AngelaHunter April 9, 2019 Share April 9, 2019 1 hour ago, Florinaldo said: I think the wrist is the least of her health worries. From her confused and mangled repetitions of what doctors and other people involved in her "case" allegedly told her, I would say enough of her brain cells are dead that she understands barely 10 % of information conveyed to her. I thought it was just me, that I was distracted by my dinner and wasn't following. After her opening, high-speed, rambling statements, I had to stop and rewind because I couldn't follow one thing she said. 2 Link to comment
aemom April 10, 2019 Share April 10, 2019 (edited) On 4/8/2019 at 5:30 PM, AngelaHunter said: More toothlessness. Seriously, people? Worry less about your old beater cars and more about your dental hygiene. I read an article once that said that the biggest problem the show recruiters have is that so many litigants are missing teeth. https://www.aol.com/2012/08/15/confessions-of-a-reality-tv-producer/ With the car/motorcycle case, the D was grinning like a loon the whole time. He was a jerk and he was going to lose. He had to return the car - but I wonder about these cases. What if the person damages the car before returning it? What stops them from saying "it was like that?" Same thing for any other item that is ordered returned. I really do wonder if that sort of thing is ever an issue. On 4/8/2019 at 5:30 PM, AngelaHunter said: I did some caulking, something I'd never done before, and it looks a million times better than the utter mess the window contractors made in the plaintiff's WWII-era bathroom. I'm pretty sure the wallpaper is from that era as well. The job was pitiful, with brown caulking smeared all over the place - everywhere except where it should be. Def contractor, appearing here in a rather girlish top designed to show off his biceps, tries to double-talk JM about why such a deplorable mess is acceptable. Plaintiff tries for a boe-nanza - wants the "Japanese tiles" replaced and new wallpaper and did you see the black blotches on the ceiling in those pics? Never mind the brittle, faded, historical wallpaper which should be ripped off - get the mold or whatever it is cleaned out of that place. Grungy, it all is. Her bathroom was an old mess, but that was indeed a shit job. I also can, and have, done caulking much better than that. I think the building association got the cheapest company to do the work and it showed. I also giggled at his girly shirt. Edited April 10, 2019 by aemom Found the article 2 Link to comment
AngelaHunter April 10, 2019 Share April 10, 2019 Quote I read an article once that said that the biggest problem the show recruiters have is that so many litigants are missing teeth. https://www.aol.com/2012/08/15/confessions-of-a-reality-tv-producer/ Thank you. Interesting article! Quote If we book you on the show and you don't have teeth, we'll buy them for you. I wonder which court show she works for because it sure isn't Judge Judy or The People's Court. They ain't buyin' no teeth for no one! There we get snaggleteeth, rotted stumps(on a lawyer!), zero front/bottom teeth, and missing meth-mouth teeth. Once we even got an egg tooth! I wouldn't go to the mailbox without teeth, never mind on national TeeVee. 2 hours ago, aemom said: What if the person damages the car before returning it? What stops them from saying "it was like that?" Tough luck and considering almost all the cars swapped and loaned and traded are 15 - 20 years old I doubt any of them are pristine. 2 Link to comment
aemom April 10, 2019 Share April 10, 2019 9 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: I wonder which court show she works for because it sure isn't Judge Judy or The People's Court. They ain't buyin' no teeth for no one! There we get snaggleteeth, rotted stumps(on a lawyer!), zero front/bottom teeth, and missing meth-mouth teeth. Once we even got an egg tooth! I wouldn't go to the mailbox without teeth, never mind on national TeeVee. I wonder if perhaps they've just given up. The article is quite a few years old. Maybe they figured that the show was more interesting with the missing teeth. 🤣 2 Link to comment
SRTouch April 10, 2019 Share April 10, 2019 overcharged for champagne: P claims restaurant/lounge charged him for 2 bottles of champagne when he only ordered/received one, instead of crediting his credit card the owner promised to send a check for the amount that overcharged but never did - wants $500, the amount of the overcharge plus aggravation/stress.... defendant: slightly different story - admits the overcharge, but says P refused CC credit, instead insisting on a cashiers check plus a letter of apology.... have to wait to see which story is true since respective intros so different, but am leaning toward another litigant (like Yale Yale Yale dude) making federal case for own personal entertainment.... testimony: P wants to yak about irrelevant stuff, but MM starts out trying to keep him on point - starts out talking about how he thought it odd that he was going to be charged $50 for a birthday cake he brought with him - ok, not sure what the heck dude is talking about here as he talks about his personal security detail, and how he turned the cake over to the manager to be served later to him and his guests in a separate VIP room... no charge - sounds like he wanted free service, and my guess would be the $50 charge he was told about wasn't for the cake, but was for the VIP room and staff - anyway, dude party tied up room long enough for him to make multiple orders with dude paying as he goes.... if my math is right total over $1500 - I wonder if he was tipping or stiffing the wait staff, and the overcharge wasn't entirely accidental - yep, this place is one of those where customers' signatures are not required on the credit card slip, and somehow the second bottle of bubbly was on a subsequent - unsigned - credit card slip all by its lonesome..... all very interesting (not really) but really not too pertinent if D admits he was overcharged and they're fighting over the method of a refund.... seems like P realised he had been overcharged night of party, but left without talking to the manager, instead calling the next day - P has mentioned dealing with Marilyn a couple times now, and has mentioned one of the waitresses by name, but strangely there's a group of men, no women, on defendant side, no one who looks like a waitress or Marilyn - ah ha, finally something pertinent, and don't even need Marilyn since P admits Marilyn offered to credit his card - dude didn't want to mess with the card, says he felt uncomfortable giving the last 4 digits of his account number over the phone - then he backtracks to the cake charge again - MM switches to defendant's side - ok, backs up pretty much everything P said, but sounds perfectly reasonable to me - offered to void the overcharge, but P refused to provide credit card info needed to verify the transaction..... kind of curious about what line of business P is in that he has own "security," spends big money on his 51st BD party, but says he doesn't know why D needed last four of CC to verify transaction - also suing in small claims court instead of just reversing charge when D freely admits charge was mistake.... really only thing defendant side did wrong was drag their feet getting back to the customer - customer pointed out overcharge in email day after party, but took over 2 weeks before owner contacted P (to be fair, multiple other people talked with P, but apparently they kept kicking the problem up the corporate ladder with no urgently placed on solving problem).... getting kind of bored with this one and it's only half done - not finding P very credible, and defendants teetering between reasonable and just not concerned with customer service - course they offered to void the charge way back when and P refused needed account info and they ended up doing an internal investigation including going back and watching the security tapes so a lot of the delay is on P - oh, and all the nonsense about the $50 cake is just smoke screen - P knew before hand and handed over the $50 in an evelope when he came in, it only became an issue later when they got to fussing over the bubbly charge.... oh yeah, and once D realised the mistake P suddenly became hard to reach - we know he uses email because that was how he first notified D about the error, but I guess he doesn't trust the CC 4 digits in an email either, since he told them he'd mail it - D managers made multiple to P, and he was either too busy to talk or hung up on them.... P looking more unreasonable all the time - D actually wrote him the requested apology letter promising special service in the future and went to trouble of getting a cashiers check - sent him a picture of the check in text to see if that would satisfy P - P responds asking for mo' money - D says he has the texts showing all this - I'm ready to just give P the boot after he gets cost of the bottle, no way a penny more, so I figure he should get $225.98 and forget the rest of the $500 bonus money.... again, MM nicer than I am, she awards the $225 plus interest plus court costs and I really I think he should get penalized for wasting everyone's time tenant/landlord case with twist: if I'm getting this straight, P claims he had property in apartment he shared with gf when she died, he's suing because landlord didn't let him come in and collect belongings - wants 5 grand.... defendant: says when gf died her brother changed the locks - P never a legal tenant and it would be illegal for landlord to let P into apartment.... yep, sounds like another nonsense case - P suing wrong person, needs to go after brother if P has proof any of P's property is there - Spoiler seemed open and shut, so I zipped ahead - P wins ($697 instead of asked for 5 grand) so I backtrack and watch .... testimony: ok, P says he lived with gf about a year and he had supplied appliances/electronoics for apartment - says he moved in with gf, but admits he was never on lease, and landlord didn't know he was there for 6-7 months - after moving in gf diagnosed with cancer, and passes away a couple months later - quick switch to landlord to ask when he learned P lived there - oh my, I'm getting good bad vibes from D and ready to change my mind about what case is about - D does some fancy foot work and doesn't really answer question, but admits he knew P lived there "at one point" and that P was living there when legal tenant died - so, who locked out P, D says gf's brother but P says it was landlord - D testifies brother changed locks while gf was still alive, and that whole family thought P was a freeloader sponging off their dieing sister - D provides video evidence of a brother changing the locks while gf was in the hospital and unable/or jyst refusing to answer phone - P insists they never broke up, and that he was in regular communication with gf's mother and the brother about gf's condition, the lock out, and when he could come get his stuff as he was now homeless says he has texes with the brother about getting his belongings - he arranges with brother to come get his stuff, but when he gets there D refuses entry, instead he hands P stuff what he says brother had ready for P to pick up, obviously none of the electronics or appliances.... too bad so much of this stuff is hearsay - both litigants tertifying for gf's family - MM takes time to call and talks to a brother, but not one landlord claims changed locks and picked/packed stuff for P.... kind of iffy, as we know sometimes family fight over deceased members "stuff," so brothers may be working on different agendas, still thinking P suing wrong guy - maybe he should be going after gf's estate (but by then who knows what was his, hers, and/or theirs).... ok, what we're hearing from D is that after gf died, mother and 2 brothers came and took everything in early part of week, then arranged for P to come get rent on Friday - again D irking me as he oh so carefully chosen his words, just makes me doubt what he's saying, and if the family had everything they claimed the wanted and that the rest was P's or trash, WTH did D pass stuff out through the door/gate instead of swinging open the door and telling P to come in - nope, not buying D's story, but unfortunately P sadly lacking when it comes to proof - he went through and came up with replacement prices, but only has receipts for under $700 - anyway, one out of state) brother backs up P's version, and D says he dealt with the other brother - the out of state brother lists items as belonging to P, and says D told family he had moved items out to safeguard the items - more tap dancing when MM asks, but unfortunately no proof D helped himself to anything (bet he did!) - after break MM tells us she tried to reach family - P able to reach the brother backing his story, but can't reach other brother - brother reached did NOT like landlord (says landlord was "eerily present" whole time they were packing sister's stuff and going through everything) and tells us the story of how D claimed he moved out the appliances and electronics because looky-lous were peeking in the windows scooping out stuff to steal, and that other things go disappeared during the day as landlord hung around and family moved stuff out..... yep, 100% landlord stole stuff, but how can MM establish value..... phone call brother even more credible when he says whole family disliked P - which is why other brother changed locks when landlord suggested the lockout.... rough justice - MM agrees D ripped stuff off, but isn't ready to go above total of few receipts P can produce.... not sure about everyone else, but I'd be hard pressed to produce receipts and would end up with pennies on the dollar just like P.... soooo, P awarded just under $700 and I'd bet he's out thousands... we leave courtroom with P glaring at D and D with the fake open mouthed incredulous look we see so often on the scammers/thieves/dirt bag losers hoopty sale: skinny little mommy bought 22yo truck for her 400 lb snowflake sonnyboy - as-is sale, but no need to do due diligence 'cuz she trusted the kind stranger to do right by her - says she paid $2400 for wreck and when she finally had mechanic check it over was told it needed more than 4 grand to make it safe to put on road.... defendant: sales private party sale - he had truck over 17 years and P had it 3 weeks before she had a complaint.... no need to recap - may be couple chuckles but I skipped it - zipped ahead - mommy loses - decision could be made before testimony begins 3 Link to comment
AngelaHunter April 10, 2019 Share April 10, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: overcharged for champagne: OMG, I hate people like the plaintiff, and I've known a few. You cannot discuss anything with them, because the second you open your mouth, they start with the "Yeah, yeah, okay, okay, yep, yep" until you want to tear your own head off. The restaurant guys (and I'm with JM. I love the Irish accent) wanted to refund him for the champagne the way he paid for it, with a credit card. I have received refunds that way more than a few times. But he don't know nothing about reimbursement like that (??) and used today's all-purpose excuse that he was "not comfortable" so wants a cashier's check. They agree, but that's still not good enough for the blabbermouthed idiot He wants an apology - maybe carved in stone - not only for the mistake made but for the cake fee, something to which he agreed beforehand. He gets back exactly what he was owed, something he could have easily had a long time ago and without all this drama and public display of his stupidity and shameful money-grubbing. 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: tenant/landlord case with twist: That was interesting. It was the Moocher vs. the Sleazy Landlord. The Moocher is homeless but has 5K worth of stuff he left in the apartment of the girlfriend with whom he was living and sponging off of. Her brothers thought he was a moocher as well, and changed the locks on the apartment to keep him the hell out. Landlord is a snooty, smarmy liar and the only thing he said that was credible was when he called plaintiff a "freeloader." Sadly plaintiff doesn't have all his receipts "at this time" even though the value of such was his whole case, so he was awarded only 670$-odd dollars. 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: hoopty sale: Was this the apex of "as is" nitwits? The fool buys a 22-year old truck from a total stranger. He told her it just needs minor repairs. Of course, she wouldn't dream of taking this antediluvian hulk to a mechanic to get it checked out because that's man business. Pep Boys tell her it needs 4K of work. OMG, what a shock. I would expect a truck that has passed the age of majority to be in perfect working order. She's only about 60, so you can't expect her to use common sense or think for herself, can you? Def was 110% in the right. Really, how does he know what her gargantuan snowflake has done to the truck in the three weeks it took her to start harassing him? I too liked his "As is, as seen" clause in their contract. Plaintiff was highly pissed off, because all this has to be someone else's fault and certainly not hers, and refused to speak to Doug in the Hall. I always knew it would be a mistake to sell a vee-hickle privately and never did so, but these court cases reaffirm my decision. If I trade my car in at the dealer I will get less money, but never will I have some idiot dragging me to court because the car is not showroom condition. Edited April 10, 2019 by AngelaHunter 5 Link to comment
