Jump to content

Type keyword(s) to search

The People's Court

Moderated by PrincessPurrsALot

  • Reply
  • Start Topic

Recommended Posts

Bunch of janky litigants today.

We had a new category in "Desperate Women and the Losers they Love" with plaintiff suing her darling, dear boy's ex-girlfriend for a loan given to def while she was dwelling with the darling boy, who had gotten out of jail. Okay, def is so desperate she's willing to move a violent, unemployed heroin addict in with her and she will feed, clothe and house him, just for the pleasure of his company. Jackpot.  Hey, if that's what she wants and needs, it's fine. But, stupid cow (no disrespect to cows who are better mothers than most of the SSMs we see here) has  a 5-year old kid being forced to live with this drug addict bum. Finally the addict grabs her hair and smashes her head into a wall, which she didn't seem to think was a particularly big deal. You don't have the luxury of total self-indulgence when you are a SSM with a little child you're supposed to protect. Mommy Dearest had told her, while def. was still caring for the Boy, that she could forget paying back the thousands of dollars in loans, until def broke up with the darling boy. The boy is a 28-year old man, yet mommy blames def for his bad behavior, saying def "knew how to push his buttons" because who would expect a man pushing 30 to have any self-control? Not mommy, who says her boy was lying on the sofa all innocently watching a game at Mommy's house when def called him to complain about a neighbour making passes at her and she needed Sir Lancelot to come protect her. What's a boy to do? Mommy says he was "looking for a job" for two years, but it's not like he did nothing, oh no. He put the kid on the school bus and met him every afternoon. Who could ask for more? Obviously not def. Def has to pay Mommy back. Once again I am kind of horrified at the morbid obesity so prevalent among young people these days. Def and her witness/friend/moral support? If she wants to live long enough to see her kid grow up she better do something. Anyway, JM awards Mommy her money. In the hall, def uses the old, "I never asked for the money. She forced me to take it. The judge never let me say that." Whatever. Take your monstrous entourage and GTFO. And Mom? Good luck.

Then we had a member of the MS society who booked a White House tour - expecting an interior tour -  with def, who has a travel club/agency called "GottaGo travel". Not really a good name as it sounds like it's for people who have bladder control issues. Anyway, travel woman's fliers are vague, not particularly literate and muddy, promising a "White House Tour" which to her means looking at the outside of the capitol buildings or maybe the White House. Who knows? She doesn't seem sure.  JM takes a recess for def to find the email she sent to the MS group, outlining what was included, but gee - she can't find it or preferred not to find it. All plaintiff wanted was her 350$ back for misrepresentation. She gets it. Too bad she, ill as she is,  had to go to this length to get it. Of course in the hall def gripes that JM didn't give her a chance to present her evidence. On the contrary, she gave her all the time she needed.

Then we had some doofus, wearing a suit jacket way too small (is this a new fashion) and a tie that appeared to be tucked into his pants, suing def for a car he bartered. He had no job, needed to move to get one, but needed a car since he had a 7K watch but no car. Some guy called "Anthony" brokers a deal for plaintiff to give def the watch in exchange for a 5k car which def had never bothered to register. On and on it goes and it was really kind of boring. Plaintiff gets no money but will get the car back. In the hall he informs Doug that he doesn't agree with the judge's interpretation of the law. Oh, go away, you nitwit.

*Note: I orginally erroneously posted this on the JJ forum as I wondered why SRTouch wasn't doing his job, so sorry for repetition!*

Edited by AngelaHunter
  • Love 7
Link to comment
  1. doesn't always pay to do good deed: (this one is different - young driver goes out of way for D, and then D tries to weasel out of damage 👍👍👍here we have good Samaritan P see D drop his wallet - she chases him down as they're driving along - apparently pulling up next to him to yell through the respective car windows - he opens his door (maybe to hear better) and bangs her car with his door - she wants him to pay for damage to her Sideview mirror ($500) defendant intro: agrees with most of story, says he offered to pay if she provided a receipt for repair - says when good Samaritan daughter first got estimate it was $160, which he balked at because it seemed high, then her rude hotheaded father got involved and demanded $500.... thoughts before testimony starts - just how did he manage to knock off her mirror when he opened his door, is this one of those fancy heated, Sideview mirrors that or real pricey, or is P looking for bonanza (hope it's pricey mirror, cuz daughter tried to right thing, but if wrong example if dad is padding bill - finally, looks like case where young driver may get MM's maternal feelings going) .... testimony: ah ha, so repair costs $152, but damage padded with $350 in missed work..... ok, according to P mirror isn't knocked off when when he bangs her car opening door, no she pulls up really close and he opens his door (not sure why, as they were at traffic light and she was too close for him to fit through door) - light turns green, she yells not to open door, let's get out of traffic, he opens door anyway and his door catches her mirror as her car starts to roll... if that's what happened, not sure WTH D was thinking getting out of his car in middle of intersection - actually, more she tells us about D more questions arise - first, he doesn't have insurance, but tells her car belongs to Air Force... what nonsense is he telling us, says he never told her car belonged to AF, it belongs to his ex-gf, but has AF plates - huh? does he mean an AF sticker, like to get on Base? Geez, 20 years active duty in Army and I was never issued Army plates....  Then he takes a moment to tell us how grateful he was that P stopped him to tell him he dropped his wallet - really? Says MM, so grateful that P had to sue to get her car repaired? D really looking bad, not only ungrateful, but now he admits that IF her car was damaged, he did it... which really means he doesn't believe there was any damage - not liking this guy, at ALL - too bad P hurt her image when she tacked on an extra $350 in damages for missed work.... ok, guess girl is psychic or something, since she somehow knew guy works for AF (as a chaplain!?!)... we're still hearing from D, he says he had insurance, but no proof of insurance with him that day and he didn't want to provide the insurance info 'cuz he was going to pay out of pocket - back across aisle to P side - young driver faced with what was probably first accident did what any teenager does - she called daddy - now daddy starts talking, baby girl called saying she had an accident, he drops everything and goes to scene - when he gets there daughter alone, D has left scene - daddy just got a few years knocked off life expectancy, baby girl in wreck (probably crying) other driver gone - he calls number D gave daughter... yeah, if it had been me I might well have been a tad rude and hotheaded... says D told him no insurance, but that he'll pay for the repairs - D story for this part seems to be he offered to pay if car taken to his guy - P even went to his shop, but instead of being offered matching mirror was offered unpainted mirror meant for different model - nope, not good 'nuf - D's guy then says give him an hour and he'll call around and find a matching mirror - time passes, no return call from D's guy, she contacts her regular mechanic and he finds a mirror within 5 minutes, and wonder of wonders, when asked, she is quick to produce the receipt for the repair.... ok, P bent over backwards trying to give D's guy a chance to do repair when she didn't have to, she's going to get the repair cost - only question is will she be the rare litigant who can prove missed wages.... anyway, after repair is completed, she calls D and wants him to pay, but he complains she didn't use his giy, was charged too much, and starts yelling - she hands phone to daddy, who starts yelling back, and we end up here - ok, back to defendant - who begins with how he recorded all these calls.... Ya' just know this recording isn't going to be what D says - despite fact he brings it up and acts like he was the reasonable one, as he offers to que it up so MM can hear it, when camera shifts to P she has a smirk on her face as MM announces P recorded call as well - D fiddles with his phone trying to bring up the recording, but MM says don't bother, I have it - we start of start in middle with daddy on line arguing with D - recording backs P story - P already had bill saying it cost $152, and here D says he was willing to pay $40-50, but will go as high as $100 - and, not once does daddy sound rude and/or hotheaded, though he does get frustrated and apparently said pay up now or the $150 will turn into a $500 claim.... huh, is this really what D was going to play?....  ok, lecture for the good chaplain, then praise for young driver as MM urges her to keep doing the right thing in future..... P has nothing with her proving lost wages, so just gets the $152 repair bill..... chaplain turns to P and apologizes after decision and comes out to Doug talking about how embarrassed he is (yeah, embarrassed he looks bad, but will no doubt act the same next time).
  2. cell phone case: 👎👎 brother added 2 sisters to his plan and then stuck with bill - whoa, they apparently never paid anything and he claims owe him over 2 grand defendant these two are entirely too happy for legit litigants feuding with brother - then camera shifts to brother smiling and nodding back - camera shifts again and happy sisters have turned away from brother (probably to keep from  giving him a thumbs up) anyway, they claim bro gave one sister a phone as soon BD gift, gifted other sister her phone for some reason... not believing this case at all, at all, and now Smiley sis making eyes at Douglas... ok, preview as we go to commercial has me even more convinced this is phoney case with both sisters putting on performances they practiced in front of mirror, all while Brother smiles looking on.... don't expect to watch much of this farce.... ok, nothing brother is saying inspires me to watch - sisters may have rehearsed in front of mirror, but brother SHOULD have, because his testimony makes little sense.... MM gives up on brother telling his side, and begins testifying for him, so this or that happened, right? Then this happened? Geez, give up on bro and let's let sisters read their lines.... anyway, story appears to be that a third sister, who had better things to do, got into it with bro (probably because he was passing out fancy iPhone Xs to everyone BUT her) - bro helping smiley sis move, and his fiancé and sis get into it, smiley calls BD sis, who comes over wanting get to fight bro - bro calls cops - bro wants phones back, but says they refuse to give them back - he cancels service - Sprint wants money or return of phones - bro says they refuse to return phones but they claim when they offered to return phones but he refused to take them. ... nonsense and I start zipping.... I start listening to hear MM in family counseling mode - zip zip - MM orders sisters to return phones along with $80 one sister agrees was leaned to her.
  3. dvd/vhs machine is kabut: hey, I'm not not only one hanging on to old VHS machine! I actually have a couple of them, and a big box of tapes that probably won't play anymore (along with my stereo from the 70s with turntable, receiver, reel to reel, etc). Anyway, P (grumpy old dude) took his machine to D for repair, and now thing doesn't work - sorry, old dude, unless D offered money back guarantee, you're out of luck. If D did anything, even just taking off the cover and pronouncing thing dead, he deserves to be paid for his time (unless there was a "free estimate") defendant says old machine worth maybe $10 (probably right, doubt a pawn shop would give you10 bucks), says he told P it wasn't worth fixing, but P insisted he try - says, as expected, thing was past repair, but he deserves his payment for trying.... yep, about what I would expect, and unless there's something hidden, P doesn't have a case... testimony: hoboy, old dude wants a grand (half for aggravation and $495 for the machine) for this non functioning antique - well, half functioning, I guess dvd worked but tape kapu, but after "repair" nothing worked - sooooo D actually has machine in shop a couple times, thinks it was fixed first time, but died again, back to shop, now nothing works... ok, major hole in case right off bat, seems P's helper friend, Andy, was guy taking it to be repaired, so everything we're hearing from P is hearsay unless D agrees that's what happened/was said... ah, but D guilty of sloppy paperwork, he only has 1 receipt but admits machine in and out multiple times... this is important because he's claiming machine working except the remote was dead, and P may be grumpy old dude with unrealistic expectations, but I'm finding him more credible than D - not enough to give him his refund, much less WAY more than machine was worth.... truth is I gave up recapping on this one when old dude starts talking directly you D. In the end, MM accepts P version that dvd worked until D "fixed" it. Tells him he could replace hid you year old machine with brand new dvd player for $50, so she gives him the $50 (not sure, but think D already return year he  $70 he was charged for the non repair). Part of P's complaint was that D refused to give him back the non-working machine. MM gives P's friend a call and turns out the friend has the busted machine. I figure P proved nothing, but MM's heartstrings were not only being pulled by the old folk vibe, but old dude also a disabled AF vet - so, she figured, WTH, give old dude 50 bucks for a new DVD player 

