Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER
Lillybee

The People's Court

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, DoctorK said:

How many judges have we heard explain that a written contr5act cannot be modified by a subsequent verbal agreement?

I remember learning in my bus law that anything stated verbally prior or at same time of signing was inadmissible, but verbal changes after the fact may be.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, DoctorK said:

How many judges have we heard explain that a written contr5act cannot be modified by a subsequent verbal agreement?

Disclaimer: I have absolutely no legal training.

However, a quick Google search brings up many links to proofs that written contracts can indeed be modified orally in many cases. Since this is small claims court and the parties involved are not expected to have legal expertise, maybe intent or state of mind would be considered by the judge.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

A Lemon Law for horses? That strains credibility, even with California's reputation for some inventive consumer protection laws. There is a very good chance she was just making it up.

I think that a verbal modification might be considered valid if both parties testify to their agreement to the same exact new terms. Which never happens in the cases heard in these court shows.

Edited by Florinaldo
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Florinaldo said:

I think that a verbal modification might be considered valid if both parties testify to their agreement to the same exact new terms. Which never happens in the cases heard in these court shows.

Bingo! Very well stated! If the defendant had agreed she said what plaintiff alleged, there might have been some money returned. But her denial and the "as is" clause sunk plaintiff's case. I'm glad the poor horse wasn't euthanized and can enjoy his remaining days free of plaintiff's company.

Apparently California has a puppy lemon law, but not one for horses.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

Litigants Google all kinds of stuff, only half-understand what they read and then regurgitate it here in an effort to get rewarded for their stupidity.

  • Like 1
  • Laugh 3

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Broderbits said:

Bingo! Very well stated! If the defendant had agreed she said what plaintiff alleged, there might have been some money returned.

Any oral agreement is only as good as the other person admitting to it:)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
On 4/29/2019 at 5:43 PM, AngelaHunter said:

I was annoyed at the accident case. JM was way too kind to the pansy-assed, douchebag-haired, snowflake def, just because he's 18 or 19. He backed up into plaintiff's car in a parking lot but feels he needn't pay for the damage (even though he said he would) because plaintiff's car was in his blind spot! He works long hours at Chipotle! He was going into the Marines (wow, they're scraping the bottom of the barrel, aren't they?) He couldn't go into the Marines because he stabbed himself at Chipotle and needed 5 whole stitches! He's not sure now that he's going to join the Marines. Maybe he heard that they don't have any hairdressers to arrange his locks in his preferred douchebag style and he'll have to shave his head? JM seems to find all this BS crap sympathetic and cute, for some bizarre reason. He couldn't pay one cent to plaintiff due to his career commitments and he's only 19! Cry me a river.  How could anyone be so heartless as to expect him to pay for what he damaged? Plaintiff even offered to give him a 200$ discount on the cost of repairs, but now he wants the whole 1400$ because the little shit weaselled out of paying anything,  and he gets it. 

I'm way behind as usual, but I wanted to comment in general on MM's penchant for finding a lot of these young defendants cute.

This kid was young and acted very entitled, but he was well spoken and seemed to understand MM well. In another case I watched, the defendant was such a vile POS that stole a car and went to confront some woman and threatened the plaintiff. She's not "fixable." She's way too far gone down the road of degenerate.

But the kids who seem like they just need a push back on track, and have to face the music and pay their debts and learn a lesson, maybe she feels that's the best way to set them straight. I don't know.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

In today's landlord-tenant dispute, how could JM doubt the veracity of the defendant's words? Didn't she see she was wearing a big-ass cross around her neck, a surefire sign that she cannot tell a lie (unless she was scheduled to go on a vampire hunt after the hearing)?

Perhaps JM was distracted by the aggressively fluorescent violet lipstick the defendant decided to wear to court and so did not notice the jewelry.

On 5/19/2019 at 8:55 AM, aemom said:

This kid was young and acted very entitled, but he was well spoken and seemed to understand MM well.