zillabreeze April 10, 2019 Share April 10, 2019 57 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said: refund him for the champagne the way he paid for it, with a credit card. I vehemently disagreed with MM awarding the cost of the bottle in the judgement. She should have insisted that it would only be done as a reversal on the credit card. Plaintiff was not out any money in the first place if he hadn't paid CC company yet. On my cards, there is one set of rates and terms for purchases and an entirely different set for cash advances. The cash interest rate is way higher. So, in essence he was trying to get a cash advance. I don't buy the plaintiff's "security concerns" over giving the last four digits one bit! He wanted cash for some reason. He was a cheap ass, wanna be, poser that got caught up trying to look like a high roller. 5 Link to comment
Bazinga April 11, 2019 Share April 11, 2019 (edited) With the champagne refund, why didn't he just take it up with his credit card company? He was being charged for something he didn't authorize. Contact the cc provider and it is their job to straighten it out and he doesn't have to fight with the restaurant and complain about how many people it took to handle the situation. I think his whole beef was really over the cake charge and he was angling to get that refunded by the restaurant. He didn't deserve a written apology, as mistakes happen and I am sure he was told they were sorry and it wasn't that big a deal, an honor situation, to necessitate a written mea culpa. He didn't deserve court costs, as he was the reason this went to court, not the defendant. He did not mitigate his damages by filing suit when defendant was willing to settle the matter for what he was out. He did not deserve a cash refund; the refund should be in the same manner as the way he paid. Again, I think it all goes back to the cake charge. He wanted that refunded too, and that would not have happened if he just had the charge reversed. That is why he refused the first refund amount offered by check and tried to up the amount to include the cake charge. He kept going back to the cake charge in his testimony and with Doug in the hall, as a problem though it really had nothing to do with this situation. His award should have been offset by rewarding the defendant for having to deal with his utter nonsense for no reason, when they went above and beyond to rectify the matter. Another jerk who undeservedly got catered to by JM. He needed to be told off not come out a victor. Edited April 11, 2019 by Bazinga 4 Link to comment
AngelaHunter April 11, 2019 Share April 11, 2019 58 minutes ago, Bazinga said: Another jerk who undeservedly got catered to by JM. He needed to be told off not come out a victor. You are totally right. 2 hours ago, zillabreeze said: He was a cheap ass, wanna be, poser that got caught up trying to look like a high roller. Right also. Not only a cheap ass but a dumbass who wrongfully got rewarded. 1 2 Link to comment
SRTouch April 11, 2019 Share April 11, 2019 14 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: You are totally right. Right also. Not only a cheap ass but a dumbass who wrongfully got rewarded. ((Talking about champagne overcharge blowhard)) Tell us what you REALLY think! 2 Link to comment
SRTouch April 11, 2019 Share April 11, 2019 (edited) Hmmmmm interesting, a double post separated by 2 hours - yep, my tablet acting wonky today Edited April 11, 2019 by SRTouch 1 Link to comment
patty1h April 11, 2019 Share April 11, 2019 Nope, not believing twitchy meth-head roommate dad found needles and coke in the plaintiff's room. He just wanted to badmouth her to make himself look not so much like a squirrelly mess. His motor-mouth rambling about cats and bills just made him look unstable. No proof about cat pee and no bills = get to stepping from the courtroom, loser! Also, I swear he was about to call her a 'shystey old c*nt 'in the hallterview, but changed it to 'con artist' at the last second. 5 Link to comment
AZChristian April 11, 2019 Share April 11, 2019 And all of the machinations about refusing the credit card charge reversal made me wonder . . . hmmm. Was it even HIS credit card? Maybe he didn't KNOW the last four-digits, as the card was thrown in the trash right after dinner. Maybe plaintiff planned right away to ask for the refund in a check, so that he'd walk away with a fancy dinner AND some pocket money (less the $50 "cake fee" which sounded to be in cash). The only thing better than stealing a credit card and using it for a fancy dinner is walking away with cash at the end of the deal. Something was definitely fishy . . . and the hubris of bringing the restaurant owner to court for trying to handle a transaction in a completely normal way was something else! 3 1 Link to comment
SRTouch April 11, 2019 Share April 11, 2019 (edited) Oh dear, had a long involved recap for first case- such insightful and thought provoking comments - and Internet ate it. Then halfway through 2nd case recap, freekin notebook froze up but able to reload and keep what was written. roomie fight: Anyway, odd couple fighting over bills, rent, damages, and who knows what else..... actually kind of fun to watch the nutty woman battle the younger landlord/roomie with the drug problem.... they trade accusations of drug use, stealing each others stuff, etc - downside is the manic (alleged meth user) defendant has/had sole custody of his 3 and 4 year old kids, and towards end of lease P tattled to granny and D now has custody fight.... anyway, not much evidence from either side backing up the claims (think P wants $1200 and D countersued for $1700) we hear receipt lecture since these folks deal in cash without receipts, and MM catches the previously hyper defendant yawning which is good for a chuckle - then he's off to races again and educating MM about how police/courts no longer even consider texts.... couple times during the case I wondered if D was spinning out of control in his rants - pretty sure one of the retired REAL bailiffs would have been edging over towards him - one of those litigants where I expect Byrd to step up and issue a caution. - P gets about 2/3 of what she was after, D gets zip fight over vending machines: P says defendant refusing to return 3 of his machines - wants their value, 4 grand.... defendant: says deal was that P was supposed to split profits from machines - when he didn't pay up, D (now THIS guy is obese - wonder if they had to bring in special chair since he apparently can't stand at lectern (later I see dude actually brought his own wheelchair) admits he took machines hostage and has countersuit for $600 that he claims he should have received from split.... oops, sounds like self help when he should have been plaintiff in case suing for his split - not really interesting, but looks like next to cases will be short as 1st ran long.... Testimony: written agreement about the percentage of the split - pretty much they were squabbling over split from beginning - D has store across street from a school, kids always seemed to be using machines, thought P cheating get him all along..... way P explains it, cash only removed when both sides were present and split after the count, so not sure how D thought he was being shorted - seems each time machine emptied the take was diminishing, so after 3 months P wanted to pull machines - seems reasonable, except that they have a contract - seems P is claiming D breached contract because he wasn't open to public as many hours as P wanted/expected, but MM says contract doesn't say anything about when/how many hours D had to be open - anyway, P has the slips of what was collected each time, and really have to wonder where D came up with $600 in lost revenue - anyway, P says he went by multiple times during business hours and found business locked up... even if contract didn't specify how many hours business was open, couldn't P says he was counting on a daily to be open during posted hours - assuming of course he had hours posted... then we hear P went to business several times over 8 month period and place was always closed and he was unable to service the machines.... over to defendant: says he was in and out of hospital those 8 months, but that his employees were there running store - says his employees told him P was coming in emptying machine, but that P was refusing to leave D's cut with the employees..... uh, not buying that for a second - after first month of not getting my cut I would have demanded the cut, followed shortly by putting up out of order signs and unplugged the machines - though to be fair if revenue kept dipping like P claimed those things were just raking up space and using electricity so may have unplugged them anyway.... except for not unplugging the machines, D tells the more believable story - ok, case pretty much over as soon as P admits he has nada proving store was locked up, so problem now is how can MM come up with total of what should have been collected - D has employee and a statement from second employee that P was coming and collecting money, pocketing the money and telling them what the split was - but sadly nobody kept a tallyrics and the witness (who looks too young, but says she's 18, so probably an after school employee) only remembers the amount for the last month, $8 - she claims she was there "at least 6 times" when P serviced machines, while P claims to gave never seen her before, place locked up tight - which makes NO sense as it would be a prime location, convenience store across street from high school, can't see it closed for 8 months like P claims - really no evidence, so rough justice has MM taking the last month's revenue, multiplying that amount, and telling P that's what he needs to pay before he takes out the machines.... $415 to D and P gets machines case stolen and damaged moped: this time it's P who is morbidly obese and in a wheelchair, but he has a electric chair - says D took his brand new moped and damaged it - he wants the $1800+ the thing cost..... Defendant: says he bought moped from mysterious third party who claimed to have bought it from P - says he has bill of sale from mystery party - countersuit for $600 worth of improvements he says he made to moped.... testimony: oops, not suing for price of moped, thing wasn't new, in fact intro only vaguely similar to MM's summary - now moped is a 2015 machine, and P suing for repairs and cost of transporting machine to shop - according to P, first time he meets D is when police, D's daddy, and D show up at his place to return the moped he had reported stolen - says same day he reported machine stolen the police found D with machine in D's front yard - quick shift to defendant and not sure what the hell case is about - admits he got drunk one night and went joyriding on moped, but says he took it back - uh huh, sure, not sure how long ago this was, but when MM asks turns out he's still underage - anyway, he and his group of drunk underage hoodlums developed a taste for mopeds, and D claims a couple weeks after the joyride his good friend Jordan bought the moped from P and subsequently sold it to D - Burl Ives look alike P intersects "no I did not!" - when asked, D testifies he saw the bill of sale transferring title to Jordan, and he Jordan made out zip bill of sale when he sold it to D, but, curses, those all important documents were left on the moped when cops took it back to P - MM asks about any texts with Jordan about the any of this - yeah, he has texts, but not here - and of course Jordan, the buy his defense hinges on is incommunicado in the hospital, oh so very sick - ok, MM about done playing around with defendant, so preview promises it's about time to start poking fun at P - seems he bought thing for $700 but is suing for $1800 - geez, once he starts his story as unbelievable as what kid was spinning - when he starts talking about how he was using moped to empty out a storage locker because he didn't have any friends with a truck to help him in hit the zip button - at most I'd give him the $700 he says he paid for it, plus the $100 he apparently gave MM for someone to take to to the shop since at that point it may have been worth repairing, ok, and any repair he can prove shop did, but not above the $700 he says he paid - turns out girl with D is his wife, and she's been raising her hand trying to talk - does a little sickingredients up about how much she used to watch TPC with her gramps, than some nonsense about how the damage may not have been done by hubby hoodlum underage drinker - oh yeah, dimwitted wife you arguing that they would have brought in the proof that hubby bought the moped if they had thought it would be needed - uhhhh, not sure I have words for how stupid that sounds - being sued for stealing and damaging someone else's property, your defense is that a friend, someone you call your "brother" sold it to you, and you didn't think to bring evidence of your purchase.... uh, noooo, time's up and not even going to listen to MM tell wifey how dumb she sounds.... P gets $600 ($500 value she found for moped on Internet plus the $100 he proved he spent getting it to shop) Edited April 11, 2019 by SRTouch 1 Link to comment
AngelaHunter April 11, 2019 Share April 11, 2019 W the Actual F?? A woman that age thinks it's a great idea to go live in a room in the crib of the def - a young, freaky pinhead with two little kids? Really? Just when you think it can't get worse... anyway, the mother of those poor little children must be some messed-up, hopeless piece of work if HE got custody of them. And he's allowed to keep them? Plaintiff had 100 bags of cocaine and a mountain of needles in her bedroom? Gee, I think if she was pulling in that kind of money she could afford a better dye job. And what the hell was she thinking of, moving in with him? Was there some ulterior reason or motive? I need to know this really badly. Drug addict yawns in JM's face. Maybe he switched his drug of choice from meth to heroin and was on the nod? Of course he has no evidence of anything. Would anyone expect a paranoid, psychotic drug addict to keep any evidence? All you loser freaks - stop having kids and getting pets! You are totally unable to take care of yourselves, never mind helpless babies and animals. I don't know how a judge can stand listening to this disgraceful idiocy day after day. At least I can FF. It is what it is! (or was the 3rd def who said that? No matter - it's the perennial cry of the big ol' loser and liar.) Then we had the Big Time Operator, who regularly rakes in at least 60$ a month on his vending machines - gumballs, lollipops, and a Pac Man game. Are these antique vending machines? Does he think there's a venue where he'll make more with them and that today's high school kids are interested in that dumbass shit? 16 minutes ago, SRTouch said: case stolen and damaged moped: Omg. Def. is a true, genuine round-headed denizen of Loserville. He's 20, has no education, probably has no job except for less-than-minimum wage cash stuff, is a thief, he has "kids" and appeared here with his gigantic wife, who stood there rubbing her gravid belly, heralding their upcoming Wondrous Blessed Event so proudly. She stands by her little-boy man and also does a bit of obsequious ass-kissing to JM, thinking it will help their case. I loved in the hall where she tells Doug to look at the size of the plaintiff and if he thinks the plaintiff can ride a Moped. Look who's talking - she's just as obese as he is even though she's decades younger. So by her thinking, if a person can't use his own possessions that gives her dim-witted, douchebag-haired, useless waste of oxygen hubby-boo the right to steal them? Ah, young love - just touches my heart. 3 1 Link to comment
