Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER
Lillybee

The People's Court

Recommended Posts

25 minutes ago, meowmommy said:

I don't know why the car friends kept the car in the defendant's name while the plaintiff was making payments.

That's what everyone on this show does! Sell the car for payments, but keep it in your name so if the buyer smashes it up, collects tons of tickets or runs someone down and kills them (or hits a bus load of nuns as JM often says although I'm not sure why it's worse to hit nuns than anyone else but I digress) and you can be responsible for all that. Maybe some people like to live on the edge that way, never knowing when the cops will come a-knocking, but I'm sure not one of them.

30 minutes ago, meowmommy said:

I don't understand this, as the plaintiff said she wants the car back.  Seems like the way to make it whole is to have the plaintiff make up the missing payments and get the car back.

I could be mistaken but I think JM said something about not wanting them to have any dealings anymore. I'm not sure why or why she couldn't suggest someone else pick up the car for the plaintiff. We've seen that many times and as far as the run-of-the-mill litigant goes they didn't seem particularly violent.

Share this post


Link to post

57 minutes ago, meowmommy said:

DD just walked in, saw MM, and asked, "Is it a new season?  I like her hair."

As a minority, I agree, I think it looks nice.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, meowmommy said:

A lot cheaper than losing your $57/hr job!

That really raised my BS radar, especially if as an employee it included benefits.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
16 hours ago, patty1h said:

The character was Mrs. Wiggins, but her boss pronounced it Hawiggins. 

Actually, she was more like Cher's "Laverne". Start at 0:42

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, meowmommy said:

I don't believe a word that came out of that woman's mouth, but let's assume she's right and she lost her job because of the terrible landlord who creeped her out so much that she walked out on the only room for rent in Palo Alto.  How about a weekly commute, babe?  Drive down from Sacramento early Monday morning, stay in a hotel and check out on Friday, and go back home on Friday night.  A lot cheaper than losing your $57/hr job!

Yep, I joked Tom Bodett & Motel 6 in the recap, but it's not a bad idea. I believe P mentioned no public transportation from her home in Sacramento, and she mentioned calling Lyft, so I suspect no car.

Having nothing better to do on a Saturday morning,  I played around with Google and 'researched' extended stay hotels near Sanford (P first person I heard who referred to looking for rooms on CL as research) - there are several within a few miles. Heck, even came up with 3 Airbnb rooms within 3 miles of main campus worth checking into - priced as low as $44 a night with discounts for extended stay (problem for P may be all no smoking)..... Cheapest rate I see for extended stay hotel starts at $40 - but that one is 12 miles from campus, but still comes with breakfast, pool, spa, tennis court etc etc (also lowest ratings, but then it's half the price of the top rated hotels)

Other thing I got to thinking about is her smoking on campus. We heard she was going to work in some health care capacity - knowing some colleges and/or government facilities get pretty strict about smoking, I researched smoking on campus. Actually, Stanford has multiple satellite campuses, but if she were working on the campus with the hospital and school of Medicine, she'd find herself on a Tobacco free campus

11 hours ago, meowmommy said:

DD just walked in, saw MM, and asked, "Is it a new season?  I like her hair."

Yeah, kind of a shocker at first, but I kind of like the new do...... 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

Actually, Stanford has multiple satellite campuses, but if she were working on the campus with the hospital and school of Medicine, she'd find herself on a Tobacco free campus

Feh.  I had a co-worker who was a heavy smoker, on a "tobacco-free campus" of a medical center.  So she would walk off campus to have her smokes.  She was gone about 20 minutes each time, and she needed to smoke about every 45 minutes.  We had no one monitoring our activity, so nobody but me to notice that I was there cranking out work while she wasn't.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

5 minutes ago, meowmommy said:

Feh.  I had a co-worker who was a heavy smoker, on a "tobacco-free campus" of a medical center.  So she would walk off campus to have her smokes.  She was gone about 20 minutes each time, and she needed to smoke about every 45 minutes.  We had no one monitoring our activity, so nobody but me to notice that I was there cranking out work while she wasn't.

Yes, I've definitely noticed that smokers get more breaks than non-smokers.  But, that's the way of the world.  Certain groups of people generally get more time off than others, be it more breaks, or more time off.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Not Cementing a Relationship--aired Thursday, October 31, 2019 (title from Season 23 show schedule):  Does anybody remember/know the judge's ruling in the case of the homeowner's stone front-step replacement and the contractor?  Contractor re-did the job at least twice and warned customer/client that the amount she was willing to pay was insufficient for doing the job correctly.  The stones on each step needed to be monolithic, but that was too expensive for the customer, and the stones detached from the cement/mortar.  How did Judge Marilyn rule?  Thanks.  