I quite agree that she may have sensed a possibility for redemption there, something so many litigants do not display even a minute whiff of.

Edited by Florinaldo

Share this post


Link to post

I hope the show gives us an update of the tax preparer case. Over $800 seems like a lot to pay for an individual return, plus is it even legal to confiscate someone's refund like the defendant did?

Final plaintiff may have been stupid not to check the car title before paying, but the defendant was a total idiot and couldn't have cared less about supplying a working title. What a putz.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I really enjoyed the jewelry case. The plaintiff, who ripped off Chanel by selling their altered products under her own name and continued to do so in spite of TEN "Cease and desist" orders from Chanel, is suing her business partner and friend of 40 years. Neither litigant knows how to use a computer so when they switched to online selling, hoping to duck Chanel, def hired some woman she met in an elevator to get them listed on "Shopify" etc. This woman gets 25$/hr to do what sounds like very little. Plaintiff says the assistant billed for 8hrs for packing a box. Good gig for the assistant! I enjoyed this case, as I enjoy nearly all contract cases. All parties could speak properly and committed no acts of vandalism or physical violence. 

And then we're back to the usual. Plaintiff, who says she is a SSMOFOUR (she said "five" at first so who knows?) buys an old beater car from def, Diana Ross, and then complains about it. Plaintiff shouldn't be held responsible for her AS IS purchase. She's a "female" so of course, she don't know nothing about cars. We know how well this goes over with JM, who did say how much that annoys her. She works three jobs! She has all these keeds! Everyone, even total strangers,  should take care of her and make sure everything she buys is in perfect condition. I wonder how much of the money from those three jobs went towards getting all those scribbly titty-tats she was displaying? Anyway, I was kind of annoyed that JM felt "so sorry" for her. Why? She's a grown woman who chose to squirt out a bunch of kids with who knows how many loser sperm donors. who can afford 4 kids these days? But yeah, I guess between all the impregnations, gestations and birthings, she had no time to learn about man things like cars.  Hint: Birth control is a lot cheaper than four (or five) kids.

JM didn't feel nearly as sorry for the def handyman in the last case. Even I felt for him. He's no spring chicken, has had all kinds of serious health problems/surgeries and appeared here with a bandaged head and black eye from a skin cancer operation, yet still has to do heavy work to earn a living. Yes, he should have returned the money plaintiff gave him for a job he was unable to do, but geeze, JM was harder on him than she was on the tatted SSMOF.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/19/2019 at 8:55 AM, aemom said:

I'm way behind as usual, but I wanted to comment in general on MM's penchant for finding a lot of these young defendants cute.

This kid was young and acted very entitled, but he was well spoken and seemed to understand MM well.

I might agree if these young smartasses showed even a bit of remorse or shame for their actions and their ducking any responsibility, but in general, they do not. This beaky twerp didn't give a shit that he damaged someone's property, or that he failed to make good with even a dollar on his promise to pay for it. Ah, it wasn't really his fault, he didn't have time, he cut himself, etc etc. JM acts like she really hates to find against them, but the law demands it, just the way she did with that bunch of women who trashed someone's property. He, and others like him, walked away from this having learned nothing and smirking to their little friends how they had the judge wrapped around their little fingers. It's true. We've seen this too many times.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

I might agree if these young smartasses showed even a bit of remorse or shame for their actions and their ducking any responsibility, but in general, they do not. This beaky twerp didn't give a shit that he damaged someone's property, or that he failed to make good with even a dollar on his promise to pay for it. Ah, it wasn't really his fault, he didn't have time, he cut himself, etc etc. JM acts like she really hates to find against them, but the law demands it, just the way she did with that bunch of women who trashed someone's property. He, and others like him, walked away from this having learned nothing and smirking to their little friends how they had the judge wrapped around their little fingers. It's true. We've seen this too many times.

If not for that, then I really do wonder why she does it then.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, aemom said:

If not for that, then I really do wonder why she does it then.