AngelaHunter April 11, 2019 Share April 11, 2019 2 hours ago, AZChristian said: And all of the machinations about refusing the credit card charge reversal made me wonder . . . hmmm. Was it even HIS credit card? Maybe he didn't KNOW the last four-digits, as the card was thrown in the trash right after dinner. Hmm, I think you're right. I returned an item to Amazon, after getting something I never ordered. They said, "Oh, sorry. We'll reverse the charges on your credit card." I said that was fine. Never did I demand an engraved apology or insist I get the refund by any other means. Of course, I used my own CC for the purchase. 3 Link to comment
DoctorK April 11, 2019 Share April 11, 2019 (edited) 28 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said: Of course, I used my own CC for the purchase. See, that's where you made your mistake. You'll never make it as a litigant. Edited April 11, 2019 by DoctorK 3 1 Link to comment
AngelaHunter April 11, 2019 Share April 11, 2019 33 minutes ago, DoctorK said: See, that's where you made your mistake. You'll never make it as a litigant. Seriously, I have screwed up so badly. Everything I own (and yes, I actually OWN things) I put "underneath" my own name. I'm sure most of the litigants here would jeer at me for my foolishness. 2 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama April 12, 2019 Share April 12, 2019 (edited) I'm watching the rerun of the shaved ice storeowner/tenant and her fight against the 'celebrity' hair stylist, charging mutual harassment, stalking, and everything else. Too bad the plaintiff (shaved ice) owner didn't have the hair stylist do her hair before court. Defendant needed to see a better stylist to do her own hair, and has the worst cold shoulder top I've seen in a long time. The cold shoulder top looks more like the sleeve seams are coming loose. The defendant's witness looks like a troll doll. The videos of harassment are hysterical! I felt so sorry for the lady with the dachshund that died. The attacking Pit Bull's owner is a fool. I believe the doxie owner who says that when her dog was attacked, right on the doxie owner's property, that the defendants just stood there watching, and doing nothing. Edited April 12, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama 1 Link to comment
AngelaHunter April 12, 2019 Share April 12, 2019 (edited) Boring, and we have to see JM again playing family counselor. The plaintiff always "supports" her cousin the def. in everything she does but is here suing for a 1500$ loan for def to open some kind of market that was a failure because it seems no one can get along with def. cuz. Def never pays her back, keeps asking for money and needs 40$ lunches. Def downloaded some janky contract which has all sorts of contradictory terms but I guess she couldn't read it or didn't understand it. She calls herself a "struggling artist" which means everyone should give her money, although plaintiff notes def managed to afford new clothes, wigs, jewelry and a vacation in Barbados, which is one of the most expensive of the Caribbean islands. Sorry, Cuz, but at your age, with your track record, you are not a "struggling" artist, but a "failed" artist and using that excuse to avoid your responsibilities is pathetic, so I don't know why the huge grin all through this case, as though you think you're cute or something. You're not. JM couldn't award plaintiff the whole amount, due to the weird wording in the contract, but awards her 650$ I think. She tells the cousins to hug. Oh, please! Boring x 2: SSM who of course expects everyone to take care of her has an eight-year-old daughter she drags from place to place where she mooches. She can afford Uber rides though, and def was a driver who told plaintiff she and her kid could move into her place. Plaintiff gives def. 400$ deposit then changes her mind about moving in at the last minute because def does not agree to drive SSM's kid to and from the bus stop every day. Why not? People should go out of their way for her because she decided to get knocked up with some baby daddy who it seems is long gone. Def is a foul-mouthed, low-rent, nasty hoe who stands there smoothing and arranging whatever that atrocity on her head is and batting her 3 sets of fake eyelashes while JM reads out loud her filthy, threatening "texes", e.g. "Bitch, I'll have my "soldiers" visit (plaintiff) at your job if you don't stop harassing me" and much worse. Plaintiff seems to think that her SSM status automatically voids any contract into which she enters if she so wishes. It does not and she gets zero although she keeps talking over JM and arguing whatever. Oh, STFU. Her "godmother" appeared here with her but I'm not sure why. Tree falls on plaintiff's car which was parked in a friend's driveway and he wants def, owner of the tree, to pay for the damages. Although plaintiff was very annoying with his, "And he's like, and I'm like, and we're like" and feeling he's really cute, he's right. Long-haired def was liable because anyone with eyes could see the tree was virtually very dead and he should have cut it down. "Oh", he says, "but there was a Nor'easter that day, and the tree was fine before that!" but has not a shred of evidence of any kind. Just trust him. Oddly, plaintiff is a tree-climber who knows about trees and pointed out in the pics that this tree had no bark, no foliage and was riddled with pine beetles. The stump shows it was rotted. Def has to pay for the loss of the car - 2500$ - but JM uses her KBB, and not the inflated estimate of the plaintiff's. Def is a big hand-shaker. He shook plaintiff's hand (even though he tried to weasel his way out of paying for damage that was his responsibility) and shook hands twice with Doug in the Hall. Get a haircut! You look ridiculous. Last year I had to pay nearly 2000$ to get 3 huge pine trees on my lot cut down. They felt and looked solid, but they also had no foliage and I figured the price I had to pay to have them removed was the lesser of two evils, rather than wait and see if one of them would land on my neighbour's house during winter storms. I guess had that happened I could have said, "Not my fault" and made them drag me to TPC. Edited April 12, 2019 by AngelaHunter 2 Link to comment
SRTouch April 12, 2019 Share April 12, 2019 Not a full recap today, because, as the Terri Clarke song goes, "I could wash my car in the rain Change my new guitar strings Mow the yard just the same as I did yesterday... I got better things to do" ..... actually going to SAM'S cuz I have have money burning a hole in my pocket and am low on coffee.... coffee may be cheaper at SAMS, but I find it pert near impossible to leave with less than a car load of stuff and spend at least a hundred bucks..... hmmmmm, maybe the spring gardening stuff is on display, I might should take the trailer..... Anyway, today's cases were pretty standard fare. first up had cousin suing other cousin over loans she admits was made and not paid - family counseling session has cousins hugging and cousin paying back loan, but not outrageous amount asked for 2nd case has tenant suing over deposit on place she never moved into. Apparently waited until wee hours of day she was to move in before backing out, but expected return of deposit - nope not happening number 3 P suing because D dead tree fell on his car during storm - D figures he's in the clear because his insurance called it an 'act of God' nope, says MM, if your obviously sick/dead/dying tree falls during storm, you're on the hook if it hurts someone or, as in this case, totals a parked car 2 Link to comment
AZChristian April 12, 2019 Share April 12, 2019 13 minutes ago, SRTouch said: ...coffee may be cheaper at SAMS, but I find it pert near impossible to leave with less than a car load of stuff and spend at least a hundred bucks... We call it the "$100 Store" (instead of the Dollar Store). If we get done shopping and the bill is less than $100, we look at each other and say, "OK - what did we forget?" Do you use the Scan & Go? Best invention/app ever!!! But the store brand of coffee is better at Costco - processed by Starbucks for half the cost. We buy the whole beans, regular and decaf, then mix them to create "Half Caf." And now . . . back to People's Court. 2 Link to comment
SRTouch April 12, 2019 Share April 12, 2019 1 hour ago, AZChristian said: But the store brand of coffee is better at Costco - processed by Starbucks for half the cost. We buy the whole beans, regular and decaf, then mix them to create "Half Caf." Unfortunately, nearest Costco is 90 miles away from me.... doesn't matter, today I swung by Sutherlands (think Home Depot or Lowe's type chain store but chain confined to southern middle States) and bought some gardening supplies and bird seed - still no coffee but still have a week's supply. 1 Link to comment
VartanFan April 13, 2019 Share April 13, 2019 Quote I always knew it would be a mistake to sell a vee-hickle privately and never did so, but these court cases reaffirm my decision. If I trade my car in at the dealer I will get less money, but never will I have some idiot dragging me to court because the car is not showroom condition. A couple of things here - once I heard they were from MA and the truck passed inspection, she was even MORE out of gas than she was before. MM is NOT wrong about MA being way way (too) consumer friendly. I went through this once with a private party sale (I was the seller and there was nothing wrong with the car). ALso - you will get less money from the dealer but the money applied to the new vehicle is NOT taxed, so you also have to consider that. If you sell privately and use as a down payment on the new car, you're charged sales tax on the WHOLE amount of the new car purchase. If you trade in, you're only taxed on the new car amount LESS the trade in amount. Both what you mentioned and that tax issue is why I trade in. 2 1 Link to comment
aemom April 14, 2019 Share April 14, 2019 On 4/10/2019 at 4:15 PM, SRTouch said: MM agrees D ripped stuff off, but isn't ready to go above total of few receipts P can produce.... not sure about everyone else, but I'd be hard pressed to produce receipts and would end up with pennies on the dollar just like P I keep all my receipts, but I staple them to my CC statement, so if I needed to find something, I would have to remember when I bought something and rifle through them all - so not the best system either. So last year, I got one of those accordion folders and I keep receipts of important things in there. That will help me for the future but meanwhile, I'm trying to remember where my wristwatch receipt is because I get free adjustments as long as I can present the bill - and since I lost over 50 pounds in the previous 6 months (yay me!), I need to take a link out. The D was not expecting to be ratted out like that by the phone call. He looked shocked. On 4/10/2019 at 6:35 PM, zillabreeze said: I vehemently disagreed with MM awarding the cost of the bottle in the judgement. She should have insisted that it would only be done as a reversal on the credit card. Plaintiff was not out any money in the first place if he hadn't paid CC company yet. On my cards, there is one set of rates and terms for purchases and an entirely different set for cash advances. The cash interest rate is way higher. So, in essence he was trying to get a cash advance. I don't buy the plaintiff's "security concerns" over giving the last four digits one bit! He wanted cash for some reason. He was a cheap ass, wanna be, poser that got caught up trying to look like a high roller. This guy was a total wanker. As for the "4 digit" bullshit, well I work in software security. The reason that you give the last 4 digits is because those are the only digits that appear on your receipt, in the system, ANYWHERE. It's a complicated explanation as to how the CC numbers are stored which I won't bore you all with - but basically, they can pull up the transaction and want to know the last 4 digits to verify that your 4 match their 4 and then they can reverse the charge. They want proof that it's really your card! He needlessly wasted everyone's time, but at least we got to hear their lovely Irish accents. He should have been somewhat nailed for being such an ass. I would not have given him interest, but I'm glad he didn't get the cake charge back. Some places charge this because they have to cut and plate it and then wash all the dishes after without getting any sort of compensation. So I get why they charge for the service. On 4/10/2019 at 5:28 PM, AngelaHunter said: I always knew it would be a mistake to sell a vee-hickle privately and never did so, but these court cases reaffirm my decision. If I trade my car in at the dealer I will get less money, but never will I have some idiot dragging me to court because the car is not showroom condition. We have privately sold some old cars and have luckily never had a problem. I always type up a contract with one for you and one for me that we both sign and states in large font: SOLD AS IS. So if anyone were stupid enough to sue me, at least I wouldn't be worried about winning my case. 2 Link to comment
VartanFan April 14, 2019 Share April 14, 2019 Quote We have privately sold some old cars and have luckily never had a problem. I always type up a contract with one for you and one for me that we both sign and states in large font: SOLD AS IS. So if anyone were stupid enough to sue me, at least I wouldn't be worried about winning my case. Here's the problem in MA. It's SO pro consumer that even writing all over the place 'as is' isn't enough. I think there's an exception for sold under a certain amount or something but the car HAS to be able to pass inspection and if it doesn't, and the cost to make it pass inspection exceeds 10% of what you sold it for, the sale can be voided. 1 Link to comment
aemom April 14, 2019 Share April 14, 2019 2 minutes ago, VartanFan said: Here's the problem in MA. It's SO pro consumer that even writing all over the place 'as is' isn't enough. I think there's an exception for sold under a certain amount or something but the car HAS to be able to pass inspection and if it doesn't, and the cost to make it pass inspection exceeds 10% of what you sold it for, the sale can be voided. Interesting. Luckily in Quebec, as long as the car is currently registered, there is no inspection required no matter how old the car is - you just transfer it from one owner to another. That's why nobody ever takes the plates off their car - you can store it for up to one year and then take it out of storage - so people go that route instead if they aren't driving it. If I had to deal with your situation, I would just trade in to the dealer and save myself the potential hassle. 1 Link to comment
