybe reason cops wanted nothing to do with this mess is that they are all to familiar with this bunch.... ooooookkkkk, smug D getting on MM's nerves (are you getting testy with me? She asks) He claims to have done all these repairs, but MM orders him to return the car - does that mean I get the bike back, he asks? - if she answered I missed it.... I say no, as he as much as testified that he never had bike legally, and as MM pointed out the bike should have gone to the owner's heirs, but Doug asks P in hallterview and P says he's going to return bike to D contractor kerfuffle: P says her building decided to replace the windows, and the contractor damaged her wallpaper and tiles in her bathroom - says it will cost almost $2500 to fix the damage... defendant: P was trouble from start - she's a hoarder -work rescheduled 19 times - she continually complained throughout the time spent on job and despite trying to address her complaints she suing, three years later..... yet another case where MM looks to use her family contracting background - oh, and anyone else look at D and wonder if he's juicing at the gym, I paused with musclehead on screen to type and wonder what he's taking to get his eyes to look like that - predict case not going to go well for Contractor dude.... testimony: ok, place is a co-op and D hired by co-op to replace windows in all 300 units. P says they did ok with most of her windows, but damaged wallpaper and tiles while ripping out bathroom window frame (she says because window didn't fit old frame, but I wonder if they needed to replace frame from old water damge, which wouldn't be that odd from a bathroom window) - MM lets D gives short 'windows for dummies' lecture for viewers who don't know what replacing a window unit means... ok, I agree with him right up until we see the end result - my word, looking at the picture I'd think that was a beginner DYI job, not professional looking, at all - ok, but also seeing old tile and old wallpaper (we later learn wallpaper on wall when P moved in back in '05 and tile probably original to the old building)..... ok, now the song and dance number we saw in preview before commercial. Again D trying to dazzle us talking about different types of caulk, but MM reels him in and asks why the caulk is smeared all over the window ledge looking like a 4yo preschooler arts and craft project. Ok, now D tries to say P must have sabotaged the end results for court, no way he or his guys did that mess. D finally stops dancing and admits it's poorly installed and not completed. MM doesn't buy the $2500 estimate, P not going to get new window installed and bathroom reno - so MM asks D what it would take to fix - D says $9 tube of caulk and 10 minutes - MM asks, then why, after 3 years of P complaining, hasn't it been done?... ah, we may have a switcheroo after the break. With exception of damage claim amount I was siding with P, but preview hints that D has evidence that P has history of making complaints to co-op board, then not answering door when handyman shows up to fix things.... rough justice - P awarded $350 to get someone else to clean up the messy caulk job and complete install that D admitted wasn't completed after he viewed pictures. 3 Link to comment
AngelaHunter April 8, 2019 Share April 8, 2019 35 minutes ago, SRTouch said: long time friends in rent dispute: Wow, the crazy was very strong in this one. Nutty plaintiff is in Savior mode and invites a drug addict she hasn't spoken to in two years to move in with her. Sure, why not? She's going to supervise him, get him on the straight and narrow - save him! He tries to feel her up. She's outraged but doesn't ask him to leave. Of course not. Nope, after the molestation, she invites him to go to the Poconos with her and her TEN-YEAR-OLD daughter, because why not have the child live with the drug addict who tried to grope Momma? A vacation in the Poconos is all part of his rehabilitation, I guess and he needs a vacation from doing nothing (or engaging in nefarious business according to her). Def. is dressed his best in clothes from somewhere, but needs to sponge off looney plaintiff and his grandpa and his momma. Maybe the suit came from Grandpa? This was all very amusing until we heard that whackjob plaintiff is allowed to have a child, and then gets a kitten, because that's what she really needed. Instead of paying for creepy loser def. to live with her, what she really needs is to get her damned teeth fixed. That woman is batshit crazy and should not be allowed to have any helpless animals or children in her custody. 45 minutes ago, SRTouch said: vehicle barter fail: *says in screeching Harvey voice*: It's the case of "This is my brother Daryl and my other brother Daryl." In a kerfuffle over a 16-year-old Caddy (as I've mentioned, no one fights over cars less than 15 years old on this show) we see one of the most reprehensible, disgusting, stupid-looking low-life pieces of shit ever seen on this show. The short-ass def is all those things and more. Of course, he has a girlfriend - I can just picture her - who must think he's a catch, even though he's another grown man who can't live on his own or buy a hunk of junk car for himself but has to steal the plaintiff's ancient Caddy, because hey - his hillbilly friends will think it's cool. His giggling, smirking and smart-mouthing JM was intolerable. More toothlessness. Seriously, people? Worry