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, PaulintheHeights said:

Not Cementing a Relationship--aired Thursday, October 31, 2019 (title from Season 23 show schedule):  Does anybody remember/know the judge's ruling in the case of the homeowner's stone front-step replacement and the contractor?  Contractor re-did the job at least twice and warned customer/client that the amount she was willing to pay was insufficient for doing the job correctly.  The stones on each step needed to be monolithic, but that was too expensive for the customer, and the stones detached from the cement/mortar.  How did Judge Marilyn rule?  Thanks.  

Contractor defendant had to return some of the deposit. Pretty much, the amount second guy charged, added to amount D contractor ended up being about to keep, added up to close to his original estimate. What MM let D keep was the amount she figured the stone skirting/fascia D did that was part of the final product was worth. Not so sure that was fair to original contractor..... it's plain from texts that he warned her the stone she insisted on wouldn't last, and dude did come back multiple times to try to make her choice of materials work. In the end, her final product was what D recommended and cost about what his original estimate was.... but original contractor ended up doing quite a bit of work he didn't get paid for. 

That said, I still wonder why his work failed like it did. I don't think blame rests solely with small stone size, as I have seen outdoor steps decades old made of small stones (though I agree the one piece looks and probable wears/ages better).  Only way ruling seems fair to me is if MM feels failure was because of poor workmanship. She questioned D on his mortar mix as well as how he prepped steps before laying the stone, and this is where his answers seemed condescending to me.

Edited by SRTouch
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
48 minutes ago, PaulintheHeights said:

Does anybody remember/know the judge's ruling in the case of the homeowner's stone front-step replacement and the contractor? 

Welcome, Paul.  SRTouch won't toot his own horn, but he does wonderful recaps of almost every episode.

On 10/31/2019 at 2:12 PM, SRTouch said:

yep, P gets back $500 from her $2600 claim, and D gets nada - as predicted, neither side thrilled with decision, though both accept the ruling

Edited by meowmommy
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, meowmommy said:

SRTouch won't toot his own horn, but he does wonderful recaps of almost every episode.

Yes! His recaps are second to none and save me so many keystrokes. 😄

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
On 10/27/2019 at 11:54 AM, AZChristian said:

About "cockaroach" . . . the Spanish (native tongue for JM) is "cucaracha."  Maybe that's why she uses the extra syllable.

Same with why she may say "chiminee"; she may be used to the term "chimenea."

I was surprised when I heard her say Da-VI-la when the accent should be on the first syllable, DAvila. I think this was on the burnt car case. Davila is a common Spanish surname.