AngelaHunter April 15, 2019 Share April 15, 2019 2 hours ago, aemom said: Luckily in Quebec, as long as the car is currently registered, there is no inspection required no matter how old the car is I'm in QC too, and no, we needn't worry about inspections or titles or security deposits on rentals - well, at least there was none last time I rented many years ago. 3 hours ago, aemom said: I always type up a contract with one for you and one for me that we both sign and states in large font: SOLD AS IS. We see lots of people here who have signed an "As Is" contract, but don't think it applies to them/couldn't be bothered reading the contract because it was raining/they're a SSM/in a hurry/were coerced or think it means "As is" only if the 17-year-old hoopty is in perfect condition. Who wants to go through the harassment and the summons to court? I sold one item online. I got a ton of stupid annoying emails to sift through and answer but did get one buyer. Because I DO watch this show, I wrote up a contract in duplicate, read it to the person and had them sign it. Of course, I knew the item I was selling was in perfect working order and nearly new, so didn't worry about some PITA texting and calling me a million times. 2 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama April 15, 2019 Share April 15, 2019 (edited) They're showing the rerun of the two homeowners who have places next to the sea wall (not the right name) at a bay. The one man thinks because he has lived there 20 years, then he has the right to tell other homeowners how to live, and thinks he can do what he wants. The road is a cul de sac, and people keep parking angled or 90 degree angles from the road, instead of parking parallel to the curb, or if there is even parking allowed. This is the one where the defendant comes on the plaintiff's property and smashes railings, and flower pots, and his middle aged daughter is mooning the neighbors (there is a photo of this). The plaintiff has no evidence of the deck fence destruction by the defendant. Defendant pays for the flower pot, $509.99. I bet the plaintiffs wish they hadn't bought near the bay, and near this neighbor. The plaintiff needs to call the city, and get the parking situation clarified, and appropriate signage, or other official signs need to be installed. Defendant is still a jerk, who thinks he owns the neighborhood, and can tell everyone else what to do. The daughter certainly acts like Daddy too. The other case of the woman who claimed her ex was the father of her baby, was ridiculous. She claimed loans to the defendant of $2700, and a cell phone, and she only received the $2700 back. However, when there was a paternity hearing, she never brought the baby in for DNA testing, and claimed she thought it would happen in court. Who on earth would think anything like DNA testing happens in the court room? My guess is she knows it's not the defendant's kid, but wants to keep the support he pays (the usual diapers) coming in. Edited April 15, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama 1 Link to comment
SRTouch April 15, 2019 Share April 15, 2019 (edited) tenant suing landlord: P rents a room from defendant, claims landlord wants him out and has resorted to making place hazardous to his physical and mental health - he's standing up for tenant rights and demanding 5 grand.... defendant: says P a nut, practices witchcraft, makes her uncomfortable whenever she visits property, and she's caught him taking pictures of her butt - says this case is revenge because of evictions proceedings.... almost from start of intro clown spiel I was thinking JJ would be shouting "just ah-move!!!".... testimony: ok, P has been renting room in house for 8 years, and is suing the homeowners of the house - says when original landlady died, he was immediately asked to leave - he was month to month, but has long list of reasons why he couldn't leave - health, out of work, disabled, etc etc - MM asks why he thinks they asked him to leave, and he tells us they had heard rumors he was a devil worshiper... reason makes no difference - dude was month to month, new owners (same family) have every right to give notice.... instead of complying with the notice to vacate, he starts a campaign of letter writing, explaining his mental states, finances, etc and why he should get to stay, and I'm wondering if his physical and emotional health was so fragile just what it was that landlord's did which rises to level of torture as intro claims.... ok, one point of contention was his cat - says his therapist wrote landlord a letter explaining the cat was an emotional support animal.... again, dude is month to month tenant, so landlord can give him notice to leave simply because grandma wants to convert his room into a sewing room - unless something more is about to be sprung on us D won't need to say anything..... actually, not too sure what kind of house this is - thought it was a family home where family rented place a room, now sounding like sort of flop house where several rooms are rented out - now dude complaining that family put up notices that all the tenants needed to leave, but he feels picked on because he overheard one tenant being told they could stay..... ok, but I'm over this entitled joker, when new owner takes over they can ask you to leave - but wondering if the new owners followed landlord /tenant laws -about the only thing which could turn entitled dufus' pleadings into a lawsuit would be if new owner goofed up giving him the notice.... ok, need some sort of timeline - he's complaining of various maintenance problems and the electricity being turned off for weeks, but not sure how long after he was told to leave - heck, anyone who has done reno work know it's best to not have someone trying to live there while reno is being done - looking at the pictures looks to me like that nasty bathroom needed a full gut job and remodel - as the new owner I'd want the tenant out instead of trying to work around him.... huh, did he just say 'everybody' has been washing their dishes in the bathtub since 2016? yep, that's what he said, MM tells him to find the first complaint while she switches over to defendant: ok, forget the devil worshiper story, D begins with fact that eviction proceedings were filed because he hadn't paid rent in 3 years.... uh yeah, that would get you evicted all right.... P disputes 3 years, he says he's only been not paying rent for a year and a half..... ok, we haven't heard what the amount he was supposed to pay, but after 18 months rent free he ought to have money saved up to move - oh, and the ongoing eviction case is second time they filed, they dropped first case... about fed up with this entitled fool, time for MM to mock the squatter, tell him to get out, and dismiss the silly case - oh, and wonder why - why dude still living there and why landlord's eviction case is ongoing, oh well, not that curious, time to hit FF.... Yep, case dismissed (like some others, I routinely skip Harvey and his street gang - so I didn't notice earlier, but WTH is up with peanut gallery in the clown makeup Woody Woodpecker not welcome: P claims he owns pest control company, and that D refuses to pay for his services to evict woodpeckers from D's house - suing for the $578 he says is owed.... defendant: says she only asked for an estimate - any actual work needed her landlord's authorization - hired different company to do the work, they did work and were paid - she didn't even know P did anything (if he did) until she received a bill.... simple case, unless P has something to prove he was hired, he gets nada - I once had something similar back when I was doing landscaping, realtor hired me to mow/clean up yard, gave me the wrong address, then didn't want to pay - but hey, I had the written estimate with her signature authorizing me to do work and address was in her writing - and someone else received free yard work 😉.... testimony: start out thinking D has iffy memory - but in preview P told us this case dates back to 2015, so, she's forgiven for not remembering details of a phone call asking for an estimate years ago - key point is she remembers getting 3 estimates and giving them to landlord, landlord picked pest company, did the authorizing and paid the bill.... sooooo, she remeber calling P for an estimate, but doesn't remember actually receiving the estimate, or P ever even coming to house - according to P she called in December, when woodpeckers aren't active, hired him to come do the service in the spring (admits nothing in writing) - says he showed up and did job in April - D says company that she hired came and did the job 18 April - she has the work order/invoice and evidence other company was paid - P claims he did job on same day - dude admits he saw evidence of work other company did but did work anyway - other guy charged half what he wanted to charge, but P claims he did more - simple case - MM asks for proof P was hired, and he repeats he routinely responds to calls, does the work, and leaves bill on door, says he's been doing business that way 31 years, and never had problem - MM already told him he has a problem this time since he has no evidence of being authorized to do work - nope, case dismissed car wreck: he said he said - both sides agree crash happened when somebody got impatient and tried to squeeze through gap in traffic, but both sides accuse other of being the one trying to do the squeezing. Evidently 3 vehicles were involved - 3rd driver and defendant have already taken care of their vehicles through insurance.... so wondering why P didn't - does he just carry liability, not even have insurance, or is he another litigant suing because of principle - anyway unless these guys put on good show this promises to be a yawner..... testimony: ok, 1 question answered as MM summarizes case - seems part of P's suit is that he wants D to pay for ticket P received for letting insurance lapse - no, really, P let insurance lapse, and is suing D because P wouldn't have received a ticket had D not caused a wreck and given cop reason to check for insurance.... whiteboard and toy cars make court appearance, but as usual, litigants might as well be talking about different accidents.... unless there are police reports or witnesses, P out of luck here... ok, while D is playing with the toy cars I left room to get coffee, then FedEx showed up with shipment from Chewy. I know case was dismissed, but I stopped paying attention with 10 minutes to go Edited April 15, 2019 by SRTouch 1 Link to comment
AngelaHunter April 15, 2019 Share April 15, 2019 2 hours ago, SRTouch said: . defendant: says P a nut, practices witchcraft, makes her uncomfortable whenever she visits property, and she's caught him taking pictures of her butt Oh, HELL - I missed this, due to the fire at Notre Dame cathedral in Paris. I'd much rather have watched a witch accusing someone of finding her butt to be so great it needed memorializing. 🤬 2 hours ago, SRTouch said: Woody Woodpecker not welcome: I saw only the last part of this, where we learned that someone who has been in business for 30 years doesn't know he needs authorization or a contract if he expects to get paid for work. He remained very "Duh" in the hall talking to Doug, who asks, "Didn't seeing the streamers there give you a clue?" Def: "Duh... no." 2 hours ago, SRTouch said: seems part of P's suit is that he wants D to pay for ticket P received for letting insurance lapse Seriously. He doesn't pay his insurance premiums and that's someone else's fault because he gets caught? That's some janky-ass reasoning there. 3 Link to comment
zillabreeze April 15, 2019 Share April 15, 2019 33 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said: someone who has been in business for 30 years doesn't know he needs authorization or a contract if he expects to get paid for work. He remained very "Duh" in the hall talking to Doug, who asks, "Didn't seeing the streamers there give you a clue?" Def: "Duh... no." Exterminator dude illustrates the precise reasons my yard and house have been organic for decades..... Snorting all those poisons and such have clearly caused some brain issues. 2 2 Link to comment
CrazyInAlabama April 16, 2019 Share April 16, 2019 (edited) They're showing the rerun of the case of the man who rents cars forever (to a total of $30k), instead of buying a car, because he's disabled from a car accident. No, that makes no sense to the judge, me or anyone else who heard it. He's suing the defendant, car rental agency, because he had to pay for Easy Pass, and tickets, and wants the money back. Meanwhile, Judge Marilyn takes the man's word that he's the only driver of the rental, and isn't renting it to others? She needs to get a clue. Then she tells the rental representative he should respect his elders when he made the plaintiff pay the fees? Plaintiff signed the contract, and should pay for the fees. That's why the man should buy his own car. Plaintiff gets nothing back from the court. Edited April 16, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama 4 Link to comment
Florinaldo April 16, 2019 Share April 16, 2019 1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said: Then she tells the rental representative he should respect his elders when he made the plaintiff pay the fees? JM's rather traditional values when it comes to interpersonal relationships sometimes get the better of her good judgment. Was that guy due some respect simply because he has lasted a long time? Respect is not something that is automatically due, it is earned and it can be frittered away in a flash, as happened while I was watching him; he is a braggart and a bully with an inflated sense of his own importance who thinks people should kowtow to him, especially that young fella' and the unseen female "secretary". JM's statement was idiotic, even though she may have been reacting to the defendant smiling at the plaintiff's senseless rant. 4 Link to comment
SRTouch April 16, 2019 Share April 16, 2019 plastic surgery OR mishap: P is plastic surgeon who has a plastic surgery clinic - had surgeries scheduled, but regular anesthesiologist not available, he contracts with some outfit which supplies temp medical professionals - which is where defendant enters the picture - hires defendant to be the anesthesiologist for the day, but says she knocked over and broke some equipment, he wants her to pay 2 grand for it.... defendant: doesn't deny knocking over the equipment, but says OR was was a maze of cables/cords, so doesn't feel accident was her fault.... don't see much chance for P to make a case here - he'll need to prove D negligent or incompetent - just don't see making an employee having to replace the equipment .... testimony: MM establishes right away P wasn't present when accident happened - he brought a statement from a witness, but nothe the witness - didn't think P had a case to begin with, but that doesn't help - ok, not liking P - MM quickly shifts to D (no reason to talk to P since he wasn't there) and starts giving her a hard time - MM feels D careless, should have seen the cords wrapped around the anesthesia machine and avoided them or moved them before moving the machine... ok, didn't think P had a case, but the 'tude being shown by D isn't helping her the least little bit - MM reads the affidavit from P's witness, which contradicts D's version of the accident - again, with the 'tude as MM reads the affidavits aloud D giving a death glare with hand on her hip just asking for MM to send Douglas to give her an attitude adjustment - then D takes it to next level when she pulls out various articles which she claims show she as an employee she's not liable, and commences to argue points of law with the lawyer/judge/arbitrator deciding the case.... uh huh, bad move, just going to piss off the lady in the black robe.... not long before MM is leaning forward telling D not to tell her what the law is - after commercial D continues to argue law even after MM told her her arguments don't stand up - D flopping back and forth between she's an independent contractor to she's an employee depending on which law article she's trying to argue - which actually turns out to be important - under Florida law, if I'm understanding right, she would not be liable as a employee, but is if judge finds her negligent as a contractor.... ok, going nowhere and MM ready to call an early end - seems on day of incident the parties reached a settlement agreement - D was paid her $2400 fee for