less about your old beater cars and more about your dental hygiene. Asshole def doesn't want to give the car back - and who needs titles anyway? - because he did all kinds of work on it. I'm sure the plaintiff will appreciate all the upgrades when he takes the car back, which JM ordered he can do. 54 minutes ago, SRTouch said: contractor kerfuffle: I did some caulking, something I'd never done before, and it looks a million times better than the utter mess the window contractors made in the plaintiff's WWII-era bathroom. I'm pretty sure the wallpaper is from that era as well. The job was pitiful, with brown caulking smeared all over the place - everywhere except where it should be. Def contractor, appearing here in a rather girlish top designed to show off his biceps, tries to double-talk JM about why such a deplorable mess is acceptable. Plaintiff tries for a boe-nanza - wants the "Japanese tiles" replaced and new wallpaper and did you see the black blotches on the ceiling in those pics? Never mind the brittle, faded, historical wallpaper which should be ripped off - get the mold or whatever it is cleaned out of that place. Grungy, it all is. 1 2 Link to comment
Florinaldo April 8, 2019 Share April 8, 2019 2 hours ago, SRTouch said: long time friends in rent dispute: I thought that the missing kitten had just curled up and died on the plaintiff's head; or maybe it was a gerbil's carcass. At least that is the one explanation I see for her ridiculous hairdo, which was still not as crazy as her attempts at providing rational arguments and reasoning for her claims. 4 Link to comment
patty1h April 9, 2019 Share April 9, 2019 I felt like the fool suing for her injured wrist needed a vicious face slapping for wasting the resources of the court with her attempted money grab. She wanted to turn a swollen wrist into a $3-4K bonanza with minimal proof, hearsay and a photo of her two hands. 8 Link to comment
Florinaldo April 9, 2019 Share April 9, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, patty1h said: I felt like the fool suing for her injured wrist needed a vicious face slapping for wasting the resources of the court with her attempted money grab. I think the wrist is the least of her health worries. From her confused and mangled repetitions of what doctors and other people involved in her "case" allegedly told her, I would say enough of her brain cells are dead that she understands barely 10 % of information conveyed to her. In the tow case, I was ready to watch another fool trying to wiggle out from not being able to park his car according to regulations. But it turned out that the tow company was so messy and negligent in following procedure and keeping records that they towed the wrong car. The plaintiff fully deserved to be reimbursed, even though he was overdramatic (oooooh, the gut-wrenching agony of being deprived of one's car for 18 days!) and annoying for repeatedly claiming they were scammers without any proof, much like litigants in rental cases routinely call people "slumlords". I did not see any concrete indication that this was a scam, instead of the result of stupidity and negligence by the tow people. And then we had another plaintiff who has no business being a landlord considering how clueless he is. His argument that Section 8 ensuring payment of the rent meant an implicit warrantee from the broker that he would be responsible for the tenant's behaviour, good or bad. As for the broker, I was glad to see that Grandpa from the Munsters, a little older and after gaining some weight, has found something else to do with his long life. Edited April 9, 2019 by Florinaldo 3 3 Link to comment
SRTouch April 9, 2019 Share April 9, 2019 (edited) dangerous ride: P hired D to drive her to work, they got into it, and she was injured when he started to drive off and door caught her wrist - she wants 5 grand.... defendant: claims P opened door while car was still moving, door hit concrete post/pillar, and smashed her hand - so her fault..... ok, something different, not even trying to guess how it'll turn out, yet.... testimony: turns out we have two defendant's - one was driving cab owned by second - admits she was fuming when cab arrived as it was a half hour late, but says she didn't go off on driver - thing is, as soon as she tells us she didn't attack him personally she commences to give blow by blow account of their argument about why he was late.... one reason why I'd hate being a cab driver - you're sometimes trapped in a car with a bitchy (or drunk) fare..... ok, part of her complaint is that cab company was busy, and driver already had a fare, so not only was cab late arriving, but driver delivered his other customer to their destination before taking her where she wanted to go.... the nerve of the guy!.... oh, and she was so busy chewing driver out that she neglected to inform him that she needed to stop at an ATM to pay for her ride - sooooo, they get to her destination, and now get into it over the fare.... camera shifts to drivers and he can barely keep from laughing as MM gives P hard time - and then back to P as she cocks her head to side like she can't believe MM thinks she might have been too busy bitching to take care of business and make sure she could pay her fare..... anyway, here they are at her destination, and she's telling driver she needs to run inside to get money to pay fare - her story is that