Edited by Blissfool

Share this post


Link to post

  1. Almost married breakup money fight: P suing ex gf over money spent on her custody fight, phone, & car loans - wants  $4779........ course D says never a loan, it was a gift....... at a minimum, without hearing any testimony, I'd say her legal/attorney fees should be paid back - have to wait to hear the car payment and phone bill as that might be money spent as a couple or a loan..... ok, not married but together for 6-7 years and these two have a 5yo child together....... hmmmmm isn't long before I start questioning the attorney fees - seems he gave her 4 grand 3 years ago for a retainer to hire a lawyer in her ongoing custody fight for son from previous relationship - I could see that as either a loan or a gift depending on whether or not P has anything showing he was asking for repayment before the breakup - nope, no demands for payment til they breakup........ over to D who, of course, says this was never a loan, always considered as money spent as they built their life/family together, and P never asked for repayment til they broke up - dude does mention he was letting it slide until she finished school and got a job....... not looking good for P - unless he has some evidence of his treating this as a loan prior to the breakup - she even tells a story of how he proposed and bought a ring, but she told him to return the ring as it was more important to have money for the attorney...... hmmmmm, if an engagement ring is a gift which has to be returned if the couple breaks up, would attorney fees given in place of a ring fall in the same category of gift..... D tells us first time she even found out P wanted to be repaid was when she was served with the papers for this suit.... MM asks and we learn breakup happened because P grew tired of her sitting around on couch all day (probably watching court tv) and not contributing anything towards the bill or cleaning house - says when he complained she finally did start working, but instead of helping with bills she was buying herself stuff (like watches - which she hid from him)...... uh, yeah, quite the mess in the pix he shows taken when he decided to give her the boot..... ok, misheard about her finishing school before she was to start repayment - now P says she had full time job at a bank back in '13 and was contributing toward the bills - says she started working part time after 5yo was born, which quickly evolved into full time stay at home mom (anybody else hate it when somebody claims other parent is not contributing when they're taking care of the baby 24/7 - though here sounds like this stretched out far past time when mommy could have gone back to work - or at least washed a dish or two)...... ok, D was a mess, but when MM asks P can't produce anything showing he treated anything as a loan before the breakup - ah, not only that, but MM correctly picks up on P using this case as ammo in their ongoing custody fight over the 5yo - yep, even explains why she viewed his pix with suspicion, supposedly taken while they were still  together, but MM wondered 'why' P took the pix and who he planned to show them to..... does make sense if he was getting ready to give her the boot but planned to go after custody..... almost sounded like P was going to get something because P made a payment on her phone bill after the breakup - whoa, hold on, turns out D was paying the bill and both P and his parents were on her plan - the $160 odd he paid on her account was the early termination to get him and his folks off her plan - her plan but his bill.... case dismissed - P gets bukus....... in hallterview D says messy kitchen pix staged, but admits bathroom may be legit 1 she doesn't like cleaning bathrooms
  2. shady mechanic: P claims he paid D $485 to install new power steering pump, but car still didn't steer after work was done - says he took it somewhere else and charged for a --wait for it-- powering steering pump...... asking  $850..... D says he did the work, claim even P complained next day he towed car back to shop - found a leaky/defective hose, replaced hose, all at no charge, and P drove away - 2 weeks later P sued him...... case could go either way, but P will need to have something in his shoulder bag besides lunch to prove he paid a second shop - also needs something from the 2nd shop saying D didn't do the job or did it wrong..... uh oh, don'cha hate it when a business sends manager instead of someone with 1st hand knowledge - MM quickly learns guy standing alone on that side of aisle is the manager - oh well, maybe he actually did the work, even if he didn't it's up to P to prove his case..... more problems for D surface as P tells his tale of woe - in paperwork D said his shop towed car free of charge, today he says shop paid tow company P hired to bring in car, but he has no proof of payment, while P has proof from his bag he paid for tow..... oh my, now D playing the awestruck fan who watches TPC all the time and is so nervous he forgot to bring his evidence - all he has is receipts showing the shop bought replacement pump..... D getting slapped around for not bringing evidence, then it's probably saying he paid for 2nd attempt to do the repair, but he doesn't have that evidence...... ok, I'm getting bored with this one - way I see it only way P wins is if he can prove he had to go elsewhere after D shop tried and failed, and like I said in begining, he needs proof shop did something wrong (or did mothing) on his clunker with over 100,000 miles..... ah, yeah he does have receipt from 2nd shop showing they replaced the pump..... if I'm hearing right, D claims to have replaced the pump a couple times with rebuilt parts..... P says 2nd shop did repair once and hasn't had any problems since..... ok, P hit a couple bumps, but if paper he gave Douglas says what he says I think he proved his case. He gave D multiple chances to do repair, can prove he paid to have car towed multiple times, and the math doesn't sound outrageous..... Unless a switcheroo is coming I say he gets what he paid D plus the tow charges (but he needs to pay for the second shop's repair or he'd be getting the repair done free) - ah, as MM goes over his numbers she finds he isn't asking for job done for free - in fact she agrees with his numbers except for $50 he says he paid for leaky hose fix that he has no receipt for (heck, since he didn't get greedy, I'd accept his word on the 50 bucks).... hmmmmm, D has point when he says he could have sent the defective rebuilt pump back to his supplier and gotten some credit - I would have asked second shop for the defective part, but know a lot of people wouldn't and don't really have a beef with P for not doing it - MM gets what he asked for minus the 50 bucks
  3. 1st 2 were short cases, so this one almost a full half hour no show bartender: P hired D to work his event, but she canceled at last minute (well 2 days before the wing ding) - P says he had to pay premium rates for the last minute replacement and wants deposit to reimburse him what he's out - wants $1575 he says he's out...... D says reason she decided to bail on job was because of P's bad attitude..... yep sort of figured that - like previous car repair case, at most I'd make D pay the difference between what she was going to be paid and the 2nd guy got (unless, of course she was paid in advance)...... ok, D was going to be paid $1050 for the event, contract signed and everything - this was big, recurring wine tasting / cocktail event that P holds at his home a couple times a year - in past he always used same bartender, but that guy was unable to do event this time, it was just before a holiday weekend and he had trouble finding a replacement and ended up going online and found D - P sounds pretty reasonable, this was a big time business event with winemakers and booze makers coming in from all over the country, and I would understand him micromanaging this unknown bartender..... D not so understanding, she says she's been a bartender 15 years (currently part time) and felt P was condescending to point of being insulting (for over a grand for a couple hours bartending, I'd say bite your tongue and do what the guy wanted - actually, sounds like it wasn't so much P, but the distillers supplying the booze that wanted drinks made to an exact recipe (even special sized ice cubes)......  over to D, hmmmmm, she's trying to waffle by claiming she didn't know it was the suppliers making these demands, she thought it was all P micromanaging her..... not sure why that makes any difference...... MM not impressed with D, and unless something better starts coming soon I'm ready to zip ahead as we have time for almost another whole case..... ok, D was given an advance, but returned it when she quit 36 hours before the event..... worse, she quit via email and P can't even scramble for a replacement until the next morning - I figure D owes whatever premium P had to pay the last minute replacement - at one point, D changes her tune and offers to work the event, but by that time P has been scrambling for a replacement for hours and wants nothing to do with her....... ok, time to work numbers - P asking for $1575, which seems excessive if D was going to be paid a grand.... ah, replacement bartender only cost $75 more, plus P is charging almost $500 for the time he spent scrambling, plus he wants deposit to pay replacement's wages (wants a free bartender for the event) - also we learn P cut claim in half just before case started, originally he was selling over 3 grand...... he says he offered to settle for the $75 difference, but D says he never made any such offer, but he has the email making the offer - oh, she says by that point she had blocked him and never received the email...... now D trying to play that she was uncomfortable going to P's event because it was at his home...... MM grants the $75, and agrees to up the award a little for the last minute scramble - D ordered to pay $150
Edited by SRTouch
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
29 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