the day, and she agreed to pay for the broken equipment when P gave her a copy of the invoice - P actually got a really good deal, a new machine would have run 20 grand, and he's billing her the used/refurbished price of only $2 grand - MM sounds like she's holding D to the settlement agreement - also, MM less than impressed with some of excuses D coming up with that D is trying to interrupt MM with... oh, even tries for a single mother defense - meany P refused to accept installments, and poor D is a single mother so should get a pass (uh, she has managed to say, several times, she's been an anesthesiologist for 28 years, so maybe she's a single grandmother) - P wins in a short case Not paid for work: P says he was vendor selling food at a stadium, and D owes him for 26 days of work defendant: says he runs a non profit organization for folks who just got out of jail - says P was a volunteer - dude was often late or a no-show, and there was never any talk of being paid.... uh, sort of smacks of a scam where D gets free labor from people who probably won't press to be paid.... testimony: p says he suffered a "tragedy" and needed a job.... not sure what the tragedy was..... needed sknething to keep busy - also needed a job - and found D through an ad on CL - says ad said "volunteer and get paid" - says deal was he was to be paid $50/day.... D's little enterprise sounding more like a scam all the time..... P says ended up working from May to August, was paid sporadically, but in the end still owed for 26 days.... over to defendant yep, fast talker who knows the lingo, claims he's a non profit, but wonder about paperwork - admits he hires and pays at risk/transitioning youth to train them how to function in the real world, but can't help but wonder when sounds like he's paying his worker/volunteers a cash "stipend" under the table.... not liking D at all, but sort of wonder if P will have the evidence to prove what he is owed... great, seems he worked a couple months without getting paid - mainly cuz he enjoyed hustle and bustle of working at Atlanta Braves stadium - and thankfully he has texts asking when he's going to get paid.... while P looks for the texts, D starts passing up copies of records of when P was paid (he does provide originals when asked) - uh oh, D has receipt book showing payments for some of the disputed days, and P agrees that's his signature on the receipts - back to can P prove what days he worked and wasn't paid - now D running down P's work ethic/performance, but he paid P for at least part of the time P is suing for - what a mess, D's witness just came up and pretty much admits they might owe P for days, but says no more than maybe 5 days, no loosey goosey non profit record keepers really don't keep track of when volunteers work, just when they get paid their under the table stipend.... oh, and we hear real reason for these volunteers - when they volunteer they get $50 cash, but if there is no volunteer D pays a worker $75 for same job - rough justice, seems P didn't need to prove his case, since D and their sloppy paperwork did it for him - turns out D tries to insist his receipt book shows all the payments (well except for maybe 5 days witness says he might be owed), but when MM takes a closer look D's book shows he paid none of his employees for twenty something home games - when MM points that out, D witness suggests maybe there's a another receipt book they don't have in court today - nope, MM has heard enough, awards P $1300 flooded garage: P says her car was in D's business, when she went to get it there had been a flood and her car's wiring was ruined - her insurance totaled the car - now, she wants an additional 5 grand from D for her trouble, and the pain and suffering she experienced when D was rude to her when he was faced with a flooded business... defendant: WTH does lady want - an Act of God flooded his business - he worked frantically rescuing as many vehicles as he could, says woman actually drove her car away after the flood, so he doesn't know how/why her insurance carrier totaled her vehicle, but he certainly doesn't owe her anything..... on face of intro, silly case - especially the 5 grand pain and suffering - might be more since preview has D needed to explain himself.... testimony: ok, both litigants have accents, but are understandable - better than many English speaking litigants, and MM has to work to get a picture of the scene - turns out the garage is a two story parking structure garage, heavy rain caused the flood of the underground level where P parked her car - D has video of the water pouring into his parking structure... yep, sure nuf a flood - but what did D do, or not do, that caused P any harm.... ok, there was a flood and MM establishes P's insurance totaled the car and reimbursed P, so why, asks MM, is she suing D - MM cuts off P - I think P was trying to say she owed more than the car was worth and had no gap insurance - too bad, but not on D - case dismissed - P mutters, unbelievable! as MM gets up to walks out, MM pauses and asks, is it really unbelievable and a little exchange... hallterview, mean Judge didn't let P talk about her MS and disability, wah wah, she no longer has a car, somebody needs to pay her 3 Link to comment
zillabreeze April 16, 2019 Share April 16, 2019 Anesthesiologist is banging around the OR, knocking shit over.... Is too stupid to know whether she's an employee or contractor... Did this woman get her degree at the Conrad Murray School of Medicine? Um. Gee . Think I'll take a pass and find someone else to bring me in and out of consciousness. 1 3 Link to comment
AngelaHunter April 16, 2019 Share April 16, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: plastic surgery OR mishap: It's the old, "Not my fault" defense, as though if you didn't break something deliberately, you needn't pay for it. I love how def. tries her best to educate JM on the law in Florida. She was mouthy, insolent and belligerent, but the very bestest was the tried and true, "I'm a single mother!" I guess SSMs, in addition to not being held to any contract they sign, are also instantly absolved of any damage they do. She never broke anything in 28 years, so how could she break something now? She doesn't understand that even if it's an accident, she is still liable. She says she'll pay for the equipment - just so it wouldn't be deducted from her check - but then has an epiphany that she's not going to pay anything at all. In the hall, she keeps insisting to Doug that JM just doesn't get it and is misinterpreting the law. Maybe def should go to law school? 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: Not paid for work: Sigh. A registered charity, who pays its volunteers in cash (how can you be a volunteer if you're paid a salary? And yes, that little "stipend" thing was cute. Shifty, but cute), of course, hires "volunteer" plaintiff, a young very able-bodied looking guy who has no job and wants this one, instead of a regular, on-the-books job because it's fun to hang out at the baseball stadium. Thing is, it seems he's not even capable of keeping the ice containers or nacho plates full. Defs, who run this charitable organization, don't bother keeping any records for when employees volunteers show up. Well, yes - def's helper has all the sign-in sheets from the stadium that would definitively prove the plaintiff didn't show up on the days he claims he worked, but wouldn't you know it? She just happened to not bring that key piece of evidence. But who needs those? She has a photographic memory and knows exactly which days plaintiff did and did not show up. JM should just trust that. I hope anyone who has or is considering donating to this organization watched this, to see how carelessly their money is strewed around. 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: flooded garage: Ridiculous. The def should have foreseen that there would be a flood on that particular day, and taken measures to "secure" all the cars parked in his garage. Thus, she has a pain and suffering case. The insurance paid off her car to the tune of 13K, but she's still in pain and still suffering and the def should give her a whole bunch of money because of his negligence... oh, wait - he wasn't negligent in any way - in fact he worked very hard at midnight to move all the clients' cars - but he should still pay her, because she has MS and that should make her problems everyone else's problem. Is she a SSM too? She is mightily pissed at JM for not getting that. Edited April 16, 2019 by AngelaHunter 1 4 Link to comment
SRTouch April 17, 2019 Share April 17, 2019 (edited) Neighbor feud: P claims upstairs neighbor harassed her so badly that she had to move - is suing for $2400... defendant: what a surprise, according to old dude it was downstairs neighbor doing the harassing - says she turned off his hot water, maced him for no reason, and she grows pot.... not sure where she came up with $2400 figure.... testimony: p says she moved into apartment back in '15 - she describes D as a means drunk - says when she moved in D used to focus his harrassment on another neighbor and her sons, but once that lady moved D started focusing on P - somewhere in there there was another neighbor that D supposedly harrassed, and P brought a statement from this second neighbor that P says moved to get away from the mean drunk - MM asks my question, why hasn't landlord done anything to get rid of the troublesome D since there are now, according to P, three tenants who have moved to get away from the guy? P answers that she has a statement from landlord that a tenant cursing out other tenants is not grounds for eviction.... maybe so, but I could see putting the troublesome drunk on notice that his lease would not be renewed if he keeps causing trouble, especially if this has been going on at least since P moved in 3-4 years ago.... anyway, P claims it was more than just cussing out neighbors - she says she has video of old dude making "lewd sexual gestures"... not sure what gestures, when she steps out from behind lectern to show the gestures camera shifts away and MM looks appalled.... MM asks why it took so long for P to get fed up and move, and turns out this is Section 8 housing.... maybe reason landlord put up with mean drunk was fact it's Section 8 housing.... defendant's turn: he admits some of what P is saying is true, but argues she started the trouble and he just reacted to her... course, what else could he say if she really has video of his antics.....oh, and the neighbor P has a statement from, well D says that guy didn't move voluntarily to get away from D's harrassment, no, he was evicted for not paying rent... so landlord knows how to evict tenants when he needs to... wonder if this other guy was booted for making neighbor's life hell or he wasn't paying rent.... now he brings up another bone of contention - seems this building has 5 units and a shared backyard, and P fenced off more than her share for her 3 dogs and her pot garden, and landlord made her take down her fencing - oh, and these two old folks are still playing feuding stereos where each player tries to drown out others music, with the occasional banging on doors demanding volume be turned down..... ok, P presented herself as calm and reasonable, but I was getting a vibe she's hiding her inner shrew - D not really hiding fact he has hair trigger and I can see him going off on neighbors.... oh, and according to D, P may have moved out and in with bf (or is it she's homeless living in her car), but she's still a regular visitor to building, so feud continues.... ah, and MM brings up the claim that P was growing pot, and D says, yeah, and he digs out something, he says from police department, that proves it - turns out cops responded, saw pot plant, but determined no crime in their jurisdiction (LA), yep, now D pulling out multiple police reports to show it wasn't just him acting up, cops responded multiple time to complaints about P as well.... again, MM asks my question, how many times have police responded to this residence? No answer, probably so many times that these folks can't keep track.... ok, she said/he said, but P has witness statements and D just flapping gums (well, he does have scraps of paper which he says are witness statements from other tenants, but they don't amount to much) - doesn't matter, I'm still trying to figure out where $2400 in damages comes from - from MM questions it seems like she's leaning towards P.... P interrupts and starts some cross aisle trash talking and MM says now we're starting to get a real taste of the neighborhood..... ok, now we get to P's videos - she says she has hundreds and MM calls her up to monitor to pick her best.... uh huh, producers blurred his image but I get pretty good idea watching audience reactions behind old dude.... P first clip is bad, but watching second it looks to me like P going out of her way to egg things on so she can video his reaction - ok, tired of these two, so I keep FF going right through to ruling when commercial and short stuff street talk comes on.... yep, MM says pretty much what I saw on clips - P instigating stuff off camera, filming D's admittedly bad actions, then filming stops for P to egg things on, and things cycle and escalate until P films "lewd sexual gestures".... case dismissed electrician damaged homeowner's AC: p says she hired D to work on her wiring, when he went into attic he ended up squishing her duct work - says it cost her $700, and she wants D to pay for the repairs... defendant: says they have history going back 30 years to when they dated - says P had several unlicensed subcontractors/handyman climbing around in attic doing stuff, anyone could have done damage, but not him - says this lawsuit is revenge because she got mad after they had a kerfuffle about --- whatever.... testimony: ok, P starts out sounding reasonable - she bought this condo not that long ago, a home inspector noted some duct damage, she had the repairs done, so ductwork should was in good condition - her story is that she was going to do some reno work, and had an AC guy check things out as she wanted to do an addition which required additional AC work - a couple weeks after AC guy inspected/passed AC ducts he came back to do the expansion for the addition and told P somebody had damaged the duct in the attic - and P says only people who did any work in the attic during that time was D's employees..... uh huh, sounds bad for D alright..... P shows us pictures of the attic - duct looks trashed and I wonder if picture was halfway through the repairs because no way does this look accidental - over to D, he insists his guys would NEVER do things this way, then we find out he and his guys were booted from job and some other electricians were hired - when asked he claims she was behind in paying for his work, so she fired him instead of paying him - sooooo here's the rest of the story - P over a month behind on payments, but D says he wasn't that concerned because he sort of understood P wanting to wait and make sure D very thing was done right and would work - thinks he got upset, and went and squealed too city about her hiring other, unlicensed contractors, and she fired him in retaliation - when MM asks P says she knows D squealed to city, says because she was going to withhold payment because of the damaged duct and payment for subpar electrical work - over to D, who tries to deny being whistle blower, but when pressed "it's possible" becomes yes I reported unpermitted work being done..... ok, haven't liked D from beginning when intro hinted P was woman scorned and when pressed on THAT issue he ends up admitting they dated, maybe, once or twice - having known someone 20-30 years and going on 1 or two dates might be reason to hire someone, but a lawsuit? but, who knows, maybe so in some convoluted way in court tvland..... ok, MM flipping through papers looking statement from "Charlie" which says only D's workers were in attic during the time period - oh, and that D was seldom on the job site even though D claims otherwise - something in the papers MM is privy to seems to make her doubt what