she has door open trying to get out and driver takes off not wanting her to get out without paying - end result driver hits the pillar/post and open door slams on her wrist - tells us she has a witness, and proceeds to tell us what witness would testify IF ONLY she was here, and she was going to get a written statement, but never got around to it in the months between incident and court date - driver takes her back to where he picked her up..... hmmmmm, would it be "theft by deception" to hire a cab without the means to pay? ..... anyway, to cut it short, her story is her wrist was swollen from being hit, he took her home where she had to call another cab to get to work (really? She tells us 'work' is maybe 6 minutes away by car - maybe if she walked she wouldn't weigh three times what she should) - she finally gets to work, does her shift, and then that night (incident happened around 5am), after going to bed and going to sleep, she wakes up and goes to ER... over to defendant while P looks for her hospital records.... ok, lots of hand waving by driver as he tells what a fare-from-hell P was - turns out his other fare was going to work in same block, and he would have passed other fare's stop to deliver P, which of course means he stopped to let other fare out and P threw a fit - now he saying P waited til he told her he was taking her home and started to drive away before she opened door - almost sounds like he's saying she banged to door on purpose - when he got her home she slammed the door so hard the latch had to be adjusted, and he passes up pictures of damage (I don't remember hearing he had a countersuit).... I'm inclined to believe him, mainly because of HER testimony, but MM has her medical records so let's see just how 'hurt' she was - I'm pretty dubious about her 5 grand claim that she was injured so badly when she worked her shift and was able to go to bed and sleep - but sometimes injuries take awhile before they get to hurting enough to seek medical help...... ooookkkkkaaaaayyyyy, no, just like her missing eyewitness, her 'medical records' show nothing, apparently just that she went to ER, with nothing about why or what doctor found/diagnosed except maybe she needed a hand specialist..... oh, and pictures of door damage explains why there is no countersuit, door looks to have a scuff mark, no dent visible without MM's magnifying glass.... uh huh, when MM asks, repeatedly, what doctor said about her wrist injury all she can talk about is about insurance - sounds like her main concern was deciding who she could sue and doctor didn't even x-ray her wrist.... sounding like P is small time scammer - first trying to scam her cab fare, then trying for lotto money with a fake wrist injury (she shows picture of swollen wrist which shows nada), all with no nothing in the way of evidence except hearsay nonsense..... ok, she's proven nothing, and time up, case dismissed.... final word - if I were to ever be a taxi/uber driver, I'd for sure buy one of those dual dash cameras with one camera that records the inside of the vehicle - not just to protect myself from frivolous complaints/lawsuits, but because of stories nobody would believe without a recording.... tow case: surprise! P says car illegally towed - double surprise could actually have a case, since he says car was towed and police never notified of tow, so car reported stolen and sat in impound building up impound fees - only suing for $273.26 which helps his credibility... defendant: claims P story bogus - says car was towed after being ticketed by police and sat in impound 19 days..... should be easy case - if car ticketed and tow authorized by cops, but wasn't there a case once when tow colony did everything by the book and the cops messed up on the paperwork so when owner went looking for car cops said there was no tow record - as I remember the tow company won, and owner told to sue city/cops..... testimony: P parked in front of business across street from his apartment, comes out in morning and it's gone - checks with business and calls police, nobody has record of tow, so advised to report car stolen - days and weeks go by, dude racking up Metro and Uber charges thinking car was stolen, until finally tow company/impound lot calls and asks when he's coming to get car - so, next day he goes to impound - taking along police since car has been reported stolen - uh oh, tow company in trouble here as P very credible and tow company sent dispatcher unfamiliar with case as sacrificial lamb - P has audio of him arguing with tow employee about the tow, and all dispatcher can say is she recognizes the voice as a former employee and she isn't personally familiar with block, oh and sounds the former employee might have towed P's car, not because it had been ticketed, but because that's where he liked to park his truck when he was getting a hot dog? Well, mentioned hot dogs several times, anyway - dispatcher still arguing car was ticketed, says for blocking a driveway, but she's flapping her gums instead of pulling out evidence of ticket, any sort of authorization for tow, and admits she has no idea of who complained about a blocked driveway and has nothing proving car was ticketed.... not looking good for dispatcher, may be switcheroo coming (or whole case waste of time and tow company should have settled way back when) - only reason I'm not about to zip ahead is because seeing