 no show bartender: P hired D to work his event, but she canceled at last minute

Self righteous old bartender bag with a stink attitude.  Don't tell her how to make a drink!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

Almost married breakup money fight: 

Two more idiots: We lived together for 7 years, bought a house, had a kid but marry? Hell, no. We didn't want to get that involved, but you be the Mommy and I'll be the Daddy and it will be fine. If you fools want equitable distribution, get married or get lost. Wow, that was some pigsty in that house. The person who is home all day should try to shovel up some of the mess. "I don't like cleaning bathrooms." No one does, you lazy Princess, but most of us force ourselves to do it because we don't like living in filth - which, by the way, is her choice but how dare she make a child live that way? - even if we don't like to get our dainty hands dirty.  That boyfriend was taking pics of this and showing them around before they broke up is pretty disgusting too. Poor kid, with these immature, dumbass idiots for parents.

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

shady mechanic:

I really thought this was going nowhere since plaintiff seemed only to reply to questions with non-sequiturs but he triumphed in the end and wasn't a greedy pig either, like so many who want pain and suffering compensation over a bad car part. Toothless def's defense was nothing but hearsay, so duh.

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

 no show bartender: 

Hated, hated that bitch on wheels. She's a little long in the tooth to be using the all-purpose recent excuse of, "I wasn't comfortable," which should be a good reason to crap out on a contract 36 hrs before performance is expected. I'm glad JM specifically reamed her out and mocked her on that uncomfortable shit. I too am pretty sure he didn't have designs and some diabolical plot to sexually assault her. At her age, that hag should know "The customer is always right." If he asked her to make margaritas with vodka,  put fake worms in every drink or dye all the drinks purple, the reply should be, "Okay."

What business is it of hers to say the way he wanted the drinks wasn't right? OH, but she's Ms. Health Inspector who feels for some reason using one piece of fruit to stir 3 glasses - as JM said it's not as though anyone has been sucking on the fruit - does not meet her lofty demands. So it comes down to, "You're not the boss of me!" except he was. For a few dollars, she exposed herself here as someone who might accept a job, and then just not do it if she doesn't like the tone in an email or decides what the client wants doesn't meet her uber-professional standards. I'm sure her phone won't be ringing off the hook in the near future.

Still, I really enjoyed this case since there was no violence, mangled English or fighting over cell phones.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

I guess MM answered my question about which teevee judge talks about the pots and pans (although AngelaHunter did, too).

3 hours ago, SRTouch said:

P claims he paid D $485 to install new power steering pump, but car still didn't steer after work was done

My car was acting up and I spent $1000 to have it fixed.  The next day, it did the same thing and the repair place said they had no idea what the problem was.  I shoulda sued, I guess.  Instead, that night I took it to a dealership and traded it for just about nothing on a new car.  That was going on nine years ago.  When this car dies, I'm getting a golf cart.