For some reason tablet ate 1st 2 recaps, so sending this off before #3 disappears

Edited by SRTouch
  • Love 5
Link to comment

Some states, including the one I live in, have specialty plates that say Air Force Retired, and other retired military, so I bet that's what the mirror case had for license.     Also, almost all government vehicles are GSA, and not for personal use, and he did say it was his girlfriend's car (I think he said girlfriend), and military vehicles are cover by the government for insurance.   

Why do people still buy phones for friends or relatives?   Or put people on their plans?     I guess we only see the bad outcomes, but I'm not paying anyone else's phone costs or bills.  

I had to laugh at the DVD/VCR case.    If the man ever found a VHS machine, it would be pricey, and probably wouldn't even work for long, and the VHS tapes deteriorate with age.    

They also had the rerun (I get two episodes a day) with the man who bought the Mercedes, it was discovered that he absolutely lied about his income, and the bank turned his financing down, because of insufficient funds multiple times.   He signed a release for the amount of money they gave him back when he had to turn in the car, so he was out of luck.   The one highlight was when he pulled a huge roll of cash out of his pocket, and says he gets paid in cash a lot.     I wonder if he made it to the parking lot before someone removed his cash?

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Love 3
Link to comment

First case of the broken car mirror: Very minor problem and very small amount of money, yet the def was one of the most despicable we've seen here. Plaintiff is driving along, sees a wallet fall out of def's car, stops, picks it up and pulls up alongside def at a red light. Def gets out of his car and knocks plaintiff's mirror off.  Def has no insurance. He doesn't need insurance. He works for the military as a chaplain(??) and he's a contractor and the military owns the car. So plaintiffs have to start on the long trail to get the mirror fixed.

Def tells them to go to some guy he knows who will do it for 40$. Plaintiffs actually go there and the guy has another mirror for a different car but offers to stick it on their car with Crazyglue or something. They decline and go to their own usual garage where the mirror is properly replaced within minutes. Grand total: 152$. Well, def isn't paying that exhorbitant amount! No sir! After a phone call, he says he might be willing to give them 100$. Nasty, gooch-eyed skinflint certainly doesn't look as though he's living in poverty and for sure isn't going hungry. So that's his gratitude over this young woman taking the time to pick up his wallet and give it back to him. What a demonstration of "No good deed goes unpunished." The asshole chaplain still didn't want to pay 152$. His smirky, jerkoff attitude was disgusting. But in the hall he's all apologetic. Sorry, I don't buy it. He's probably just worried about his contracting business after people see what a total jerk he is. Ugh. I bet that poor girl will think twice about helping out any stranger from now on. Good job, chaplain!

Second case about sisters who want 1000$ (ONE THOUSAND DOLLAR!) phones they can't afford, because they're on hard times and going through things and a super-expensive phone will resolve those issures and brother putting him on his plan - whatever. I couldn't take this BS and skipped it.

Forgot about the VCR guy. I get it. I clung to these things as long as I could, but had to face reality and get modern stuff. However I have a whole library of DVDs and nothing with which to play them. I texted my brother, the tech-whiz, to ask what kind of DVD player I should get. After he scoffed at me, he told me he has an old DVD player I can have. "Oh, great!" I say. He says then, "I'll look around and see if I have any other obsolete electronics you can have." 🤣

Edited by AngelaHunter
  • LOL 1
  • Love 6
Link to comment
43 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

doesn't always pay to do good deed:

Another two- or three-faced man of God (alleged). After losing, he was all apologetic about giving the plaintiff the runaround, a cheap and easy stance since he does not have to pay anything to her and the show takes care of that.

46 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

cell phone case

Why did MM have to go into family counselor mode and ask the horrid sisters if they were OK with giving the phones back? You are the judge, simply order them to do so!

Although I have my doubts they will do it either way.

I thought he should have received the rest of his claim too.

48 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

dvd/vhs machine is kabut:

A variation on the frequent cross wearing litigants; this one prominently displays his dog tags, which of course gets him the obligatory "thank you for your service" greeting.

Defendant worked on the machine, even though he told P it was not worth repairing it, so he should have been allowed to keep the fee he got. The loading mechanism and tape transport of a VCR are actually a bit complicated and the expertise to repair them is disappearing, along with replacement parts.

Perhaps P can use the money he got to buy a good razor and get rid of that strange pilosity around his throat.

43 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

I texted my brother, the tech-whiz, to ask what kind of DVD player I should get. After he scoffed at me, he told me he has an old DVD player I can have

There are plenty of very affordable DVD/BD players available on the market, as well as high-end ones that cost a pretty penny, unless you want a machine that plays only DVDs, which my be rarer. Even region-fee players (I have a good number of DVDs and BDs from different regions) are not that expensive. Or perhaps he is also dismissive of Blu-Ray discs?

  • Love 2
Link to comment
1 minute ago, Florinaldo said:

Or perhaps he is also dismissive of Blu-Ray discs?

No, he's just into only the very latest technology and thinks I should put all my DVD movies on drives or whatever to watch them on my new smart TV, which I could do, but don't want to. I spent many hours making all the covers for my DVDs! I had a Blu-Ray player, but it broke. My new, obsolete but upscale  player suits me fine. DVD/VCR guy on the show is just going to have to go with the flow, painful though I know it is.

VCR guy reminds me: I have the whole OS Star Trek on VHS tapes I got ages ago, many still in shrink wrap. I have no way to view them, they aren't worth anything yet I can't bring myself to trash them although they are useless. Such a dilemma!

Link to comment

The plaintiff on the ancient VHS/DVD player repair kept repeating that when he got it back, he found out that the DVD part would no longer play and record. He was very clear that he was complaining about the DVD part not recording. I never saw a combined VHS/DVD player that could record DVDs, I am fairly sure that they never made them, the combined VHS/DVD machines were an awful idea and didn't stick around long. If he wants to burn DVDs he needs more than a DVD player, but he seemed like someone who just won't listen to anything he doesn't want to hear.

  • Love 1
Link to comment
34 minutes ago, Florinaldo said:

Why did MM have to go into family counselor mode and ask the horrid sisters if they were OK with giving the phones back? You are the judge, simply order them to do so!

Although I have my doubts they will do it either way.

I don't have a brother, but if I did and he gave me a thousand dollar cellphone for any reason, I would be reluctant to give it back too. He didn't look like he was rolling in money, but he's handing out pricey phones and cash every which way. Except to the third sister, who didn't have time for this nonsense. Maybe that's why she wasn't there.

  • Love 1
Link to comment
18 minutes ago, Cobalt Stargazer said:

I don't have a brother, but if I did and he gave me a thousand dollar cellphone for any reason, I would be reluctant to give it back too. He didn't look like he was rolling in money, but he's handing out pricey phones and cash every which way.

I have a brother, but he would never give me a 1K phone nor would I accept it even if he did. Were I on hard times, had no credit and couldn't get my own phone he would help me out, but not like that since he would rightfully feel a little more practicality might help me more. I notice the sister pooh-pooed her old "Obama phone". I'm not sure what that means, but I guess it wasn't good enough for her.

  • LOL 1
Link to comment

They used to make VHS/DVD-recorders.    They were mostly for making DVDs from a VHS tape (unless it had a block on it, and you couldn't copy it).    I also had a DVD-recorder, but I never used it, so it went to the thrift store.    However, if the plaintiff didn't realize the difference between a DVD player, and a DVD recorder then he was out of luck.   

Link to comment
Quote

I notice the sister pooh-pooed her old "Obama phone". I'm not sure what that means, but I guess it wasn't good enough for her.

I think she meant the Lifeline Assistance free/low cost phones for qualified needy people, like those on Medicaid or Section 8. The program was actually begun under Reagan.