D is says (I just don't like the guy).... ah, now he's telling us the ducts had asbestos and were going to be replaced - any proof of that, asks MM - not really, says D, just what P wrote in statement MM is holding - nope, says MM, just the opposite, statement says they had been advised to leave old ducts in place and just cover/patch...... no expert, but watcher of many house ren /flipper shows and agree that sounds about right..... actually, believe he probably misunderstood and told his guys not to worry about trashing ductwork as it was going to be replaced anyway - MM doesn't believe much of anything D is saying, says timeline all wrong with Charlie the AC guy looking at ducts, buying parts to do work, and coming back a couple weeks later to disaster - P the winner as is truck fail: p bought used truck, and shortly after the engine goes out - wants $2573.59 from the seller.... defendant: dude comes with four guys, but not sure why he felt need for backup - his story is truck was fine until P decided to climb highest/steepest mountain around, continuing to drive even after oil light came on, kept right on going when oilressure dropped, drove until engine froze up..... not only is case silly since decision almost a given, but in preview we learn that idiot is suing and has yet to take it to an actual mechanic to see what's wrong and how much it would cost to fix (hmmm, maybe D's posse is there as bodyguards - might be needed judging by some of the looks P is throwing his way, and D did describe P as a hothead in the intro)..... testimony: ok, things start with a laugh when MM misspeaks and says truck is a 1903 Chevy when she meant to say 2003 - ok, either way, P sounds more intelligent than lawsuit suggests, especially as he tells us he test drove the vehicle, had concerns, truck had over 160,000 miles on it, but silly idjit didn't bother with getting it checked by mechanic, no he bought truck anyway based on what D told him.... uh huh, unless we're talking some written/implied warranty/guarantee, or maybe one of those extremely consumer friendly jurisdictions, there is no case here..... ok, lots of nonsense about how he thought he could trust D - I keep hearing JJ yelling "puffing"... P yakking about how mechanic D said he used ended up wrecking another customers car and going to prison.... might make for good TV for some people, but nothing to do with this case - I'm about over the pleasant surprise that P can speak half way intelligently, despite being a dumba$$, dude an idiot for buying 15 yo truck without getting it checked by mechanic and then whining that seller misrepresented it, so I start zipping through his nonsense.... yep, no reason to backtrack and listen - but listening to list of what P wants to be reimbursed for is good for a chuckle - dude not only wants back price of truck, he wants money for the registration, new brakes, oil he added, etc etc (hint hint, if you are adding oil it might be because there'she a leak - oh, and when oil light comes on and oil pressure drops to zero, don't keep on truckin') - case dismissed Edited April 17, 2019 by SRTouch 4 Link to comment
Florinaldo April 17, 2019 Share April 17, 2019 (edited) On 4/15/2019 at 3:01 PM, SRTouch said: tenant suing landlord: (From Monday, but was broadcast here only this morning.) That plaintiff is one reason to scare anyone away from being a landlord for fear of getting a tenant like him, especially where the laws are particularly favourable to deadbeat tenants and squatters. He knows the system inside out and can play every rule and regulation to his advantage in the jurisdiction he lives in, and even bluff his way through them. If that fails, he plays the perpetual victim and abuses the "support animal" craze. That being said, I think the landlord's family were not as diligent as they should have been in documenting his violations and misbehaviours or in taking the necessary steps to evict him. 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: Neighbor feud: Two loathsome people who can scare anyone away from renting an apartment in a multi-unit house. Defendant's actions were clearly troubling, but the plaintiff was no better; under her veneer of respectability, I am sure she is a manipulative bully who knows exactly which of his buttons to push, provoking such behaviour and no doubt enjoying every moment of it judging from her self-satisfied smiles during the case. Of course, her clips conveniently never include the lead-ups to the incidents she recorded 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: as is truck fail: And so the parade of idiots buying an "as is" car without getting it checked beforehand and then whining when things go bad continues. This time however, instead of the usual young female snowflake trying to argue her girl-brain was taken advantage of because it cannot handle such complicated stuff as contracts and how a car really works, we get a grown-up male dumbass. Edited April 17, 2019 by Florinaldo 1 Link to comment
AngelaHunter April 17, 2019 Share April 17, 2019 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: Neighbor feud: Ah, just another lovely day in Mr.Roger's Sec8 Neighbourhood. It's so generous of Byrd to pay the rent for these folks, leaving them with plenty of leisure time to annoy, harass, complain, bitch and do battle with and film each other in their nasty, vile activities. "Hundreds of videos"? Who the hell has time for that? Plaintiff, obviously. Plaintiff wants money for all this name-calling and vulgar gestures by the nasty old man. Gee, if I had gotten paid every time someone said something I didn't like or made an obscene gesture to me I'd be rich. Anyway, JM ascertains plaintiff is only there to "be heard". Isn't that what people go to therapists for? JJ would have told her to call Dr. Phil. Oh, but people don't get any cash windfalls for going to therapy. I call total BS on plaintiff living in her car with three dogs. Wherever she went to get dressed up, made up, bejeweled and coiffed for this show would surely let her stay for a while. 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: electrician damaged homeowner's AC: I guess plaintiff was hard up when she decided to date the def. He's a nasty character, who stands there with a smirk on his moon face when he's asked if he squealed on plaintiff for the work being done in this condo. Plaintiff is an intelligent, mature person who states in the hall that she's learned she needs permits to get construction done. Don't play cute with us. You knew damned well you needed permits, but figured you'd get the work done more cheaply without any, by your former dickheaded loverboy. 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: as is truck fail: p bought used truck, and shortly after the engine goes out Again? Plaintiff is a dull-eyed moron with a newly shaved dome who buys a 16-year-old truck (we continue with a perfect record for no one fighting over a vehicle less than 15 years old) with 162,000 miles on it. He trusts def, a little gremlin character who is so successful that at his age he still needs roommates, and who brought a contingent of huge but useless mall Santas with him for "moral support." Of course, plaintiff never dreamed of taking the old heap to a mechanic prior to purchase - didn't want to spend the 100$ I guess - and has not done so until this very day. He diagnosed the problem himself, and he claims his contract with the def does not specify "as is." He should get his money back, right, plus more money for all kinds of things, like lost wages, etc, etc? Wrong. Go fix that old beater yourself. The sad part is that he learned nothing from this. 3 Link to comment
SRTouch April 18, 2019 Share April 18, 2019 Oh my, yawn fest nonsense today where decision could be announced with intro - hour long show, minus all the commercials and time I was zipping with FF, probably watched less than 30 minutes Phone family plan nonsense: yet another long time friendship bites the dust when they decide to share a friends and family phone plan. Plaintiff put 30 year like-family friend on their plan - no doubt opting for latest in fancy smart phone - now friendship in crapper and they no longer talk - suing for $1508.47... defendant: says bestie "insisted" she go on the plan - says P had Spyware installed on phone so that P could track her every move - big kerfuffle when she found the tracking program, she refuses to pay for phone or continue on plan, especially as P has been bad mouthing her to anyone in earshot - she has countersuit for 3 grand for slander and emotional distress..... I'm with JJ about hating cell phone cases, not only because they're always messy with convoluted contracts that even the judges sometimes can't dechiper, but there's a 99.999% chance that MM will be putting on her counseling hat and trying to get everybody to kiss and makeup - also about 85% chance I'll hit FF and zip through half the case.... testimony: isn't long before P starts the mudslinging, right out the gate she's telling the national tv audience about D and her married bf.... ok, almost immediately I'm thinking Weezer from the Jeffersons with bad teeth.... P starts in about D's married bf and how D wanted off her old phone plan (not her own plan, but somebody else's - which should have been a red flag for P to consider before adding D to her plan).... nah, I'm already reaching for remote - zip zip - something about good friend D putting a notebook on P's bill - yawn - zip zip - couple months later D decides to jump ship and get her own plan, thinking new company will pay all the cancellation/termination fees - yep, sure nuf they eventually paid, but it took months and all that time P is racking up late charges and it's messing up her services - ok, D isn't concerned enough to cover her portion until her new company pays up, P upset and decides she's not paying anything, not even her own portion of bill, P's company shuts off her service after receiving nothing for a couple months..... Yada yada yada, and of course phone contract and bills so complex nobody understands what's going on, but whatever it is must be the other side's fault.... MM is getting paid to explain the bill (all this apparently is news to P), but I have my handy dandy button and zip ahead - not even sure D owes anything, have to wait and see how much of the $1500 resulted from D's portion after her new company finally paid up and what was on P for stopping paying her portion, which resulted in another cancellation fee and additional charges being tacked on having nothing to do with D.... ok, when I start listening again they're into the slander countersuit - more nonsense from both sides, D says slander occurred on FB, but doesn't have any of the posts - D has some handwritten witness nonsense MM can't read - P saying she never sends posts to the witness, but she has text exchanges with witness on her phone but they don't count, do they? Ok, nuf already zip zip everything dismissed, nobody gets anything - sage advice in hallterview from P, never do nobody no favor - never no more yet another as-is veeHICkle buy: uh huh, yeppers, same old story with only slightly different script - course P wants 5 grand.... defendant: well, this is different - seller admits he guaranteed the '06 pickup - well he guaranteed it was running and would pass inspection - ok, truck passed inspection and buyer used it for 2 months before P decided to try to unwind sale because frame had rust..... testimony: little different in that this wasn't private party sale, but a used car lot (probably reason there was a guarantee) - yep, par for course, P tells us he has a warranty, just doesn't have it with him..... yawn...... D provides a copy, but what he passes up is a multiple choice form with different options, none of which are marked - ok, guess D's saying that by law a used car lot has to warranty certain things depending on age and miles, and this vehicle had the minimum warranty, basically it was safe and would pass safety inspection.... P says thought he had a 90 day warranty, brought car back several times with problems, but isn't too sure how many times or when he brought truck back - ok, says check engine light kept coming on, transmission wonky, bad front end, etc etc.... unless this state (Massachusetts) really babies consumers dude not making much of a case - guess it will come down to what exactly the law requires to be covered by warranty in a 13 yo vehicle with 130,000+ miles.... anyway, sort of yawn fest and I foresee some zipping in the near future.... P not providing any evidence, so far all the paperwork provided by D, and none of it helps P's case - especially when MM has P verify his signature on the bill of sale and points out that it clearly says vehicle sold with no warranty..... ok, case over, but only at 34 minutes so more yakity yak - ok, D admits check engine light came on as P was picking up truck, and agreed to sort out the problem, so even though there was no warranty on paper he may be on hook as far as that problem goes (though JJ may be yelling "4 corners" or nada).... well, D sounds like he was working with guy - he was working to correct problem, providing loaner car and doing the work free of charge, truck eventually passes inspection as per the guarantee... sounds to me like he's off the hook - still nada about rusty frame mentioned in intro.... ahhhhh but maybe there's a switcheroo coming - in their state deal would be voided if vehicle doesn't pass inspection, and when D took it to be inspected during one of the times he had truck in for repairs, and P says without his consent - kind of important distinction here because, as D already testified, vehicle has to be driven so many miles after engine light is reset before it will come back on - so you can fool the inspector by resetting the sensor and getting it inspected before light comes back on.... surprise! P may actually have a case - of only he had evidence - sounds like he could have gotten his money refunded if he had only taken the truck to be inspected and it had failed - but if I understand things, he doesn't want the deal undone (course not, time limit on money back guarantee expired - he paid $8500, so if deal is undone now he's still out money and would have to return truck) - no he wants 5 grand to fix the truck and something extra for his wasted time.... ah, finally we get to rust - see, judge, I have pictures of rust on frame of a 13 yo 4 wheel drive truck, oh, and just trust me it also has bad tranny, bad front end, etc which I have no evidence of - really, trust me judge!.... ok, yakity yak - case dismissed tenant suing for refund on illegal apartment: yet another case decided before testimony begins - tenant in case given boot from apartment by Housing Department because apartment is not permited and now he wants the rent refunded for the 9 months he lived there - nope, not happening, landlord can't collect any more rent, but doesn't have to refund rent already collected..... didn't watch this one after I heard plaintiff's intro, just zipped ahead to decision - may go back to watch later, as hallterview actually brings up a couple unusual twists (tenant had no kitchen or bathroom, but says he's in construction so "he knows how to make things work" and landlady sounds pretty shady, knew she had tenants living there illegally, but tells Doug she has a lawyer and if city comes after her she'll argue she only rented rooms for storage - uh, but lady, you just told the nation you knew your tenants were living there illegally 4 Link to comment
zillabreeze April 18, 2019 Share April 18, 2019 (edited) I don't get the cell phone thing. I don't know anyone stupid enough to ask me to get involved in their phone issues. But, if someone did, it's damn simple: buy an unlocked used phone and pay your damn bill upfront, in cash every month. It's called prepaid. You can find everything you need right there in the store next to the bail bondsman. We know you know where that is! I was in heaven with Baby Jane the landlord. The cast of characters is why I watch my court shows. And eeewww, us Hoarder watchers know damn well what was going on with the lack of plumbing! Edited April 18, 2019 by zillabreeze 4 Link to comment