The manager didn't do the work, and didn't have the paperwork from his boss.  Great person to represent the company.

3 hours ago, SRTouch said:

D was going to be paid $1050 for the event, contract signed and everything

Thousand bucks for a couple hours' work?  Damn, I was in the wrong line of work.  I can't believe the average bartender wouldn't have jumped at the chance to make that kind of money.

MM asked the bartender why she couldn't reuse the fruit, and first she claims it's because it's a health hazard, and then when that excuse didn't fly, now it's because the guests would think she's crazy.

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

I'm sure her phone won't be ringing off the hook in the near future.

Dog forbid an employer be specific about how he wants a four hour job done.  I had a micromanager for a boss--this is not it.  She also shot herself in the foot; if she'd done a good job, there likely might have been more work forthcoming.  But no, piss off a guy who's big in the business you happen to work in.

Then when she realizes she's going to lose the case, she throws the "I didn't feel comfortable in his home" Hail Mary.  I wish there had been more provable damages.  

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, meowmommy said:

she throws the "I didn't feel comfortable in his home" Hail Mary.

Yeah, as though she's always worked for high society and never in a string of dive bars in which I bet no normal human being would feel "comfortable." She's hardly some young and tender hothouse flower who will wilt if everyone isn't on their very best tea party manners. Did she really think that after he threatened to sue her and she grudgingly said, "I'll do it if you can't find anyone else" he was going to let her do the job? This is one case where I really wish a plaintiff could have collected more from this harridan in punitive damages. I guess the bad publicity she gave herself will have to suffice as punishment.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
  1. can't go to Prom: simple case, 2 mommies go in together to rent a limo for kids going to prom - one kid can't go - his mommy, plaintiff, suing other mommy (D) demanding her share of limo rental back. MM explains to P that nothing D did prevented P's snowflake from going, that was all on P's son and the school, so no refund (D had already paid limo company)..... I found all sorts of things wrong with this picture - starting with fact that kids were going to a middle school graduation prom. Yeah, that's right, mommies renting limo for their 13 year olds to go to a school dance..... actually, first thing wrong is the sleeveless, too small/too short sundress P mommy chose to wear to court - followed shortly thereafter with the way P can't talk no good English..... (Oh, and D mommy rented 2nd limo for her older son for HIS high school prom at same time - after all couldn't show favorites - anyone wonder way she didn't have the cash to give P a refund right then.) Then we have reason why P's kid couldn't attend - turned out he was flunking a couple classes, was on academic probation and not allowed to participate in extracurricular activities - no word on whether kid was able to bring up grades and actually graduate..... to fill time MM entertains P's belief that school waited until day of dance before telling kid he couldn't attend - nah, I'm not buying that for a second - I bet sonny boy knew he wouldn't be able to attend as soon as he was told he failed those midterm/final tests and was afraid to tell mommy..... anyway, I already spilled the beans - plaintiff doesn't get any money back - funny thing is that D was willing to return half the money P paid for limo, but explained to P she was temporarily tapped out, what with playing for 3 kids' to go to proms (D has twin 13yo's and a high schooler) - but P mommy wanted her refund NOW, so sued and ended up with nothing
  2. piano no-sale: Ps say defendant agreed to buy their piano, so they took it off the market and turned away a couple potential buyers - but then D didn't buy the piano and P has to pay to have it moved as they are moving out of old place - want $625..... D says she paid P 100 buck deposit to hold piano while she checked into moving it, found out moving it was too much hassle, so she told P she didn't want it and forfelted deposit - not her problem if no one else bought it........ ok, we got old folks here so expect MM to find them both just soooo adorable...... the old couple are downsizing - thing was they're New Yorkers who spent 5 months a year in Florida. They put their 48 yo upright on CL for $250, hoping a quick sale, as it was almost time to head south. When D put down the deposit she promised to have it out of their house by November 26, as they were leaving for Florida on the 27th..... waiting to see when D backed out of deal, but don't really see that she would ever have to pay $625 for a $250 piano (especially seeing as she already paid $100 deposit)....... ok, after leaving deposit seems there was an exchange of texts as D was making sure it would fit through door into her apartment - yea, it fit - and how much it would cost to move and get it 'fixed up' (guess she means tuned and playable - ah, there's the rub, and reason P are asking for $625 - turns out it was going to cost big bucks to move and 'a lot more' to make it playable - the  $250 piano not worth it and she changes her mind about buying it..... ah, but for the week before she tells them she no longer wants it she is sending several reassuring messages, saying don't worry, it'll be out before the 26th (remember, P were to leave on 27th) - MM not too happy when 'don't worry, I'll have it moved in time' changes not only to not wanting it, but request for return of deposit - but wait, D has sloppy hand written receipt which, if you tilt your head and squint just right you might be about to twist what old dude wrote into 'refund' but he says it was supposed to say 'recvd' (as in he received the $100 deposit) while D read it as 'refud'....... ok, time for a little side trip - D saying here today that she was willing to forfeit the deposit, but now ex-bf went down and filed a small claims suit wanting the deposit back - D says that was all ex's doing, but MM quizzes her on how the ex filed a suit in her name without her knowledge or signature - did he forge her signature or is she lieing to MM - yep, D says, he joked about filing the suit, but she didn't think he was serious and that he did - in fact - forge her signature..... anyway, when P received notice they were getting sued they filed a countersuit - nothing came of those cases because no one appeared - D says it was all the ex and she never wanted to sue, and today's Ps were still in Florida...... fast forward, Florida gets hot and P travel back north - they file this suit to try to force D to finish paying ($150) and pay for moving the freekin' old piano ($475) - if they don't win P says they'll probably donate it and end up paying for it to be moved..... D really doesn't want it, as she found it was too expensive to get it moved and fixed (besides her status has changed as she's no longer with the forger)...... ok, finally get answer to when D actually backed out of sale - it was on the 24th, 2 days before she was to have it moved and 3 days before they left for Florida...... hmmmmm, they're now back in NY, they're still in the house (with the piano) because house hasn't sold and, despite putting it back on CL, no buyers for piano, just looky-loos....... P honest when she says reason for this case was the suit demanding a refund - but MM right when she says the real measure of damage is that $100 that D is no longer contesting....... nobody gets any money, P still have piano and can sell it 
  3. roofer plumber wants to be paid: p says he was hired to fix a leaky roof drain pipe, worked on it was 7 days before he was fired - says he's owed $2022.45 in materials and labor...... D says P didn't know WTH he was doing, and after he fired P a 2nd guy came and fixed problem first 500 bucks - he's filed a countersuit for $427+....... confusing intro as I thought we were talking leaky roof and when MM summarizes case she's talking about plumbing in auto parts shop........
    Spoiler