I too bailed on the family phone feud, and actually enjoyed cleaning moldy condiments out of my fridge more than listening to MM play therapist. Can't we have a moratorium on phone cases?

  • LOL 1
Link to comment
44 minutes ago, Cobalt Stargazer said:

I don't have a brother, but if I did and he gave me a thousand dollar cellphone for any reason, I would be reluctant to give it back too.

Just because he is family? The oft-repeated "it's morally wrong that they would sue me; we are kin!" excuse we often hear on these shows is only an open invitation for relatives to screw you over and then claim you are a horrible person for expecting repayment or fair treatment from them.

  • Love 1
Link to comment
14 minutes ago, Florinaldo said:

Just because he is family?

No, because he is a fricking idjit who shouldn't be handing out phones that cost a grand each. One of the sisters might have turned her nose up at her old phone, but common sense, which is in precious short supply on these shows, says he should have gotten her something mid-scale if he was going to buy her one at all, not go for top of the line.

  • Love 2
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Broderbits said:

I think she meant the Lifeline Assistance free/low cost phones for qualified needy people, like those on Medicaid or Section 8.

Thanks. Nice that such needy people who get free stuff can have 1K iPhones. But, hey, that's what bro wanted them to have. Priorities, people!

I'm glad I ditched this case. I certainly didn't want to hear the "We are family" speech from JM.

  • Love 1
Link to comment

I loved how the one defendant in the cell phone case claimed that she lived without a phone for a year but the JMM pulled out of her that she just lived without cell service and used wifi, BIG difference!  I can imagine that there are many people that do this.  Can't get individual service anymore, so either you beg to get on a family/friend plan or use wifi to get by.

  • Love 3
Link to comment
16 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

First case of the broken car mirror: Very minor problem and very small amount of money, yet the def was one of the most despicable we've seen here. Plaintiff is driving along, sees a wallet fall out of def's car, stops, picks it up and pulls up alongside def at a red light. Def gets out of his car and knocks plaintiff's mirror off. 

I thought she saw the wallet fall out, the light changed, and she caught up with the guy at the next light.  She rolled down her window to tell him his wallet had fallen out, and he opened the door to go back to get it.

Either way, he was an unappreciative jerk.

  • Useful 1
  • Love 4
Link to comment
4 hours ago, AZChristian said:

I thought she saw the wallet fall out, the light changed, and she caught up with the guy at the next light.  She rolled down her window to tell him his wallet had fallen out, and he opened the door to go back to get it.

Either way, he was an unappreciative jerk.

Ah, that would explain why he opened the door.... still say he was stupid to open his door in traffic - of course, IIRC he lost his wallet in the first place when he opened the door in traffic. 

  • Love 2
Link to comment
  1. a little family drama/car vandalism:😞👎👎 latest edition of family acting like idjits ending up in court. P, Valerie, is suing sister, Pamela, claiming Pam is a lunatic who went off the deep end and scratched her Ford Focus to tune of $2013.27 (actually, car repair, lost wages, plus the ever popular, pain and suffering) defendant: Pam says Val lives in bad area, has lots of enemies because she's so hard to get along with, anybody could have keyed her rusted out beater - course Pam has a countersuit, but all she could come up with is lost wages and pain and suffering ($1224)....  oh, another family counseling opportunity, if it goes the way intro indicates I'm bailing early.... testimony: family drama involves not just feuding sisters but mommy and aunt - Val tells us mommy was leaving town for a while, and left a little cash with Val for Auntie ($70) and Pam ($20). Talk about fight over nothing - according to Val, Pam got all upset mommy left her $20 with Val - Val says when she called Pam to tell her to come get the 20 bucks mommy left, Pam blew up and started calling her names and asking why mommy would leave her money with Val... oh, and for some reason Val calls her sister Miss Pamela.... getting close to hitting fast forward with this nonsense as Pam starts telling us her side - which makes no sense - when MM asks if these two are for real I hit the button.... ok, I start listening again after Harvey does his street gallery shtick - just in time to hear MM telling Pam she knows her pants are burning when she claims Val had a rusted out, shot up old junker - seems liar liar Miss Pamela forgot she wrote in her statement that Val had recently got a new car - oops, Pam wants to go back to some nonsense about pennies which I must have zipped over, MM says she doesn't want to hear 'bout no pennies and starts family counseling when Pam starts talking about pennies anyway.... I zip ahead... ah, apparently must have been text threats from Pam, so she gets to pay for the repair...... and Pam just keeps on ranting while MM rules - oh, and while MM orders Pam to pay she mumbles something which CC translates to "it ain't coming out of my pocket!".... 
  2. custom aquarium doesn't hold water: 😴 P ordering custom tank from defendant, but when it arrived it was wrong size and leaks - suing for $4231.18 he says the worthless tank cost... defendant: claims his job was to deliver a 180 gallon tank - dimensions not specified and nothing about needed to fit into a cabinet - claims tank was fine when delivered, and it it's cracked now it's because P must have damaged it..... should be an open and shut case, because surely there will be lots of texts/work order/contract etc when we're talking over 4 grand on a fish tank - oh wait, court TV litigants don't believe in contracts, even when they write one up, half the time it's not signed, and when signed, litigants invoke the 'special snowflake' clause.... testimony: ok, fishy tank was surprise birthday gift for P wife - very quickly MM establishes these folks fit into the group of litigants who go with half-a$$ed paperwork - no contract, and like D's intro said, what P introduces as an order is an email saying he wants a 180 gallon tank - nothing about dimensions - well, sort of, seems P saw a tank similar to what he wanted in shop, said something like this, but taller, some notes may or may not have been made on scratch paper about dimensions, but dimensions not transfered to the email confirming the order, and when it arrives doesn't fit - as MM says, ridiculous on both sides - course when tank arrives it's not really what P wanted - not as tall as he wanted, and turns out not 180 gallon, but WTH, almost wife's BD so he goes with it. Ok, even with the sketchy email which lacked dimenions, the 1 thing everybody agrees with is that tank was to hold 180 gallons.  Sooooo, D has a problem - which he tries to get out of by saying P accepted delivery, set up all the rocks, sand, etc scratching tank in process and who knows who all may have damaged tank in the weeks it was in P's possession, a deal is a deal - ok, says MM, but sticking point is that he bought 180 gallon tank and this tank does not hold 180 - to which D replies 180 tanks do not actually hold 180 gallons, no, he says, according to industry standards, a tank with the dimensions he sold P is called a 180 tank.... hmmm, maybe so, but he'll need more than flapping gums to convince me.... P actually hands up evidence that manufacturer of similar tank says it holds 170 gallons - seems right away P complained to D's daddy, who sent son to defend case today, offered to replace tank if the tank didn't hold 180 gallons - P says he went home and measured water it took to fill tank, turned out tank only held 120 gallons - uh, I must be missing something,  thought dude testified that D daddy offered to replace tank if it failed to hold 180 gallons, but now he saying he assumed he was now stuck with the tank, cabinet maker there to build new cabinet, so he goes ahead and gets cabinet built to fit the tank..... sounds like he has case for getting money back for tank, but not anything spent building cabinet... ah, now we get to leak - says once cabinet built and tank filled up, water leaked - huh, and he didn't notice leak when he measured how much water it held?... he calls D daddy, is told to drain tank, and next day tank taken back to shop... ok, back to other defense (which I think is the better defense), that P accepted delivery, installed tank, put everything together, including the rocks, sand, filters, etc and had tank for weeks and may have damaged tank - dimensions claims P admitted cabinet dude may have cracked tank - but of course P denies ever saying any such thing.... ok, time running out, D admits he never checked holding capacity of tank, and MM tells him that will cost him... well yeah, only thing specified was that tank was to hold 180 gallons and only actual measurement we heard about has it far short of that volume.... hmmmm not sure what MM is talking about in decision - first off, she awards P full amount of claim, but then says all the "stuff" P has belongs to D and needs to be returned. Not really sure what the 'stuff' is - guessing filters, maybe rocks, sand etc that was bought new instead of being transferred from P's old tank? Ah, well, maybe hallterview will answer because not worth backtracking - nope, still not sure what 'stuff' she was talking about... could it be D gets cabinet built to fit the tank? Oh, well, like I said not worth going back to figure out - watched whole thing, didn't zip through anything, but must have dozed out as it was sort of a dud
  3. tenant looking for deposit: 👍 same old story, tenant suing former landlord for almost 2 grand for security that was withheld - also claim landlord is a bully who forced her out.... having been both a landlord and renter, that's a claim I always doubt - unless tenant is a problem, why would landlord want tenant out - oh, maybe to sell place, a rent control situation, or so friend/family can move in, but as a rule it costs the landlord time and money every time a tenant leaves.... defendant: ok, D recently bought place - says when she told tenant rent was going up, tenant threw a fit - says P left owing couple hundred in back rent, which was deducted from security, and somehow that $200 has blown up into a two THOUSAND dollar claim... should be another simple case - is this another landlord who doesn't know what a landlord can legally do - did D have right to raise rent (month to month or lease up), is the $200 back rent amount tenant agreed to pay, or did landlord retroactively raise rent and collect amount not agreed to, and, could the old owner have rest of the almost 2 grand tenant claims isn't owed - both litigants look pleased to be here, but preview shows MM hinting D may have jumped gun raising the rent.... testimony: ah, their jurisdictional allows tenant to ask for double amount wrongfully withheld, hence the 2 grand.... long time tenant - well 2 years - and new owner... sounds like new owner may have jumped gun trying to get new lease signed before deal had even closed - tenant was month to month tenant, sale closed mid June, yet new owner already calling wanting new lease signed in May.... ok, may be legit, original closing supposed to be in May and it was delayed, not unreasonable for new owner to be calling about getting new lease signed.... P says new owner told her rent going to be raise $300 before deal closed, but then new rent negotiated down a couple times til new rent was going to be $1325 (old rent $1100) - yeah, as I expected, new owner willing to work with established tenant to keep her in the place - and tenant negotiating to get best deal possible when she sees new owner willing to lower rent - apparently deal breaker was tenant wanted landlord to pay for snow removal, and landlord says no - anyway, tenant decides to move, doesn't sign new lease, pays $1100 July rent as per current rental agreement. And gives 30 day notice she'll be gone July 31st. Ah, but landlord claims new rent already in effect for July, so withholds money from security.... nope, can't unilaterally raise rent and expect it to go into effect 15 days later....  may not be landlord's only problem - tenant's last day was July 31st and Landlord didn't return deposit until September 1st which may not fast enough in their jurisdiction, but MM appears willing to let that slide when landlord claims she didn't get a forwarding address until mid-August... real problem is keeping the $200 increase rent when tenant never agreed to the rent increase, and actually gave notice instead.... ok, looking good for P, but preview as we go to commercial has MM questioning exactly when D gave notice rent was going up, and P offering a picture of the notice instead of the actual dated notice... uh oh, switcheroo may be coming... after commercial MM questions the whole timing of the notice, saying - at best - even if she called from the closing in mid-June, she was only giving tenant 2 week notice of the rent increase... hmmm, wondering how we get from that to preview clip.... ah, not questioning fact that P is owed money, but whether or not she gets to demand double - and even if she can demand double, where does almost 2 grand come from when D withheld $200.... ah, the timing! P agrees she received the refund of the deposit minus $200, but says not until September 8th - not fast enough according to New Jersey law - and this is where her picture of the notice comes in - instead of bringing actual evidence, the postmarked envelope of when refund was mailed, she brought a possibly altered picture.... ah, but picture proves to be enough, MM was just building suspense when she knew she was going to end up spanking landlord for failing to meet the deadline (also landlord caught trying to lie about when she mailed refund, claiming she mailed it on first while not postmarked until 6th).... yep, P sued for exactly what NJ law says she's entitled to, and ends up with almost 2 grant because D tried to keep $200 she was not entitled to. 
Edited by SRTouch
  • Love 4
Link to comment
43 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