AngelaHunter April 18, 2019 Share April 18, 2019 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: Phone family plan nonsense: I don't understand why JM let these litigants rant and rave incoherently about incredibly nasty Springer crap and being pissed and married boyfriends and bigamy and blah blah blah. What is one to do if one's married boyfriend runs off with his wife? Why, you need a brand-new expensive cell phone, even though you can't get your own plan because you have no credit. That always mends a broken heart. I guess she never heard of blocking numbers. No, if you get unwanted calls, just get a new phone! I love how no one ever brings any evidence that might reveal their lies. The only person who cares about this nonsense is Levin, jonesing outside with his NitWit Posse. He got so excited about this sordid mess he even undid another button on his shirt to reveal yet more of his baked-chicken skin. Eww. 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: yet another as-is veeHICkle buy: uh huh, yeppers, same old story with only slightly different script - course P wants 5 grand... I swear I could recap these in my sleep. Another dim-witted plaintiff who thinks he's a special snowflake and should get all his money back because the 13-year-old vehicle with 131,000 miles he bought has problems down the road. But he had a 90-day warranty! JM wants to see it, but well, he didn't bring that with him TODAY. He figures JM will just take his word for it, as she's supposed to believe him that the heap has transmission problems. He didn't bring that evidence with him either. He never took the car to be inspected. He couldn't because it might not pass! Isn't that the whole point? Oh. Def was more than generous to this lamebrain, fixing the thing and giving him a loaner car - none of which he had to do. Go home and cry to Momma, little man. She's the only one who will care about your distress and angst. 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: tenant suing for refund on illegal apartment: JM gets an A+ for her deciphering skills. Mine seems to be getting worse because what I heard from the plaintiff, in his distinctive bulldog shirt was: "I was livin' in an antyshanty... it was attached to a divulgence in the back and the garage plus the anty I was livin' in and...." I couldn't be bothered going back and putting my CC on. He lived there for nearly a year, and now wants back every cent he paid, since city authorities gave him the heave-ho and he had no idea that living in someone's garage/shanty/anty is illegal, with no plumbing or any amenities. Doug in the hall asked about the no bathroom thing, and the answer was, as SRTouch mentioned, that he's in construction so he don't need no stinkin' bathroom. I am so thankful Doug didn't ask for details. Triple "Eww!" Gross. Landlord is a horror-movie character, very scary looking, who gets away with letting people live in her garage or shanty or whatever, pretends she doesn't know about the crowd bunking there, and she's charging 500$/month for it. Really, she could be in a frightening fairy tale or horror movies (like "Pan's Labyrinth")and make a lot more money. 21 minutes ago, zillabreeze said: buy an unlocked used phone and pay your damn bill upfront, in cash every month. It's called prepaid. Oh, please! Do you think our litigants are going to make do with something like that? They want and deserve only the best, well, as long as someone else pays for it. 3 2 Link to comment
VartanFan April 19, 2019 Share April 19, 2019 (edited) All I know is that the plaintiff in the tires/rims case (going to Quinzy) is terrifying. He should have just paid her back. He's a scumball. And the mildew/broker's fee case was very visually interesting. Defendant was a scumbag but he also had this interesting, too-tight, velvet jacket, unbuttoned shirt, and MC Hammer glasses. Just...a bunch of stuff going on there with his outfit. I'm glad the renter got all of her money back (instead of making her try to get the other 1200 from the landlord of the property)....although a little less um, precision with her eyebrows would be good. Edited April 19, 2019 by VartanFan 1 2 Link to comment
SRTouch April 19, 2019 Share April 19, 2019 (edited) fancy rim ebay scam: P claims she gave $728 to some shirttail relative of her fiancé to pay for rims - dude has series of excuses for why he never gave her the rims, and she wants her money back.... defendant: admits she paid him, says he ordered the rims and told P delivery would take 3-4 weeks - says two weeks later P wanted to cancel the order, and flipped out when told there would be restocking and cancellation fees - sooooo, she has no rims and he still has all her money..... testimony: ahhhh, bit of inflation in the damage claim, seems P has tacked on a couple hundred bucks to what she gave D because, well guess wasted time or pain and suffering or whatever nonsense.... JJ would love how P relates the conversation when she ordered the rims - me, not so much, despite JJ always wanting a word by word recollection of a conversation, I always think it sounds made up when talking about some conversation that took place months earlier.... ok, rims were supposed to cost $580, and P says D was going to charge her additional hundred to balance/mount rims - after getting the quote, P gets money order from bank and gives it to D next day.... ahhhh, D's mom owns auto shop, so transaction makes more sense.... P thinks D ordering rims through mom's shop, especially as D asks her to bring money order to the shop, has no idea D actually planning to buy rims off eBay.... MM shifts to defendant and asks where are the rims - he tells us he never actually ordered the rims - some nonsense about how, after P gave him the $580 money order, he discovers there's a whopping $200 shipping charge..... huh? I just took moment to Google "car rims online" and got a list of places with free shipping...... ok, what he's testifying now is different than intro claimed - she wanted to cancel a couple weeks after he placed order - now, forget cancellation/restocking fees, he never ordered rims because she backed out when he told her about the shipping fee..... uh, not making sense to me, if he didn't order the rims what did he do with the money - and if he told her he was ordering online from eBay I don't get why she made a trip to the bank for a money order.... not making sense to MM, either, so she quizzes D trying to figure it out, and making less sense more D talks.... screwed up/inaccurate intro may not be intro clown's fault this time - this joker's testimony all over the place and I'm lost.... D now saying P got money order for the eBay purchase - but that order was nixed when they learn about the shipping charge - so, D takes P to his friend in the auto accessory business who orders the rims - then P backs out of THAT order, which is where the restock/cancelation fee comes in..... doesn't explain why he has her $580 and she has no rims - wait, now his testimony is she gave him a $580 money order, he cashed it and immediately handed her back the $580 in cash?..... whoa, watch P histrionics while she listens to D making up this nonsense as he goes - got to hand it to her, at least she isn't shouting out.... MM recognizes that entertainment value of dufus D wearing out, so she wants some type of evidence - uh oh, MM asked P a question as P about to explode... stand back everybody, way she's waving her hands she might take someone out with those talons/nails.... when case started I noted to myself P's pale complexion - now she's turning red as she talks about having to contact police to track D down through several addresses, and how he told cops the name of the "friend in the auto accessory business" and how the 'friend' said he hadn't heard from D in years..... ok, again, does D have anything from either ebay or the 'friend' showing an order was every placed?.... no, he says, he doesn't have anything because everything was done in P's name, so she has the paperwork - but, says MM, the order was placed with your friend, so surely your friend could verify the order if we take a recess, should we take a recess? - oh my, now it's dufus getting red faced as he replies, if you want, I could call.... after commercial break we get epic ''gotcha" when MM asks rim scammer D about his call and D starts explaining how they couldn't find the order without P's name and phone number - nope, says MM, after D goes through a long involved story about his phonecall, I called and even with P's info the store has no record of the rims being ordered..... oops.... guess MM knows this show is over, she ends case early and awards the $580 but not the extra $200 for lost wages.... and love Doug when he greets D with "everything you said turned out to be a lie" tenant wants out of lease and return of money: P says after moving in she discover plumbing clogged, drains back up, place stinks and a mold garden - wants $2400.... defendant: agrees there was a problem when P moved in, but says after landlord fixed plumbing P decided she wanted out of lease.... have to see how long it took for landlord to fix problem, or if problem was ever even fixed, before deciding if P has cause to break lease and get refund... testimony: ha, something different here - D in case not the landlord but claims to be a broker P paid to find her the apartment.... hmmmm, never used a broker myself, but aren't they licensed/bonded and working for the person looking for an apartment - disliking D from beginning as he comes in with yellow jacket and unbuttoned white shirt.... would have loved for MM to tell him to finish getting dressed because starting case - oh yeah, and don't really care for way he answers MM's when she asks if he's a licensed broker - no, he's not, he's an office manager working for a broker..... wonder if his witness is the licensed broker he was working under - nope morale support.... seems when P asked who the landlord/owner of apartment was P told her she didn't need to know, as he was the broker - when MM asks turns out D not so much working under a broker, but working for property management company.... not sure if he said he worked under a broker earlier, or just didn't correct/answer MM when she asked, but she's still operating under impression he works under a broker and says she's never heard of a broker refusing to name the property owner - now D getting quite of lippy, MM asks if he's the owner, he says no, when she asks who is he answers it a matter of public record..... ok, young recent nursing school graduate getting her first place on her own, just hope she learned to avoid this type of 'broker' next time - but oh my this first time she comes across like the idjits buying as-is veeHICkles with engine light on.... girl testifies that she was shopping for her first apartment alone, and when she noticed the funky mildew stink she accepted D's assurance that that was just fresh paint smell - huh, she's 24yo and can't tell the difference? Yep, that's her testimony, even when MM asks if she's never smelled fresh paint..... uh oh, our recent college/nursing school graduate just admitted she handed over money ($1200 each for broker fee, first month rent and deposit) before going over the contract - she got the keys when she paid, but was going to wait until after the weekend before going over and signing the contract..... so, she has the keys (but no contract) - but when she brings in family to show them her new place..... have to stop and laugh here remembering my mom with the nose of a bloodhound - I can just imagine my mom stopping at the closed door and announcing it smells like dirty gym socks - anyway, her stepmom knew right away that funky smell was not paint, declares this place has flooded - P calls D and asks if that 'fresh paint smell' is actually from water damage and D admits yes, there was a flood and water damage, but we just painted - this was when P decided she didn't want the apartment..... sooooo, no contract I would say D keeps nothing, according to his intro he acknowledges place wasn't ready for occupancy when promised so he was in breach, she never moved in, and his claim for broker fee seems mighty flimsy because sounds more like he was working as property manager and not a broker..... when MM asks him, he admits there was a flood, but when she asks when he tries to steamroll her with a bunch of fast talk instead of answering.... I'm tired of this one, but unfortunately first case ended 5 minutes early and they're filling that time with this case - and there's 10 minutes left - oh well, zippity zip zip then nonsense that sounds more like a scam about grants than anything else, but I'm not interested enough to rewind - MM has a good line when she stood and announces defendant's whole defense smells - P gets want she asked for failure to pay: P says Defendant has yet to pay for Halloween party/event tickets - says D went to party, had good time, but has yet to pay the $180.... defendant: says she's written checks twice for the event (which was way back in '14) and refuses to write another check just because P says the first two were not cashed..... sounds like waste of time nonsense case and all D needs to do is show that the checks were cashed - not just written..... testimony: ah, what was it, maybe an American Legion/Auxiliary that had a big kerfuffle case - anyway, this is another case where members of the older generations, back when folks actually joined Lodges and service organizations like the Legion and VFW and the grumpy old folks get into it and get into a long feud - these folks actually belong to some yacht club non profit organization which teaches safe boating.... ah, this case seems more like a lark where these folks aren't really serious and their organization is going to get some extra money.... defendants laugh trying to remember what costumes they wore to the party way back when (memory not helped by fact that it was an open bar).... anyway, no real dispute that checks were written and given to treasurer, problem is that treasurer misplaced them and two years pass before they're found - oh my, and not just D checks, but lots of other members' checks were stuffed in a folder and not deposited - when treasurer finally realizes he has a folder of checks which were never deposited - yep, everybody laughs, defendants write duplicate/replacement check - then absent minded treasurer does it again, puts folder of checks aside and forgets to deposit them.... oh, and treasurer who repeatedly misplaced these checks remained treasuer until just recently.... defendants fed up, they wrote the check, replaced it a couple years later, and are now told they need to replace the replacement check..... they're understandably miffed, and ask for a copy of the check the treasurer just recently discovered in a folder, annnddddd, treasuer forgets to provide the copy (or maybe lost it again), D really fed up and refuses to write another check - club president starts sending angry demands that they pay for the third time, now it's the principle of the thing, both sides have their backs up and are digging in and aren't about to give in..... for a second I wondered about statute of limitations running out since check originally written back in 2014, but I guess defendant reset the clock when they wrote the second check, and besides they acknowledge today that the second check was not deposited so they haven't paid for the tickets they used).... oh, hold on, I zipped ahead and missed that they actually wrote three checks that were never deposited and are now being given asked for a fourth check.... ok, even more frustrating, but since they admits none of the checks were cashed they owe the money - oh, and D are no longer members of the organization - they quit 2 years ago after being accused of not writing the second check only for treasurer to eventually find check stuck away - MM says what I was thinking, after treasuer lost first check I would have paid in cash and demanded a receipt.... ok, nuf, they owe, and are told to pay up Edited April 19, 2019 by SRTouch 4 Link to comment