    (actually, whole case confusing - at about minute 50 I decided most of what I had written as a recap was incorrect) 

    ok, this two have had working relationship for years - P says he has been a customer of D's shop 30+ years - leak was in a confrete cinder block wall, and D admits P had to open up wall to to get behind a steel i-beam to get to leak...... ok, D talking and says P has done jobs for him before over the years, and they never really talked about what this job would entail/cost...... over to P, but really not sure how these two expect a judge settle the dispute when they really had no agreement - case reminds me of almost-married cases - from what I'm hearing neither will be able to prove their claims because I expect some of their claims will have nothing to do with this job - 1 thing I see right away is P's intro claimed he was on the job 7 days and D just said 3 days........ ok, P describing what all he did 1 less than riveting and about to fall asleep as every third word is 'ummm'........ ok, MM gets paid to listen, so she does - at least for awhile - they had no real agreement before work starts, but P is charging premium hourly rates and next thing D knows P presents him with highly suspect invoice for 2 grand - in testimony and papers P claims to have worked either 5 or 7 days, admits he wasn't there full days, but invoice charges for 40 hours - when MM points out the discrepancies P is like, oh, ok....... to make it worse, invoice only submitted because D asked where they were at and when he was presented with the 2 grand invoice he figured with leak still not fixed, who knows how much more P will charge, so he called a halt ..... backing up a little - the invoice is for the $2022 for this job, so forget earlier almost married comment - in fact, now's when I added the spoiler..... anyway, D says when P finally submitted his invoice the leak was actually worse than when he started - makes sense if I understood P meandering explanation of what he did - now I believe the pipe is actually a drain bringing water off the roof - P explained how drain was frozen and backed up with ice requiring him to chip away ice - so when D shows video water now pouring out of leak I'm guessing ice on roof now melting and water now flowing........ expect some rough justice here where MM will need to guess how much P deserves as his time estimates are all over, but he did do quite a bit of work even by D's testimony - heck, sounds like majority of job was finding getting water flowing again and finding that leak inside the block wall - earlier sounded like P padded the bill and second guy fixed problem for $500 - now I'm thinking D pulled him off too soon - 2nd guy came in and benefited from all the work P had already done - well, actually 2nd guy able to see the bad cast iron drain installed inside the wall when building was built back in '41, cast iron probably cracked and fell apart because of all the ice P talked about having to chip through - 2nd guy saw it wasn't worth hazzle of repairing/replacing old pipe inside the wall and is just going to bypass old pipe and attach a drain outside the wall..... welllll MM sees it different - she figures P's detective and demo work worth nothing, and isn't going to order D to pay anything...... OTOH, P isn't disputing he owes the 400 odd bucks in parts D countersued for, so D wins countersuit while original case is dismissed 
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

can't go to Prom: 