a little family drama/car vandalism:

Nope. I lasted about 5 minutes with this stupid, sordid shit (and the yucky missing teeth) before hitting the ol' FF button. However, I did get a pointer about what to say to my brother the next we fight over 5$ in pennies. I shall tell him, "I'll mess up your car and I'll spit in your face." I'll be assured of victory!

Aquarium case may have been a wee bit boring, but I was thankful for no vandalism and face-spitting. Def's daddy needs to teach son a little more about how to conduct business properly and write up specifics for such an expensive item. And no - 120gals is not even close to 180 - bowfront or not - but def who is supposed to know such things never bothered to find that out.

52 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

tenant looking for deposit:

I don't how "difficult" plaintiff was, but def is another landlord - and not even a first-time landlord - who has no idea of tenant-landlord laws. That she thought she could jack up the rent before she even owned the place was kind of ridiculous and sending part of the deposit  - never mind her little money-grubbing keeping of 200$ which plaintiff never agreed to pay - way too late cooked her goose.

  • Love 3
Link to comment
On 2/20/2019 at 5:14 PM, AngelaHunter said:

I nearly skipped this too, but didn't. The def  - and later her pansy-assed goofy minion -  was outrageous with her attitude. She, with her vast experience of being a vet tech for two years, knows more than a vet and decides plaintiff's dog doesn't need bloodwork before being anesthetized for a very large cut def put on the dog when she was grooming it. I'm certainly not a vet or a vet tech, but having had many senior animals I know for sure they need blood tests before getting anesthetic, to check for function of kidneys and other organs. Def's squeaky little sycophant pipes up that they WERE going to pay the vet bill or some of it anyway, but well, they didn't because they, with their combined great knowledge of veterinary medicine, felt it was too expensive. You idiots  - the dog needed TEN stitches to close the wound you inflicted on the poor thing, and wouldn't need blood tests or surgery had you not carelessly injured it.

4

Yes, my poor puppy (who is actually a 14-year-old Lab mix) has a few issues going on-- growth on her paw , another on her face and big problems with her hips-- that the vet advised us to leave alone.  It's not worth the risk of anesthesia at her age. 

I missed this episode and am glad I did because it would have made me very upset.  Fortunately, we have a place near us that has facilities for us to bath the dog ourselves.  I am so worried to let anyone give her a bath at this point and I never even thought of her needing stitches;  I was worried they would hurt her hip.  Good news is that it's cheaper, which works out because I will now have to pay the vet to trim her nails and do other stuff that the groomers used to do that we don't.

  • Love 3
Link to comment

There was a new take on the landlady booting the room renting tenant scenario this morning.    The tenant seemed kind of nutty, until she pulls out the list of the previous tenants that have sued and won against the same landlady, and there was even a conviction for larceny (I think) for forcing a tenant out, and not refunding anything at all.     Sweet little old lady landlord turned out to be anything but sweet.    And tenant got her money back.    The landlady still thinks everyone is out to get her, and even accused the former tenant of going after her, after the tenant showed pictures of the claw marks the landlady left on her neck.        

There should be some way of preventing someone like the landlady from ever renting rooms in her house again.    

The other case (might have been on the rerun, or new, but I never saw this one before) was a couple of small dogs that were too big to go in the small dog side of a dog park (20 lb limit).    The one of the defendant's two pits or crosses attacked the little dogs, and their stitches and wounds looked awful.   The woman had all kinds of ridiculous excuses, including "my dog thought they were squirrels", 20 lb. + squirrels?     

The plaintiff got his vet bills, and then the Doug interview started with defendant.    As close as I can quote-I had a day care and my dogs were great with the kids!.     I was horrified that she had her two huge animals around a bunch of little kids.    I wonder if the parents of the day care kids knew this.

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 1
  • Love 1
Link to comment

Recap aborted halfway through - not enough coffee to finish - left first recap  and added stuff 

Update (post coffee infusion) yep, went back and rewatched first case - much better with caffeine, and P witnesses better entertainment than P - defendant still a piece of work, grating and hard to put up with - IIRC MM says she wouldn't have lived with her 22 seconds.

  1. bad landlady, bad!: another of those folks renting out a room in their apartment to strangers to make ends meet type cases - P this time is younger woman who claims older D was a little too hands on, not only feeling free to come in and rearrange her personal stuff in the room she was paying for, but actually choking her during a physical altercation, which somehow left a scar on younger woman's neck - after altercation she moves out, and is suing for lotto money, 5 grand... defendant intro: claims P is a yeller, yelling at her from day one and actually waved a pair of scissors in her face, which is why D resorted to putting her hands on the crazy P - says D forfeited the security and any rent paid in advance when she moved out, breaking their rental agreement.... ok, some people, and some cultures, seem to have no volume control, and at same time do a lot of hand waving - not my style and I would find it offsetting to find my new roomie was that way, and entirely possible P is an actual scissor waving nutcase, but reason I gave case title I did is that in preview MM is asking landlady how many times she has given tenants the boot and been sued for illegally withholding money (hint, more than a couple times).... testimony: ok, right off bat we learn reason P is going for max is that in their jurisdiction tenants can get treble amount withheld if it turns out to be done in bad faith - in this case, P claims treble damages would actually amount to more than the 5 grand max - ok, agreement was for 6 month,  but apparently was bad match from get go, with the two never getting along, and P moved out after three weeks when things got physical - when MM asks for specifics about what P claims were the cause of the "harrassment, trespassing, etc" we learn that as P was moving in, among other things, D was all up in her stuff, going through belongings, wanting to dictate how new tenant set up her room, even disagreeing with where P put her freekin' pillow in her room.... haven't heard much, but if true a case is certainly being made for constructive eviction - and we haven't even got to the cops being called for when things turned physical.... anyway, among the demands made by landlady, and maybe reason she wanted to go through new tenants stuff, was that new roomie had to hurry and unpack everything so that nothing was in boxes (she has a thing about boxes and bugs) - MM turns to ask defendant why the big rush to unpack, and D says, "bugs, that's where they hide, in boxes".... whoa, didn't P take any time to talk to her potential landlady before agreeing to take room? MM asked one question and D's answer would have me thinking twice about moving in.... anyway, D sort of entertaining, in a train wreck kind of way that you can't look away from, but more she talks more I'm know I would never be happy renting from her.... she transitions from bugs to how she insists her roommates be clean, and tells us a story about a male ex-roommate who had trouble aiming when using the toilet, saying she told this story to P before renting to her as an example of how she wanted her roommates NOT to act.... what I take from this is to think how desperate some people must be to rent a room.... then we have some cross aisle talk, and D getting attitude with lady in the black robe when MM cuts her off - no, let me tell the story, it'll make you laugh - MM, no I decide how this train is going to go... back to P - ok, she hurried and unpacked to get rid of boxes, then was going to be away for a few days, and D wanted "to inspect" her unpacking  - MM asks, she wanted to "inspect" your belongings, and her tone should tell anyone she disapproves of the notion, but she spots D nodding and goes back to D for round 2 of unreasonable landlady demands - oh my, now D telling us how, oh the horror, P kept packages even if there might only be 1 item left in package instead of throwing out the package and putting the item in its proper space - oh the horror, she had multiple open boxes of tea bags of the same flavor.... ok, I see part of problem with these two is not only the overbearing landlady, but also the tenant has trouble keeping her mouth shut - it was tenant who initiated the earlier cross aisle exchange, and now MM is having to tell her to let D talk (uh, yeah, more she talks better your case looks, so STFU) - not only does nutty landlady help tenant's case, but gallery folks having trouble not LOL as she again starts in on how bugs will hide in the partial used packages... oh my, old lady defendant just got away with calling MM "honey" (turn about fair play, later in hear MM call litigant honey)... yep, D has such a thing about bugs hiding in boxes she wanted P to get rid of all her shoes boxes - even provided containers for the shoes from the Container Store... ok, back to P, and we learn that while P was gone for her planned couple days defendant came into her room and rearranged everything the PROPER way - quick camera shifts to show D nodding.... yep, that's what she did, please MM no need to let her talk anymore, in fact I've heard enough to say P was constructively evicted and don't even need the physical kerfuffle story - only reason I'm watching now is to hear about how many times she's been taken to court by ex-tenants for wrongfully withholding money - ok, think we're getting to that now as MM is asking about past roommates, children, etc - audience now actually laughing out loud, but I'm over this nut and time allotted for case not even half over - I zip ahead, case ran long and I stop when I see see MM laughing and slapping desk.... hmmmm, turns out to get treple damages the landlord has to have been sued and lost judgements from multiple previous tenants - and the witness with P is previous tenant who sued and received judgement when D wrongfully withheld HER deposits - thing is, P has to jump through hoops to get the treble damages - she has to win this judgment, then file another case for the treple claim.... hmmm, wonder if TPC judgement counts or if she needed to win in a regular courtroom.... uh oh, and it turns out nutty landlady living in rent controlled apartment and she's collecting rent illegally - oh  dear, I may have given up on this too early, I'm backtracking to see what I missed.... nope, gave up a second time as D tells the scissor story - truth is just might be me being grumpy - trying to be good and avoid caffeine - so drinking awful fruit juice instead of coffee... and that's not happening, either, just got up and started a pot - might come back and rewatch it, but kind of doubt it.... ok, judgement time has MM not only returning last month rent plus security, but she actually refunds the first month rent, essentially slapping D hand and letting P live there for three weeks rent free - but of course no treble damage which will take additional lawsuit - $4125 for plaintiff.... case actually took twice normal time  (as I say in update, really good stuff came with P witness after I stopped watching first go-round,  including witness charge that the little old lady ripped her off and beat her up - and she has the court papers showing the assault and larceny charges along with an unpaid judgement for $5200 -plus records of 7 previous tenants who have sued not counting two in court today - and MM's legal advice that she (and P) could both now sue for treble damages)
  2. car deal gone wrong: P sold car to daughter's friend - friend still owes big time - suing for over $3600... defendant oh no, her defense is old dude wants her, they dated a while, but when she broke it off he sued... nope, if that's right - well, it's just wrong... coffee hasn't kicked in enough to let me watch it.... P wins (after watching with coffee - and still zipping more than watching - texts show how 57 year old pursuing daughter's 28yo friend - but not confirming any promise to forgive debt for dates (everybody says just companionship - no getting it on, hooking up, conversating or other sexual stuff)
Edited by SRTouch
Update post coffee
  • Like 1
  • Love 4
Link to comment
3 hours ago, SRTouch said:

bad landlady, bad!:

Gee, people. I had butter chicken for dinner and it was delicious, but not nearly as good as Ellen Rea, a person so vile and so batshit crazy she makes JJ's Patricia Bean look like a philanthropist and soul of sanity. She's conniving and downright evil, luring people to rent a room in her place and then finding a way to get them to leave. She drives them out with her over-the-top harassment and violence. Yes, sure she has judgements against her from former tenants, one of whom showed up here. Two, three judgements? Or maybe it's five or six, with a few assaults thrown in there.  Who's counting anyway? Ms. Rea doesn't give a shit. She's in a rent-controlled building and gets these unsuspecting tenants to pay her rent.  When you rent a room in your place, that does not give you leave to barge into the tenant's room for any reason other than fire or flood, and start getting rid of their stuff or rearranging it because it's not the way you like it to be. That alone should be enough for tenant to get her money back, IMO. Who wants that nasty hag pawing through their stuff?

Bugs, bugs, bugs. Empty shoeboxes draw bugs? That's news to me. And if plaintiff wanted to have 10 tea bag boxes with one teabag in each, that's her business, not Ellen's. Okay, if I rented a room in my house to some young guy (which I would never do but Ellen does because she knows she can force him out and keep his money) I would expect there to be many misses in the toilet. It's what guys do, but Ellen doesn't know that since she's never lived with a man (I see why) so she tells her tenant to PEE SITTING DOWN!  For some odd reason, that guy didn't appreciate that order. Overstepping a little there, Ellen. Holy shit. I figure Ms. Rea gets tenants with young people who maybe haven't been in the country that long, and maybe their English is not perfect so thinks she can do whatever she likes to them and they'll do nothing about it. I believed every single thing plaintiff said, including the strangling. Ms. Rea needs to be put someplace where she can't interact with the public. How she gets away with her outrageous behavior I don't know. I'm glad plaintff was dogged enough to mention the overcharging too, therefore getting back everything she'd paid. I would never move in with this witch, but people can make themselves seem perfectly normal to get something signed, and then show their true colours later.  Did anyone notice the blonde girl behind the hag, face-palming so hard I'm surprised she didn't break her nose. I bet JM felt good after this case, where she was able to give true justice to someone who deserved it.

3 hours ago, SRTouch said:

car deal gone wrong: 

Silly, grinning dirty old man desperately looking for a little slap 'n tickle with a 28-year old wanted the company of the rat-faced, wizened little SSM with the sad-looking eyeshadow and she thinks the pleasure of her company is worth the price of plaintiff's midlife crisis Mustang: Well, it might have been if little slag was willing to put out for Grandpa. I'm trying to imagine my brother chasing a friend of his daughter's but I can't. Silly old bugger, but he got his money.

Edited by AngelaHunter
  • Love 8
Link to comment

There was an older man sitting behind the young plaintiff in the insane landlady case, and he was nodding emphatically while JM was saying the defendant would do this kind of thing on purpose, rent out a room and then drive the renter out so she could keep as much of their money as possible. Maybe he knows her? XD

  • Love 2
Link to comment
On 2/26/2019 at 4:42 PM, SRTouch said:

custom aquarium doesn't hold water:

Industry technical labels can indeed be confusing and do sometimes reflect an outdated reality. But it is the reponsibility of the expert, i.e. the seller, to make that clear to the buyer. The company owner should have had the balls to show up himself instead of sending his son.

On 2/26/2019 at 4:42 PM, SRTouch said:

tenant looking for deposit:

I wonder how often that landlord who does not know about the rules and laws she falls under (or willfully fakes ignorance) has screwed tenants in the past, people who did not do their homework as thoroughly as this plaintiff did.

Regarding those state laws governing how long landlords have to advise former tenants of damages and the costs associated. Some of the delays seem rather short. 21 or 30 days is certainly enough to identify damages, especially if you hold an exit walkthrough, but it may not be enough to get an estimate of costs. Big housing complexes may have a handyman on call (or on staff) which makes it easier to get such estimates, but for an individual it may be difficult to get a contractor to schlepp over to his premises in order to estimate costs for a job that would amount to only a few hundred dollars. Good handymen and contractors are very much in demand and prioritise high-paying jobs, which is natural. Individual landlords may be able at most to gather data regarding the cost of material in such a short time, but not for labour; and if they do the work themselves, we know that these TV judges will say that it is not worth any compensation.

4 hours ago, SRTouch said:

bad landlady, bad!:

I would not have shared lodgings with any of the people involved. It was obvious in the first few minutes that the landlady is bugfuck crazy.

The posse on the plaintiff side seemed of a more quiet type of obsessiveness, but as wearing in the medium and long run.

4 hours ago, SRTouch said:

car deal gone wrong:

Defendant tried to portray plaintiff as a creep for wanting to date a much younger woman, but she could not really claim the high moral ground since she agreed to got out with him, allegedly in exchange for a car. They were both distateful human beings, but he did deserve to get a ruling in his favour.

  • Love 2
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Florinaldo said:

They were both distateful human beings, but he did deserve to get a ruling in his favour.

Extremely distasteful. Plaintiff figured for the car he'd get a little nooky and def. used his hunger for her to lead the old fool on and stop paying what she had agreed to pay. Does she really think the pleasure of her company (or even the use of her shopworn butt) is worth the price of a car? I can just imagine the scintillating, sparkling conversations those two had as they dined at McDonald's. And she has a kid she's raising with her impeccable values. "I'm a single mother!" So her poor judgement, stupidity and lack of birth control should get her a free pass?

  • Love 3
Link to comment
7 hours ago, shksabelle said:

equating an accent with limited intelligence. 

Not necessarily intelligence, but lack of familiarity with american laws and rental common practices, difficulty in explaining their complaints, and general discomfort in confidently asserting their rights in an unfamiliar culture.

  • Love 4
Link to comment
7 hours ago, shksabelle said:

Anyone else think the batshit crazy landlady sought out fairly recen immigrants, equating an accent with limited intelligence

Yes, did I say that! I'm sure that's the case with this tenant and her witness or she thinks maybe they are in the country illegally and too scared to seek help or just feel too unsure in a foreign country.  As for their English, it was a lot better than a huge number of native English-speakers we see here.  I loved the witness piping up with, "She's sixty-six!" after the detestable witch refused to reveal her age. 🤣  Ms. Rea may be nuts, but she's wily and calculating enough to seek out tenants she feels she can victimize and screw over, having them pay her entire rent for months ahead before she drives them away.  I'm sure she's done this to every single one of them.

ETA: I was typing while you posted, DoctorK. Didn't mean to repeat what you said!

Edited by AngelaHunter
  • Love 3
Link to comment
1 hour ago, DoctorK said:

Not necessarily intelligence, but lack of familiarity with american laws and rental common practices, difficulty in explaining their complaints, and general discomfort in confidently asserting their rights in an unfamiliar culture.