Personally, I think she does it because in general, if the litigant hasn't done something truly heinous, she's sympathetic to anyone the ages of her own kids, who sound incredibly babied. She does the same with most elderly litigants too -I'm sure because of her own elderly parents -  feeling they somehow deserve respect and kindness, no matter how hateful, vicious and nasty they are and even if they themselves extend no kindness to anyone.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Today's Great Oil Pan Caper. For me, there were only two interesting aspects:

1. The oil pan picture - it looked like the oil pan was about 1/4" thick instead of sheet metal, and the hole looked like it was broken not cut (the edges looked like fractures) which suggests cast iron, not steel. I have never seen an oil pan that wasn't sheet metal (I did have one FWD with a heavy skid plate under the oil pan), was this some exotic car?

2. I think this is the first time we have seen a hallterview in which the plaintiff's son (Mr. Roosterhead) flashed gang signs to the camera, then proceeded to add his commentary which sounded like he is a complete ignoramus.

If anyone knows of cars that have cast iron oil pans, I would like to know.

  • Like 1
  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, zillabreeze said:

I thought the hair/hat combo made him look like a court jester....then he started talking and confirmed.

LOL@the gang signs. You could understand him? I couldn't catch a single word except "karma" but maybe I was too distracted by whatever he was sporting on his head. I couldn't understand his girlfriend much better, but the gist was, "I can park my old, unregistered, non-working heap wherever I like." Does she think the complex is running a junkyard? Beaten-up old heaps get holes in them!  I liked the tow people.

5 hours ago, DoctorK said:

was this some exotic car?

It was an old Malibu. I once had a Malibu. That thing was a tank, but I don't think they're made like that anymore.

The "Lazer Park"? whatever that means. I'm sure someone here knows and can clue me in, right? The number of "Likes" in this case left me dizzy and almost eclipsed the terrible grammar. Def - a big-time operator -  is one of those people who think that because someone else has more money than they do, that they deserve to get some of it. I guess JM didn't notice that the plaintiff, who appeared to be a SSMO-who-knows-how-many, was wearing a top that ended just under her breasts, leaving an expanse of bared midriff. Keep it classy!

The last case: I could not finish this. Listening to the silly, douchebag-haired, yapping, sissy plaintiff who is a 29-year old man but speaks like a silly teenager was nearly intolerable, but when we got to the def, I quit. They went to school together but she looked about 10 years older than he did and she thought she was really, really cute with the giggling and tittering and the looking up through her lashes. She was not cute or charming. Not at all. So annoying were these clueless, entitled millennials that I had to turn this off.  Couldn't stand them!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

After the festival of garbled grammar and the string of paralogical non-sequiturs from litigants in the first two cases, the third case was rather refreshing, even if rather lightweight.

How comforting to get a plaintiff who is coherent, has his evidence together, can cogently present a valid case and even make a sound legal point in reply to JM. He lost points though for blaming his printer for the micropscopic print size on some of his papers; if you do not know how to format a document correctly for printing, ask someone else  but do not say it's the machine's fault.

But his biggest failing was in not spotting from the start the true character of the defendant. As she was entering the courtroom, her demeanor and facial expressions made me immediately peg her as a lying snake. Which she entirely proved herself to be as she tried to justify her actions in not paying him what was due.

Edited by Florinaldo
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

In the yoga case, JM tells the plaintiff that she's "adorable" even after hearing how she stiffed the def and slandered her and her employees in an effort to weasel out of what she agreed to pay. The employees are not qualified to teach, she claims. Oops, she didn't think to bring evidence of that, but told this to others anyway.  The simple fact seems to be that she signed up for classes to get a certification but then got another job, changed her mind, couldn't be bothered and decided she should get her money back after breaching her contract. She's been traumatized by the vile acts of def. and no longer wants to be a yoga teacher. Def wins on the countersuit and I found plaintiff - who seems to think her cuteness should win out - not adorable at all, although JM seems more sympathetic to her than she does to the def, who did nothing wrong. However, this case was a breath of fresh air. No acts of violence, no screeching videos, and all parties could speak their language properly. How rare and unusual.