And here I thought it was really something that proms were Oscar Night replicas given to kids who managed the great feat of graduating high school. Now it's limos for 13-year-old children. I can't help but wonder what the weddings will look like. And this from people who can't get their hands on 100$ all at once. Oh, well - each to his own. Only other thing of interest is that JM again objected to being called "Ma'm" - "It's your honour or judge." Some days it's okay but others it's not. I think litigants need to be informed before appearing if it's a Ma'm day or not.

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

MM entertains P's belief that school waited until day of dance before telling kid he couldn't attend - nah, I'm not buying that for a second

Agree.

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

piano no-sale:

So, 50-year-old "antiques"? Sorry, it's not. It's just an old piano. It may have been worth 250$ but I doubt it. Def was pretty and well-spoken but dumb as frickin' brick. She thinks deposits are refundable if you change or mind or find out you can't fit the thing through your door or you might have to fix it up, or anything at all. Her crazy hothead boyfriend just goes to court and forges her name  - did he sign it "Jessilyn"? - and never informs her about it? I think she may be a bit of a fibber or just a complete flake.

The plumber drove me nuts with his one-word-per-minute testimony. I'm really not sure why he got paid nothing for work he did do, but maybe what he did was not only unnecessary but defective, so he gets nothing? I dunno.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
On 10/24/2019 at 8:46 PM, meowmommy said:

How fucking stupid.  Someone gifts you $3K and you don't use it to pay bills, add to your 401K, make a down payment on a home...you blow it on a stupid party, except it's not actually enough money for a non-tacky blowout party.  And of course, she's not invited to royal events because she's black.  Not because she's not rich, famous, friends with royals, or British, like the other millions of us who don't get invited, either.  And she seemed truly shocked that MM, who is rich and famous, although not British and probably doesn't know any royals, doesn't get an invite to royal events.  Is the plaintiff stuck on some Disney princess she saw as a child?

All I could think as I watched that was - Meghan Markle is a black woman who is now the Duchess of Sussex - so black people not only get invited to royal events, they marry into the royal families too.

On 10/24/2019 at 8:46 PM, meowmommy said:

If the defendant's insurance refused to pay, then the plaintiff's insurance should have paid under the comprehensive policy.  I missed whether his insurance paid.  Would have been nice if at least the defendant had covered the deductible.  But then, I think of cases where someone's house burns down and it spreads to other houses.  I don't think they get to sue the original homeowner unless the homeowner negligently or deliberately caused the fire.  It gets filed under Shit Happens.

I confess that insurance companies are presently on my shit list, which adds to my annoyance about this case. 

My personal opinion: If my car sets your car on fire, my car insurance should pay for it.  If my house burns down and sets your house on fire then my house insurance should pay for it.  That's why you have fucking insurance!!!!  For them to come up with one bullshit excuse after another for not paying out, just adds to my belief that they are blood-sucking scum of the earth.  Shit happens - indeed!  And the shit should be covered by insurance we pay for every goddamn year.  People shouldn't have to pound sand for stuff that isn't their fault. <takes a deep breath>   

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Only other thing of interest is that JM again objected to being called "Ma'm" - "It's your honour or judge."

I thought she usually only gets mad when someone calls her "Miss."  Ma'am is a perfectly legitimate form of address, judge or otherwise.  Particularly when she's not actually a real judge any more.  It's good enough for military officers; it ought to be good enough for Ms. Marilyn Milian.  Yes, that pissed me off.

Who the hell decided a middle school prom was a good idea?  Because kids aren't already cruel enough.  And then a damn limo.  I guess parents have lots of money to burn these days.

4 hours ago, SRTouch said:

turned out he was flunking a couple classes, was on academic probation and not allowed to participate in extracurricular activities - no word on whether kid was able to bring up grades and actually graduate

Sure got the feeling that whether or not Junior got to go to prom was more important to everyone involved than if he was able to pass the eighth grade.  Maybe that's why the kids aren't going to the same school next year--Junior maybe got held back?