Yep, not only the possible culture shock, but didn't old the bat say that most of her tenants were students.... Hmmmm wonder if these were students getting housing referrals off some college bulletin board?... Not to mention, as @sonder hinted out above, NYC apparently has some rather.... unique rental laws and might be something of a culture shock to many home grown Americans

  • Love 1
Link to comment

So this morning's new one was a sister plaintiff, suing her father's former girlfriend, who is currently her brother's current girlfriend, for coming in the plaintiff's house and burning it to the ground 'accidentally'.    Too bad that plaintiff could only get $6,000, and had no fire insurance.  

  • Love 3
Link to comment

#1 👍👎👍 family drama case with lots of questions, a few answers, and bunch of dislike blew liar liars... #2 👍 different sort of deposit fight between roomies... #3 ran put of time 

  1. House fire: kooky family drama case with P claiming D cased a fire which damaged P's home - D apparently having affair with P's pops - not sure what damage fire caused, intro makes it sound like house burned down, but if so not sure why P chose to sue in small claims court - asking for their jurisdictional max of 6 grand... defendant: admits she started fire - says it was a kitchen mishap, and was investigated and was she was cleared of intentionally starting fire (uh, no, MM later tells her investigate just cleared her of arson, intentionally starting fire, not any negligence) - when incident happened she was living in house with P's daddy and just turned on stove burner and ended up getting burned along with house... intro raises several questions, mainly revolving on who owns/owned the house, why place not insured, how long was daddy's 'affair' going on, oh and nothing with the case, but how old is everyone, cuz daddy's gf could almost be daughter's older sister, and who is D's witness that MM was grilling during preview clip about getting in middle of the kerfuffle... testimony: ok, long term affair which P says on occasion turned violent - P became aware of daddy's other woman while pops still married to her mom - P says she went over to parents house to visit her brother, who is witness sitting on 'other woman's' side of aisle, to find parents out and D hanging out in back yard waiting for daddy - we also learn daddy had history of drug problems, and P says she thought this strange woman was probably one of daddy's drug friends looking to do drugs with pops... guessing this is all MM getting to know who P is and where she's coming from, but I'm not really interested in family drama back story and past ready to hear about malfunctioning gas stove fire that ended up in vindictive daughter striking out at daddy's other woman with frivolous lawsuit.... ok, first meeting where daughter finds strange woman in 'rents back yard ends up in physical altercation after adult daughter, who apparently didn't live in home, orders daddy's 'guest' to leave and 'guest' refuses to leave, and it comes to blows and her fiancé has to separate the combatants..... ok, pushing get self righteous P had no right trying to order a stranger who claimed to be daddy's friend to leave before she made a few phone calls to learn whether 'rents were okay with guest (granted, today D is all cleaned up for court and possible that she looked kind of rough since daughter suspected she was one of daddy's drug friends) to wait in back yard (when MM asks we learn mom knew all about the other woman) - or maybe check with the brother who she says she was there to visit - anyway, what I'm hearing is an adult offspring trying to run parents' affairs and nothing about a kitchen/house fire, and why P has standing to sue when, apparently, daddy was living in the house with D when incident happened.... ok, maybe reason D looks so young is that she started out as a friend of P's brother that pops ended up hooking up with (brings to mind the recent 60yo dad who was chasing daughter's 28yo SSM friend) and I've heard enough from brother when he answers MM's question of whether dad met D through him with a grunted "yeah" - anyway, all this backstory crap finally starting to get to something pertinent - seems after the backyard fist fight mommy gives daddy the boot - sort of - she kicks him out of the house, but when Daughter goes to visit she finds he didn't make it to curb, no, daddy sleeping on porch - course, controlling daughter can't let daddy sleep on porch, so she invites him to bunk at her place - but tells pops he can't have company over.... ok, so fire WAS at P's place, and D was there against P's wishes.... ok, from beginning pops ignored the no-company rule and was inviting D over, even, according to P, getting into violent altercations.... ah, and we learn P is another SSM, but unsure how many kids she has, as she just talks about her children - so, why, after learning daddy brought his gf into her home where her children live, and getting into a violent fight (and we're really talking violent fight as she says daddy gets stabbed in hand, window busted out, neighbor called cops and daddy arrested (turns out he had warrant out for probation violation) with the gf the first night P took her brats and went to spend night with HER bf/fiancé, didn't SSM follow mommy's example and give him the boot? - especially as now he can cool his heels in hail due to his parole violation on a theft charge (daddy may be frequent jailhouse resident, as loving daughter only guessing the original charge was theft) - and, what about D, was she hauled to jail after stabbing pops?.... anyway, a week later, while at work, a neighbor calls to tell P that D is back at P's house - this time with her brother - she rushes home and confronts D and brother - brother claims he brought her over to get some of her things, P says D has no 'things' here, she's never been here with my permission, yada yada (and I'm thinking if P's suspicions of drug use are founded in fact, brother probably right there with daddy and D doing the drugs, and daddy left his stash there and sent bro and gf over to retrieve the dope) oh, and D climbed through a window to get inside - 2 weeks later D back, same neighbor called P at work - again P rushes home, this time she calls cops.... ok, time for defendant to have a chance to talk - whoa, didn't care for what P was saying, but at least she she was speaking English like she had been to school (scratch that, she was speaking better than many college students that appear on TPC) - switch over to Defendant and we're hearing ghetto-speak - P may be overbearing control freak, but in 30 seconds I'm on her side - D claims she has right to crawl through P's windows "cuz that where my bf was staying at" - again, I have to wonder why she's not locked up, what with stabbing her bf, and multiple illegal entries in P's home - she claims she was frequent guest while pops was there, but always careful not to be there when P wasn't at work.... uh huh, beginning to rethink the whole faulty gas stove theory, now I'm on P's side with the drug use theory and thinking D was just too high to be left alone in the kitchen - D isn't even mounting a defense except to claim 'fluke accident.' Admits to breaking in numerous times, including time neighbor called to report 'that woman' is climbing through window again - brother comes up.... oh my, dude should have stayed home cuz nothing he could possibly say makes him look good....  under questioning, he quickly says he knew it was sisters house, yes, he knew sister didn't want her in her home after she learned daddy was cheating on her mother after 30 years of marriage, yes that, his mommy, too, yes he knew D was breaking in by crawling through the window.... dude, STFU and walk out, the free lunch ain'the worth it!... well, finally MM ready to get to day of incident - D claims she went backnow to break in, yet again, to let the dogs out - huh, let the dogs out? P says, your honor, I DO NOT OWN A DOG!!! D pipes up, yeh, but I do! - we get some cross aisle talk - geez, D making even less sense now - claims she has 2 dogs, oh, and she pays rent on an apartment around the corner from P, yet at same time she claims she was living in P's house - just not when P was home.... uh, couple questions 1) if she has an apartment, why was pops sleeping on porch? 2) what was the logistics of getting her 2 dogs into P's place, did she crawl through the window and then open the door, or just pass them through after opening the window 3) how could P not know about 2 dogs living in her home (makes me believe D claim that P maintained two places, had this place but really spent most of her time at bf/fiancé place) 4) WTH didn't P secure her place better, lock the windows, change the locks, install security, etc when she found out daddy (known druggy and in jail for theft) had turned her house, where her kids live (if she's to be believed), into a drug house - ah, so many questions, and time running out, but back to earlier question - why isn't D locked up? Oh, and brother, too, since he admits he was there - again - and waited outside as D crawled through window and then opened door for him - ok, not really believing either side, but both of the idjits on D side of aisle belong with pops in jail... anyway, more nonsense about the fire - seems after crawling through window brother takes these dogs for a walk while D goes in and cranks on all the burners and the oven (up to 645?!?) to warm up the house - goes outside, Iights up a smoke, next thing she knows she's in the hospital... more questions - P lives there, but house got too cold for the bro and daddy's gf - and house was too cold for the humans, but I guess fine for the dogs who D keeps stashed in P's house) - oh, and pictures - yep intro clown was right - we're not talking kitchen fire - house burned DOWN! - not sure what the decision will be, since I think none of these people are telling the truth, but no doubt D knew she had no right to crawl through a window, open the door, and move in her dogs.... don't see any malice in starting the fire, but fire was due to her negligence and was started while she was knowingly, along with equally guilty brother, breaking into P's property - ok, I convinced myself with that sentence, D should pay - but why is there so much time left... ok, more semi-relevant nonsense - P believes dogs never actually living there - she thinks bro and D meeting at her house to do drugs (uh, if smoking pot as she thinks, why didn't she smell it, I know I can smell regular users with no problem) - D got there first and was waiting for bro to show up with more weed, so stoned she turned on gas stove blew herself and house up when pilot light didn't light up and she fired up so cigarette - best theory so far - back to one of early questions - why sue in small claims when P house is destroyed - P explains she figures this was best chance of getting anything from unemployed drifter drug addict defendant (oh, and maybe in future she should insure her property), and the lawyer she consulted told her her attorney fees would probably be more than defendant ever paid even if a judgement against her was entered. Ok, time's up, P wins.... hallterview just convinces me how stupid D is, and makes me think bro is higher than a kite... when P comes out she's kind of freaked out, saying bro and daddy's gf are acting like THEY'RE a couple, and asks is she sleeping with my daddy AND brother
  2. security deposit fight between ex-roomies: P claims she paid deposit when these two moved into apartment, now that she moved out she wants it back from ex roomie defendant: says when P moved out she broke the lease - says he ended up paying her share of rent for two months until he found a replacement roommate..... from my vast court teevee law experience, just based on the respective intro, P will get nothing - unless she can show she was constructively evicted by bad acting roomie - first, if lease still in effect she'd need a walk through with landlord showing no damage, then if she split without justification two months isn'the an unreasonable time for defendant to find a new roomie and mitigate his damage - besides, landlord has deposit not D - that would change if everyone agrees there was no damage, and that she was justified in breaking lease, did in fact pay the deposit - then the new roomie should pay deposit and she'd get her money... testimony: ok, walk through was done and landlord returned deposit - but D kept deposit - so now question of whether she broke lease and stuck D with full rent for two months and whether D can keep it as sort of self help instead of suing her for breaking their rental agreement - ok, little back story is didn't bother to get straight about how 4 roomies/business associates (owner and employees) etc moved from CALIFORNIA  to NY - P was boss, and put down full 3 grand - short time later she becomes uncomfortable, says D was drug user, etc, she eidn'the feel safe, she was looking to start a business and he wanted to party, etc - landlord complained about apartment reeking of MaryJane - rented as non smoker property but other roommates tossing cig butts all over, etc - boss, P, and her three roomie, employees moved in in March, by Sept two of employees had been fired for cause, but they're still roomies - talk about uncomfortable, having two ex employees you fire as roommates - Oct P pays for company trip to the Caribbean, and D, only roomie employee left, was on trip. The day after they get back from trip D quits with no notice. Over to Defendant where we learn more about this business P brought to NY.... sounds like one of those groups of young door to door salespeople, but not the normal magazine subscription scams where they tell you if they make the quota they win something - like maybe a Caribbean trip no this group was selling something about a solar farm in Upstate NY. D explains he quit because of illegal activity - what illegal activity, asks MM, he answers they were selling door to door without proper permits, and MM  is less than impressed that he grew a conscious and quit as soon as he got back from the company paid trip - anyway, now the boss, P, is living with 3 ex employee roomies, 1 who just quit and 2 who she canned - awkward, yes - but takes more than that to let boss out of legally binding lease - ok, she was no longer on speaking terms with D, so she went to landlord, landlord agreed to let her out of lease if she found replacement, D found own replacement, replacement moves in same time she moves out,  lease resigned, deposit returned to D even though it was P who paid whole deposit when they moved in - need to hear from D because whole intro about it taking 2 months to find replacement out the window - ok, he 30 plains the replacement he found was broke, yeah he moved in right away, but didn't start paying rent til later.... uh, and P should pay new roomies rent - why? If room had been empty for 2 months, that's one thing, but P is off hook as soon as new guy moves in. Landlord out of it, she getting her rent and new guy pays his share of deposit. Ok, new lease, new roomate, no damage claim - texts from D saying he'll return her money - why doesn't P have her deposit back... ah, seems landlord playing games, giving D free legal advance saying P not entitled to the refund, even though knowing P paid 3 grand. MM advises P she needs to landlord for the deposit, and says she'll issue a finding that P paid full 3 grand, no damage was claimed, no rent lost, so landlord needs to return 3 grand and get deposit from current tenants.... poor D not sure WTH happened, except that he doesn't owe P money -  uh, not so fast dude, once landlord is told to pay P, she'll come after you and other current tenants for the deposit 
  3. ran out of time, so not recapped 
Edited by SRTouch
  • Love 3
Link to comment
2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