a tow company lose is so rare.... actually feeling kind of sorry for dispatcher as she was thrown under the bus with no first hand knowledge and P had the foresight to record his interaction with the tow company employees where the employee's statements raise more questions than answers - MM lists on her fingers various points where tow company screwed up the tow and botched the paperwork.... well well well, we have another of those rare times when car owner wins case against tow company (and another all too common example of a business sending someone with no first hand knowledge of case).... P butts in and says tow company running a scam, and MM answers she doesn't know if they're running a scam or are just incredibly incompetent - whoa, take that tow company! - and awards P his $273.26 (still wonder why it's not more after intro talked about the big bucks he had to pay to get car out of impound - wonder if maybe they already returned some of the money)... love hallterview where Doug continues giving poor dispatcher a hard time landlord suing broker: says broker guaranteed tenant would pay rent - guess he's going after broker thinking he has better chance of collecting, but not sure he'll get very far unless broker foolish enough to put the "guarentee" in writing and/or co-sign the lease - asking for 5 grand.... defendant: says only thing he promised was a Section 8 tenant, that Sec8 stopped paying is not his problem - landlord either was dumped by Sec8 because of some maintenance problem or tenant did something to get disqualified - in this case I guess tenant got disqualified and he ended up evicting her..... at least everybody got dressed up for court.... testimony: ok, P has me laughing from get go as he explains he rented to tenant from hell because broker offered her as an olive branch after the previous tenant broker had found destroyed place... really? Is D only broker in town? If he brought terrible tenant in past find a new broker - or just accept terrible tenants are part of the business - even great tenants can turn bad if their circumstances change... anyway, he explains D sold him on the new tenant on basis that he wouldn't have to worry about the Sec 8 rent payment (first time he was getting a Sec 8 tenant) - uh yeah, sure, all Sec 8 landlord's are always so happy dealing with the Sec 8 bureaucracy and the tenants are always so delightful and take such care in the dwelling Byrd is paying for them to live in.... nah, silly case with unrealistic P suing wrong party (actuall he already sued and successfully evicted tenant) - sort of funny to watch parts of case, but zipped through most of it and not worth trying too recap - case dismissed Edited April 9, 2019 by SRTouch 3 Link to comment
AngelaHunter April 9, 2019 Share April 9, 2019 59 minutes ago, SRTouch said: dangerous ride: How many of you have hired a taxi and then had an epiphany - Oh, I don't have enough money to pay for my six-minute ride - and told the drive to take you to your place of work where there is an ATM machine? - and of course he should trust you to get the money and pay. But if she had an ATM card why didn't she use it to pay the driver? I mean all taxis have CC/ATM machines now. Even I know that and I haven't taken a taxi in six years. Anyway, she wants 5K for her sore wrist. Unfortunately, she has no doctor's report. It seems all the doctor she DID see talked about was insurance. She HAS a witness though! Oh, but the witness is not here. Invisible witnesses are not helpful. The witness wrote her a statement, but the plaintiff was too damned lazy to get off her butt to go get it. Maybe the pain wasn't so bad? She also couldn't be bothered to go to the hand specialist, but JM should just trust her word that she was injured to the tune of 5K. I guess she mistook small claims court for the lottery office. Go away. 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: tow case: surprise! Yes, this was a surprise and sometimes I like surprises. At first, I thought the plaintiff was your typical entitled millennial who thinks he can park wherever he likes, but it turns out the tow company is little short of criminal. Why no - def has no records of anything, except for plaintiff's car having TWO VIN numbers, and some guy who is "nobody", according to smirking Jabba, dealing with plaintiff when he wanted to know where was the ticket they claimed he received. I wish the plaintiff could have gotten punitive damages as well, as the actions of the tow company really did seem malicious. And yeah, Doug gave the still-smirking tow lady a hard time. I love when he does that! 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: landlord suing broker: It's the case of, "I screwed up, but someone else has to pay for my stupidity." The idiotic landlord is suing his broker for getting him Tenants From Hell. I don't know what rock plaintiff has been living under, but he's old enough to know that no one can EVER guarantee the actions of another, but I guess he's desperately scrambling to avoid taking responsibility for his own messes. At least Sec8 stepped in for once, and decided this tenent should not be getting her rent paid by the over-burdened taxpayers any longer, but that's hardly def's fault. I must say, I was impressed that def is still working, considering he looks to be in his late 80's or early 90's. 4 Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.