AngelaHunter April 19, 2019 Share April 19, 2019 21 minutes ago, SRTouch said: fancy rim ebay scam: Is this the first time we've seen a woman in love with RIMS? Anyway, that's her prerogative. She's pretty rough and tough, and the pansy-assed, hobbity def - who is very lucky his Momma owns a business and will pay him a salary because no one else would not even as an "associate" in a dollar store - should have been a bit frightened. What a lying, ball-less little shitass, and of course he has a woman who wants to marry him. Plaintiff needs to rethink those 2" long fake, aqua talons. Not so attractive. 26 minutes ago, SRTouch said: tenant wants out of lease and return of money: How nice of the def. to take time out of what seems to be - judging from appearance and affect - his other job as a pimp. The gold velvet jacket, black satin lapels, overdone aviator glasses, sparkly bling and shirt unbuttoned halfway to his navel? Yes, very nice. His witness, the slow-thinking Mr. GQ, was not so helpful. I really wish JM had told the def to button up his frickin' shirt. No one wanted to view that expanse of flesh, especially me as I was eating dinner. If he thought a glimpse of his skin would send JM into a tizzy of excitement and make her overlook what a sleazy character he is, he was sadly very wrong. Oh, he's just SO generous he returned the security deposit on a place plaintiff never moved into. What a guy! Plaintiff? I was so excited to hear testimony from someone who graduated nursing school, but then you let me down with your "I seen", something that grates on my nerves terribly. The best part came in the hall when the def informs Doug how wrong JM was to rule against him, and he "hopes" she'll be "enlightened" and "be able to sleep with herself after she rendered such a poor decision." I guess she'll just have to learn to live with it. 35 minutes ago, SRTouch said: failure to pay: OMG, was plaintiff an annoying asshole, or what? Defs have to pay THREE times for some stupid party they attended five years ago. They had to keep sending checks because the treasurer of this charitable organization is a total incompetent idiot who keeps shoving payments into some drawer and forgetting about them and is allowed to keep doing so. Plaintiff has the unmitigated gall to send defs a letter, basically accusing them of being deadbeats and now telling them they not only have to pay again,(or else!) but also pay for his parking, etc. JM was way too easy on him because of course, he's elderly, so nothing he does can really be nasty or malicious. He deserved a tongue-lashing. The pedantic old fart is still righteous in the hallway with Doug. 4 Link to comment
zillabreeze April 19, 2019 Share April 19, 2019 1 hour ago, VartanFan said: And the mildew/broker's fee case was very visually interesting. Defendant was a scumbag but he also had this interesting, too-tight, velvet jacket, unbuttoned shirt, and MC Hammer glasses. Just...a bunch of stuff going on there with his outfit Hee hee! I was cracking up over the defendants attire! I imagined that some movie museum just realized the Saturday Night Fever exhibit was missing Travolta's costume. 4 Link to comment
ItsHelloPattiagain April 19, 2019 Share April 19, 2019 Quote The best part came in the hall when the def informs Doug how wrong JM was to rule against him, and he "hopes" she'll be "enlightened" and "be able to sleep with herself after she rendered such a poor decision." I guess she'll just have to learn to live with it. Oh that guy looked like he dressed with a pile of junk from a second hand store (sings "I'mma gonna pop some tags, only got $20 in my pocket") What's up with the old tux jacket? And the weird glasses (I'm guessing they had clear lenses). Showing his chest was supposed to hypnotize Judge Marilyn? Ugh, he was such a scammah. 4 2 Link to comment
SRTouch April 22, 2019 Share April 22, 2019 (edited) something different in first case, MM actually awards punitive damages against a crooked (pretend) contractor..... second case a disappointment with a combined total of 5 grand being sought ($2500 each) and $12.99 being awarded.... #3 a yawner, case open and shut as seller clearly did not deliver everything in contract - question is the value of missing items - heck, buyer says washer/dryer was 2yo and seller says 6-8 - oh well, a short case bad contractor case: plaintiffs claims they hired defendant, a roofing contractor, to fix their roof - paid him money for materials, but job was never done, and now the roof in even worse shape - want 5 grand - $1200 that they paid as downpayment, the rest for additional damages to house because he failed to do work.... defendant: says P knew he was doing this as a side job, so he'd only be able to work weekends when not on his regular job (the job with an actual licensed roofing contractor) - admits he received partial payment, but feels entitled to keep the money because he was ready and able to do the work (when he got around to it).... sounds like a couple questions need to be answered: 1) did D use the money to buy any materials for the job 2) how long did P wait after handing over money before they filed the lawsuit (D says they didn't give him a chance to start the job) 3) did P really know this was a side job like D claims - sort of sounds like it may be case of cheap turning expensive.... testimony: D referred to P through a friend, and apparently represented himself as working through his day job for the regular contractor - came and made an estimate - even provided a written contract (D using printed estimate/contracts from regular job with his boss' info) - when D makes the estimate he tells them work needs to be done right away (had that right, as predicted rain came and ceilings collapsed do to leaking) - P testifies contract signed and downpayment made Columbus Day holiday weekend, material supposed to be purchased the next Tuesday and work to start Thursday - P hubby waited all day Thursday, but D was no call/no show - when they called, he made excuses and then stopped answering, eventually changed phone numbers to dodge them - oh, and weeks go by after D received the money, the rains came, ceiling collapsing inside, and worse of all D doesn't even bring a tarp over to keep rain out.... ok, P hubby comes up to help wife talk - she was doing fine and hubby has bad stuttering problem, so MM ends up acting like a translator and repeating everything he says to be sure she has it right..... D says boss knew he was using the boss' form for his side jobs and that he still has his job..... doesn't sound reasonable to me, especially as P contacted the State Attorney has copy of State Attorney letter asking boss WTH - but wondering if D still has the job because he was giving boss a cut and now is willing to accept all the blame - nah, that doesn't sound right, wouldn't boss make more if job was done legitimately under the company? Not sure, might depend on whether overhead like permits, insurance, etc was skipped when done on the side..... going back to the exchange from the boss and the State Attorney, in boss' answer to State Attorney's enquiry, boss' writes that D 'stole' the paperwork..... which has MM (and me) puzzled as to why D still has the job, and when MM quizzes him on this the D turns off his ears and starts running his mouth and interrupting MM as she asks questions (and in process shows us his train wreck called a smile).... D says he never dodged P, that he was upfront and told them he was swamped but would get to them as soon as he could, even presents a video where he apologizes for the delay and promises to be there as soon as he can make it.... problem is video is three weeks after he was supposed to do job, and in that period P's home has been damaged by rain.... ok, no question D has to return either the downpayment or the equivalent in material (I want to see a receipt if he has one to see if materials purchased under his name on the company tab)..... question is do P get money for additional water damage - they say it never leaked before D made the estimate which is hard to believe unless he ripped up shingles to see if roof deck needed repairs.... huh? I thought the video was being introduced by D, but can't imagine how he thinks it helps his defense - video taken 3 weeks after job was to be started, P repeatedly saying he wants his money back - D says he can do the job in 1 day and promises to be there Thursday, but when asked says instead of doing the job on Thursday as promised he went out of town to do another job (that job was on the clock or just paid more).... ok, case winding down, and MM takes time to give D a hard time before slapping him with big award - though not the 5 grand they want - they get nothing for the additional water damage, but MM doubles the amount of the deposit as punitive damages.... though P also receives some legal advice to go after the boss so maybe D will get fired.... lost pictures: p says he left disposable camera with D to get pictures of deceased grandma developed, but D lost the camera - suing for $2500 - $1000 worth of pain and suffering and $1500 in list wages and travel fees..... defendant: says P's receipt not from his shop, so P didn't leave camera with at his shop - he wants $2500 for aggravation..... ok, did I hear granny died 15 years ago? who hangs onto a disposable camera for 15 years and then experts to be awarded 2500 bucks - next, not really a question I expect answered, but P's 'pain and suffering' and D's 'aggravation' - anyway, D denies ever receiving the camera, so first thing P needs to do is verify the claim ticket came from D's shop..... testimony: MM barely keeps from laughing as she tells us about P's $2500 claim..... ok, even worse than intro said - P actually suing over a disposable camera with pictures he claims were taken in '97, so 21-22 years instead of 15.... going out on a limb here and going to says D right when he says P running a scam and trying to get paid for nothing..... supposedly, for past 21 years the camera has been in P's mom's storage unit because she was moving from place to place - hmmmmm quick question for defendant and seems P has changed claim of what was on the phantom camera - so, MM has P look at the receipt, ah, this receipt IS from D's shop, not the one he claims P tried to redeem back in September - MM asks if there's a way to get the date of this receipt, D says no, so guess his shop still using hand written receipt pads and not computerized - more D talks more I'm wondering if he's even remembering the right customer - says P came in with receipt from some other shop, he made a copy and looked anyway, couldn't find anything with that claim number, P came back after two months and D told him he couldn't find anything, months have gone by, he no longer has the copy of the first claim ticket...... ok, best case scenario, P really did leave the 21yo camera with D, how would MM assign a value because his $2500 claim is ludicrous - anyway, not finding either side all that entertaining...... MM ready to talk about their claims, and to me D has the better claim even if his amount is just an echo of P's amount - D is a one man shop, so he had to close his business down to answer the claim - rough justice: MM explains law would only word value of the camera plus any money paid for developing pictures, so what would a 21 year disposable camera be worth - also, as the business D should have better way records and it hurts his defense that he can't say how old claim ticket is, whose it belonged to, or if it has been redeemed in the 3 months interval - end result, D gets nothing because of lousy recordkeeping, P gets value of camera, which MM says is $12.99 wonky house purchase: p says when he purchased house the water and dryer were to be included, but at final walk through before closing they were gone - says seller promised to deduct the cost after closing, but never has - suing for the $1650 he says they're worth.... defendant: admits she told P she was leaving behind the washer and dryer, but that she never charged anything for them - says maybe the handyman took them, she doesn't know, she wants $300 for lost wages for having to answer the charges.... unless P has something in writing he's spinning his wheels, and even if he does they'd need to be high end appliances to get what he wants for used machines..... testimony: right out of the gate P wins his case as the contract for the house purchase tells us washer and dryer were to remain - so, does P get replacement cost or just depreciated value - also, P knew before the closing the 6-8yo appliances had been removed - at closing P says D offered $600, he countered with $1200 (says new like models run $2000) - says he was advised to go ahead and close since he had already closed on his old house and needed place to move into, then sue in small claims for the value..... sounds like poor advise by a lazy agent/representative..... ok, at most I expect MM to cap the value at the $1200 he was willing to accept, and the least the $600 D offered, but D has to pay something because they were taken before closing and contract clearly said they were part of sale..... ok, P tacking money to make up for other things he thinks seller got over on him, but now admitting his brand new replacement machines only cost $1600 - rough justice: MM points out P can't dispute age of machines, and $600 not out of line if D is right about them being 6-8yo, yep, MM goes with $600 figure and nothing for D on her lost wages Edited April 22, 2019 by SRTouch 2 Link to comment
AngelaHunter April 22, 2019 Share April 22, 2019 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: bad contractor case: plaintiffs claims they hired defendant, a roofing contractor, to fix their roof Crooks always wonder why they get caught. It's because they're dumb, for the most part, and this def. is no exception. He steals a contract from his employers, adds his name to the header and is too stupid to erase the company name. "That was my mistake," he says. Then he figures he'll take the plaintiffs for whatever he can get from them, maybe because he thinks they're old and stupid and disabled (I think maybe hubby is deaf?) and won't do anything about his scamming them. He had no intention at all of ever fixing their roof. What a despicable POS he is and on top of that, he's missing a bunch of teeth. Eww. Oh, he couldn't do the roof because it was raining. He didn't bother putting up a tarp because it was sunny! He had to "leave town" as there was a roofing emergency in Plattsburg - as if plaintiffs didn't have a roofing emergency where it looked like their entire ceiling was going to collapse. So disgusted with the asshole, obsequious def. was JM she doubled the plaintiffs' recovery. I was glad to see real justice. It's too bad the creep def got to keep the 1200$ he scammed from plaintiffs. Why he hasn't been fired is a mystery. 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: lost pictures: Another tiny little petty scammer. He knows exactly which pictures were on that camera. They were taken at a specific affair and are the last pics he has of his Nan. So important were they that his Mom threw them in a drawer somewhere and left them for 21 years. Def. lost the camera, which caused plaintiff so much pain and suffering he wants a big boe-nanza of 2500$. I can just picture him after he realized the priceless photos were gone, rubbing his hands together at the thought of the windfall he was going to get. He gets 12.99$. 🤣 I found some undeveloped film in a drawer a few years ago. Strangely, I had zero idea of what was on them. Plaintiff's memory is truly remarkable. 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: wonky house purchase: What a waste of time. Hipster-ish, whiny plaintiff wants a lot of money for an old washer/dryer that was supposed to come with the house he purchased. How old were they? Two years old, or six or eight. Who knows? Something like that, but he wants 1200$. He gets exactly what was offered to start - 600$ so he went through all this BS for exactly nothing. 2 Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.