So this morning's new one was a sister plaintiff, suing her father's former girlfriend

Ah, another heartwarming family tale. Norman Rockwell, eat your heart out. Drug/alcohol abuse, jail, house burned down, slag humping daddy and his son and getting supported by Byrd so she can spend her days getting high/drunk, screwing and getting up to all kinds of hijinks. I guess brother, her new squeeze now that daddy-squeeze is in the slammer, doesn't work either since he has lots of time to hang out with def in plaintiff's house. He has to run when the cops come. Don't we all?

As for plaintiff: I grew up in a neighbourhood that was far from upscale, yet never ever did I see two women or even two men in fistfights in public. Yet, plaintiff acts as though there's nothing particularly shocking or unusual about that. I guess that's what she teaches her kids. Anyway, if I looked out and saw some stranger on my property I might ask them to leave. If they refused and got belligerent I'd call the police. The thought of me going out there and attacking them is so beyond my imagination I can't even...Call me naive, but before watching these court shows I never knew that women regularly attack each other like wild animals and usually on the street! Wow. Revolting, disgusting, nauseating, etc.  Oh, and if you have a house, you have insurance. Duh.

The next case was silly, but blessedly free of savagery and violence. Ditsy woman hires a harem of silly boys to work for her, doing something or other, and thinks it's a good idea for them to LIVE WITH HER. And then she decides to take her boys on a Caribbean vacation. This case gave me the laughs I really needed after the sordid, janky first case. 

Finally, the serious John Candy whose 10-year Rav is full of scratches and dings suing def for some unseen damage he claims def did. Def did rear-end him, and proclaims he has no idea how that happened or what happened, maybe he fell asleep or went into a trance, but says he had insurance. Sure you did. Why do people constantly lie about that? Are they too stupid to know how easy it is to verify? Anyway, the plaintiff doesn't get all he's seeking -  the damage under the car? Oh, well - he doesn't have that evidence with him here today, but it exists! RIght. 500$ was more than fair. 

  • Love 5
Link to comment

'Nother day with an incomplete recap - getting the tires I ordered last week put on car today

  1. nightmare tenant? old bald dude seeing ex landlord claiming deposit wrongfully being withheld - comes into court with a service dog, so hoping camera crew knows where to focus  defendant: younger dude (first impression aging surfer dude) - comes in with armful of papers, so maybe there's some evidence in the pile - claims old dude a nightmare.... and this is old dude we've been seeing in clips lately that MM goes off on - countersuing for addition damages over and above the security testimony: ok, we start with plaintiff, and yeah, from get go I can see him being a nightmare - seems he didn't feel need to inform his new landlord about his service dog, so D found out through other tenants - when asked he informs MM that fact he has a service is not important, since law says landlord can't refuse to rent based on a service dog..... well, I'd think he should inform the landlord out of common courtesy, and he's displaying some attitude as he informs the judge what the laws are regarding service animals - which is where clip comes from as MM tells him what law actually says - which he doesn't like and he argues about.... not sure why P even brought it up, because when MM tells him the law and says he doedn'the really matter to case and carry on the P tells us landlord had no problem with dog.... yeah, only problem was tenant not bring upfront about the pup (actually appear to be a well behaved rottweiler).... ok, next he actually gets to something pertinent to case - says floor was laminate (calls it pressed wood imitation hardwood) was coming up in spots and that he informed landlord early in tenancy - ah but no evidence of his having told landlord - ok, when time comes he gives notice that he'll be leaving and moving to Puerto Rico - landlord inspects place anxiety provides list of things which need to be corrected for deposit to be returned ..... old dude sounds paranoid, says he just knew all along how landlord's would try to rip him off - could be right, some landlord's do, but can also be self fulfilling prophecy 

Ah, well, times runs out - looks to be good case so far, but not even 5 minutes in.... time to get new rubber under my veehickle.... who knows, may even go to DC for a sundae after

  • Love 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

says floor was laminate (calls it pressed wood imitation hardwood)

Actually, he called it compressed cardboard. I had wood laminate for ten years, it was good looking, very durable, but had to be replaced after a hurricane resulted in flooding the floor, something that laminate does not take well. Harvey again made a complete ass of himself outside, asking a young lady with a five pound dog if her dog could make holes in wood flooring, not quite the same as an active 80-100 pound dog. Several of the pictures did show the laminate raising up (and stained) on the ends of some boards; the only way I ever saw that was with water damage so I believe that the flooring was ruined. Unless the plaintiff had some proof of the place leaking, I think it is more likely than not that the plaintiff damaged, it either by letting his dog piss on the floor a lot or spilling liquids and not cleaning it up. Again, we see a so-called "service dog" that is not trained and not controlled by its owner.

  • Love 6
Link to comment
(edited)

I love that the landlord showed a picture of a neighboring unit with a 10 year old laminate floor that looks great, and then the tenant's laminate is horrible, and obviously needs to be replaced.    What was that on the plaintiff's lower teeth, a grill?    

Why do landlords show up without a receipt?    At least the landlord kept the $1500 security.     The dog was well behaved, however the plaintiff wasn't.  

The second case with the woman who thinks that because her mother lives in a neighborhood that she and her brother can decide what a legal driveway is, and that she can block a driveway any time she wants.     The plaintiff also told the defendant's wife that she should only park in her own driveway, and shouldn't park on the street.    The issue was the previous house owners built the driveway twice as wide as it legally should be.   So plaintiff parks over the illegal part of the driveway, leaving very little room to back out (at least to back out into traffic safely, without hitting cars parked on either side of the driveway.   The defendants call the police, the car is ticketed, and then towed. and plaintiff wants all of her money back.   The plaintiff gets her tow back.    Both sides were fools, and I would hate to live across from the plaintiff's mother.  

The defendant's driveway may be too wide, thanks to a previous owner, but the plaintiff and her relatives parking as close as they can get to irritate others on the street is equality rotten.    Plus, if the defendant's wife's story that the plaintiff told her that she has to park only in her own driveway was not her place.    The plaintiff doesn't own the street. 

I hate fools who buy a boat, don't water test it, or take it to a mechanic first, and then want their money back.   I think you should automatically lose if you are over 18, and bring Mom and Dad to court with you.  When you don't test drive an 'as is' sale, then you're out of luck.     Nothing for anyone.  

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Love 5
Link to comment
3 hours ago, SRTouch said:

nightmare tenant?

He is a complete and perfect asshole in every way possible. Belligerent, nasty, combative, and you wouldn't think someone with so many disabilities, like PTSD, would want confrontation, particularly telling a judge you don't like her tone, even after you finish explaining the law to her. I don't believe his dog bit anyone, but do believe it jumped up, something which no certified service animal would do. They are thoroughly trained to be non-reactive to whatever is going on around them. And then - sigh - landlord tries to sue for the price of his floors, but of course he neglected to get any evidence or bills showing what he did. As for the plaintiff, I pity the next people who get his ol' nasty ass as a tenant.