Rent scammer: Plaintiff has lived in his apartment for 12 years. The roof has always leaked, he's always had mouse infestations and the windows let in all the cold air. He chose to stay anyway. All that suited him because it was convenient and a good price. Now he squats in the property, not paying rent and wants all kinds of money from the def. who inherited this building from her sister who passed away. Def knows nothing about tenant/landlord laws (something the plaintiff took advantage of. He's a senior citizen and has lots of time to find out every single way to work the system) but she says God instructed her in these laws. JM detested the money-grubbing, opportunistic, bottom-feeding plaintiff and gave the def some great advice, which was to get this squatter, who has reported the def multiple times, out of the apartment and stop feeling sorry for him. Squatter wanted all kinds of rebates on the rent he paid for the last 4 years, even though the def never got that money.  Do senior citizens have a right to squat and steal from landlords? He thinks so.

Then we get the usual: Woman buys a 17-year old car from def and now whines that it's not in perfect condition and she wants her 1500$ back.  After she squawks, the def, Gucci, agrees to pay 150$ to get the thing tuned up, something he had zero obligation to do and really should have told her to go pound sand. But there's a twist: Plaintiff freely admits she bribed the inspector with 50$ to pass the heap. Also, she claims she never got the 150$ def gave her. However, her drugged-looking daughter confirms that SHE got the money. So either plaintiff is lying (again) that she didn't get the money or her daughter stole it from her. JM hates this lying, scamming, bribing plaintiff too. She gets zippo.

SRTouch, are you okay? We miss you and your primo recaps!!

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

So either plaintiff is lying (again)

But she couldn't have been lying!!!! She was wearing her big gold cross up above those ginourmus boosoms!

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, zillabreeze said:

She was wearing her big gold cross up above those ginourmus boosoms!

Oh, dear. The bosoms were so ginormous I didn't even notice the cross. I wonder if she was wearing it when she bribed the crooked inspector?

  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post

A Yoga Special Snowflake. That is a first I believe. The poor young thing could not stand the burden of following the training program to become an instructor and then make a career out of it, so she of course thinks she is due a reimbursement of all her expenses and puts forward all sorts of reasons, mostly inventions, why she was taken advantage of. It appears she is not the first one to do so according to defendant, who recounts that one former young student got a favourable ruling in court by bursting into tears; I think I would have been more interested in hearing further details about that story than following this case. In a perfect world, she should have been denied her certificate for all of her dishonest shenanigans to get her money back. But the document won't do her much good anyway since she does not seem willing (or able) to put any effort into pursuing that profession.

She is another in a long line of litigants that JM finds "adorable" but that I just could not stomach. At least the judge was not won over by her cutesy act, a tactic that probably often works for her in real life.

The old leech of a tenant was even more morally repellent. He argued that the flat was uninhabitable, but he actually inhabited it for many years! Defendant was a pushover, who nearly lost me when she started with the sob story about moving back home to take care of her dying sister; I hate blubbering litigants. Thankfully, the plaintiff knocked some sense into me by dissing the sisters' relationship; it may have been true, but it is always an uncalled-for move to cast gratuitous and irrelevant aspersions on the opposing party. I would like to think that the defendant will have to fortitude to pursue eviction proceedings to the end, in order to get that loathsome freeloader out, but I have some doubts; unless her friend can provide the necessary push and support.

Rather standard "as is sale" case to round up this episode, with another defendant who is too much of a softie. That lying plaintiff did not deserve a single penny back, much less the 150 $ he gave her because of unwarranted compassion.

2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

The bosoms were so ginormous I didn't even notice the cross.

I also missed the cross (and I usually focus on those as an attempt to establish morality and credibility), but it my case I think it was the wonky and fugly hairstyle that had me distracted.

Edited by Florinaldo
  • Like 1
  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×