12 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

The second case with the woman who thinks that because her mother lives in a neighborhood that she and her brother can decide what a legal driveway is

What I want to know is, what the hell did the plaintiff have on her head? Looked like two janky wigs combined into one. Yeah, another one who thinks she should park wherever she pleases, but defs are idiots, to again take up arms against her, when they were lucky enough to get away with whatever building code they were violating once, and brought that down on themselves again. I'm so glad none of my neighbours are within shouting distance, but even if they were, there would be no ridiculous, petty feuds of the type we see here all the time.

Then, boat-buying boy needs his daddy, sporting a sparkly musical note on his lapel, here to defend him and is a special snowflake who wants to hold others responsible for his errors in judgment. But Boy is young, so can be excused for being naive. Daddy, OTH, says in the hall that this is a learning experience for his Boy. Really? If he really thought that, he'd never have agreed to come here and fight for his Boy to get his money back on an as-sale when the boy never bothered to find out if the boat worked or not. I guess it's only a learning experience if you lose. Had he won, Daddy would have crowing about their victory and no lessons would have been learned. Daddy seems to have a reading comprehension problem too, as nothing he told JM was in the documents or texts were even there. 

  • Love 3
Link to comment
5 hours ago, SRTouch said:

nightmare tenant?

It begs the question: does his obnoxious behaviour stems from PTSD, or is PTSD (real or alleged) just an excuse to act as an aggressive ass? I was also dubious about the "service animal" status of his dog.

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Why do landlords show up without a receipt?    At least the landlord kept the $1500 security.     The dog was well behaved, however the plaintiff wasn't.  

Perhaps because they do not take these proceedings seriously and think that their word will compensate for the absence of concrete written evidence. It makes me wonder what kind of contractor or handyman he was dealing with if the guy was never available to provide a bill.

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

The second case with the woman who thinks that because her mother lives in a neighborhood that she and her brother can decide what a legal driveway is, and that she can block a driveway any time she wants. 

I may have missed something but I did not think defendants should have been liable. Isn't it the police who made the determination that there was a violation and called for a tow? Citizens have a right to make a complaint but the final decision sits with the cops, especially when the driveway situation seems a bit peculiar. If the plaintiff was miffed, she should have sued the police department and challenged their professional judgment. As a matter of fact I believe JM made a ruling exactly that way some time ago.

As for the boat sale case, for once the special snowflake who does not have the machine inspected before buying it and thinks the "as is" rule applies to everybody else but them is not a young woman but a young guy, with dad as an enabler. Still as dumb and entitled as litigants in most of those cases.

  • Love 6
Link to comment
17 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

I may have missed something but I did not think defendants should have been liable. Isn't it the police who made the determination that there was a violation and called for a tow? Citizens have a right to make a complaint but the final decision sits with the cops, especially when the driveway situation seems a bit peculiar. If the plaintiff was miffed, she should have sued the police department and challenged their professional judgment. As a matter of fact I believe JM made a ruling exactly that way some time ago.

In this case the defendants were clearly on notice that the driveway was too wide. There was an earlier citation, and while they got that one dismissed it didn’t prevent a second citation, so clearly there are still some unresolved issues with the city. 

  • Love 3
Link to comment
(edited)

My question is why the city didn't come out, rip out the extra driveway cut,  and replace it with a regular curb, and then send the bill to the homeowners.      Some places the curb and sidewalk are the homeowner's responsibility, and others it's all the city's responsibility.    I hope the outcome of the second hearing about the driveway resulted in a permanent solution.    However, I'm convinced that the plaintiff and her relatives are deliberately parking as close as possible to the defendant's driveway to irritate them.     

In the laminate floor/Rottweiler case, I suspect the reason the dog claws made gouges is that the floor was soaked, either with doggy stuff, or some kind of water issue from tenant, and then the softened floor gouged like that.    It was a 10 year old laminate, and looked like the cheaper store brand, so once water-logged it was going to be easily damaged by the dog or anything else that touched it.    I had laminate in my previous house that age, and it never had a mark, but if it got wet, that marking would have happened.  

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Love 4
Link to comment
On 3/1/2019 at 5:24 PM, AngelaHunter said:

I don't believe his dog bit anyone, but do believe it jumped up, something which no certified service animal would do. They are thoroughly trained to be non-reactive to whatever is going on around them.

Yeah - I thought the same thing and said as much to my husband.  No (legit) service dog that I've ever seen would need a gentle leader on his snout.  

  • Love 2
Link to comment
On 3/2/2019 at 10:25 AM, Bramble said:

In this case the defendants were clearly on notice that the driveway was too wide. There was an earlier citation, and while they got that one dismissed it didn’t prevent a second citation, so clearly there are still some unresolved issues with the city. 

Here's how I saw it.

When the first citation was dismissed, it felt like an insinuation by the city that it didn't have to be ripped out and repaired because there was no violation.  Therefore, whatever happened in the first hearing ended up with, "no harm, no foul."  At the time of the towing, the city had ruled that what was there was a driveway.  The plaintiffs should not have parked there.

Think of it this way:  Let's say a person commits a murder in 1980, and the law was "no death penalties in this state."  They are able to avoid arrest until 1990.  In 1985, the law in that state was changed to "death penalty allowed."  Even though the law when the person was arrested was "death penalty allowed," the law when they committed the crime was "no death penalties."  So they are found guilty, but they are not eligible for the death penalty because of when the crime was committed.

So if the plaintiffs parked in a space that the city had not ruled to be illegal, it doesn't matter what JM thinks.  It was a legal driveway opening.  I also didn't agree with her that there was adequate space for the defendants to get their car out.  They would have needed to turn onto the street.  They might have been able to pull their car straight out, but - depending on the size of the vehicle - it might not have been possible to make the turn without scraping the bumper of one of the parked cars.

Sorry . . . I think she blew it on this one.

  • Love 5
Link to comment
33 minutes ago, AZChristian said:

Sorry . . . I think she blew it on this one.

I totally agree with every point you made. Plus, it somehow escaped her that the defendant didn't call the tow truck, he called the police who then called for a tow. When I've been in this situation either the police or someone from the city (not NYC) parking authority has to come and evaluate the scene before any cars get moved. So plaintiff should have hashed it out with the cops, but probably just wanted to stick it to her neighbors because it's her street and she'll park where she likes.

  • Love 9
Link to comment
(edited)

They had the entertaining rerun of the Miami man who was stopped for a traffic infraction, was arrested because he's driving suspended again.   He was thrown in jail for months, after 35 days, and after many notices, the car was junked.    He's the man who said society has failed him, because after 35 or so felony convictions, employers won't hire him.     Judge M. sympathized past all reason with him.     I felt sorry for the tow truck man, who followed the law, kept the car an extra week, and still ended up in court.        

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Love 3
Link to comment
(edited)
3 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

35 or so felony convictions

So what's the problem? Many of the litigants we see on these shows (not representative of the general population) would see nothing unusual about this. When COPS did a local show (ended quickly, we weren't exciting enough) they were at a DUI checkpoint and arresting a guy who was visably drunk, turned out he had NINE previous DUI convictions! He was only in his thirties, why in the hell was he not in jail or prison?

Edited by DoctorK
  • Love 3
Link to comment
22 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Judge M. sympathized past all reason with him.     I felt sorry for the tow truck man, who followed the law, kept the car an extra week, and still ended up in court. 

Exactly what I said at the time. Let's give all our sympathy to career criminals and chastise the people who work for a living and obey the law. Ugh.

Having memory problems can come in handy, I guess. I had no recall of the first case, in which yet another ridiculous, man-hungry woman who will settle for anything gives 1000$ to the deadbeat, shifty, corpulent, low-rent Mr. T who had a boof emergency.  Who wouldn't? After all, in the hall, he proclaims to Doug that he has "lots of  women." Tragically, I have no doubt that's true.

But even Mr. T wasn't as bad as the repulsive, disgusting, 59-year old stepson who needs his ancient step-daddy to keep helping him, because the creep can't keep a job or pay his rent. The earring-sporting, fugly slimeball seemed to think that was funny. Gee, most decent people would be ashamed. 

I did remember the roof "valley" case, only because both litigants were completely toothless and plaintiff shocked JM when he told her he's 60 since he looked at least 80. 

  • LOL 2
  • Love 1
Link to comment

One of my favorite re-runs today.

Guy drops his "down" jacket off to a dry cleaner on September 25, 2015.  He picks it up on March 29, 2016.  (Why would you leave your winter jacket at the dry cleaners for the whole winter???)  He claims it was so badly damaged by the cleaner that it is now unwearable.

He claims he paid $900 for the jacket in 2014.  No, your honor, I don't have a receipt.  He is now suing for $1,500 . . . because that's what it would cost to replace the jacket.  No, he has no proof that the current cost of a comparable jacket is $1,500.  (Ignoring the fact that a 2-year-old jacket would depreciate in value.)

Dry cleaner lady says that the jacket was extremely dirty when brought in.  Also, they have a sign posted said that items left more than 6 months (as this was) could be disposed of.  They had not yet donated it to charity, so they gave it back to him when he came in.

There was no evidence on the jacket of any damage done by the dry cleaner.  The "poofy" parts were flat in some areas . . . which indicates a problem with the original stitching, not any damage done by the cleaner.

Then JM gets on her trusty iPad.  She looks at the manufacturer's label, and determines that the jacket has polyester filling; it is NOT an expensive down jacket.  The only thing comparable she found by that same manufacturer was available for $19.99.

Guess what?  Judgment in favor of the defendant.  And the guy was still trying to convince Doug in the hallway that he should have gotten what he sued for.

  • Love 3
Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...