"We didn't sign no contract."  Not sure she passed the eighth grade, either.

I liked piano plaintiff's sparkly shirt.  I read something somewhere not too long ago about the problem of abandoned pianos, because it's not worth it to sellers or buyers or charities to move them.  Can't remember where I read it.

Everybody got to look at the RECD except us.  

They're trying to sell their house; can't they include the piano as part of the sale?

3 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

The plumber drove me nuts with his one-word-per-minute testimony. I'm really not sure why he got paid nothing for work he did do, but maybe what he did was not only unnecessary but defective, so he gets nothing?

Life is short, so I skipped to the ending.  MM didn't think much of the plaintiff's five days' worth of nothingness, so she gave him nothing.  She kept asking him what he did to solve the problem. 

I'd like to know a plumber who does a job for $500. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, meowmommy said:

"We didn't sign no contract."  Not sure she passed the eighth grade, either.

"They didn't give us no heads-up."  Was the kid flunking English? But, hey - limo!

1 hour ago, meowmommy said:

I thought she usually only gets mad when someone calls her "Miss." 

She always gets understandably mad at "Miss" but arbitrarily gets mad at "Ma'm." Douglas calls her that and she never reprimands him. I think she just gets angry at it when she doesn't like the litigant. It's a perfectly respectful form of address.

1 hour ago, aemom said:

That's why you have fucking insurance!!!!  For them to come up with one bullshit excuse after another for not paying out, just adds to my belief that they are blood-sucking scum of the earth.

You won't get 'no' argument from me on that point!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

The friend from church that is helping the plaintiff with the gutter complaint doesn't know about residential gutters, at least the ones I've seen.     Gutters have to slope toward the down spout or they won't drain.  Home gutters are usually much narrower than commercial ones, so they would do a better job.   And if the rain is hard enough, it will go over the gutters.    I bet the little old lady from church pulls stunts like this all of the time, and gets discounts on work, or freebies, just to get rid of her.      Plaintiff wanted a cheap, quick job instead of paying for the right gutters, and roof work, so I wouldn't have given her a penny. 

The car case with the turn lane was so bizarre.   I hope I'm never in traffic with either litigant, because they can't drive. 

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

another day where I watched while fixing/eating lunch, so not one of my wordy verbose long recaps --- first two cases same old same old - last case best in a while, and at the end I don't hate either side (though may not buy anything from D)

  1. get outta my way! Pretty straight forward case where neither driver should be driving. Both drivers make legal left turns into an intersection but want to make an immediate right turn..... sorry, hard to visualize and know I'm not painting very clear picture.... P is in left turn only lane, D to her right in lane which is marked to allow him option to turn left, but left not mandatory..... she enters intersection a little before he did, but in order to make her immediate right turn P crowds over into D's path..... part of problem is that lanes aren't marked in intersection, and, apparently, neither of these two know the width of their car and are using the drive-by-braille technique - P makes her left turn, crowds over into D's path, and stops in middle of intersection to let him pass so she can duck in behind him to make her right turn...... ok, here's where she screws up, but she never gets it and MM never really points it out - from her own testimony, she planned/attempted to change lanes within the intersection - nope, no can do, far as I have always thought, no lanes changes permissible within an intersection (actually, not permitted within 100 feet of an intersection) - D either doesn't see her stopped, doesn't realise how close he is, or doesn't have time to avoid her, and scrapes by her leaving marks all down the length of her passenger side of car - at this point D totally in right, and he should be pissed and hopping out of his car to check for damage, but no, says the cars just 'kissed' a little and he saw no reason to check for damage, so he keeps a'truckin'. Despite fact I feel P is 100% in wrong, she feels she has done no wrong and D just damaged her car, so she gives chase - she actually had to catch him twice before he pulls over - D admits he had no proof of insurance - which probably explains why he didn't want to stop, though he claims he did in fact have insurance - P, feeling she was totally in the right, took her car to her regular guy who felt the scratch could be buffed out, but no, she figures she has a good case and goes for the gold, and gets a couple big buck estimates to make her car look new - poor P has trouble accepting things when MM tells her she gets nothing today
  2. bad gutters: 2nd day in a row MM took a disliking to a contractor (ya know commercial where couple sits down to dinner and woman looks over at guy with stretched out shirt and says 'you look - uh - comfortable." Well, that's type shirt D wore to court on national TV). MM ruled against the contractors - yesterday it was plumber who was fired after 5-7 days on job, today it is a guy who installed gutters - MM ruled neither contractor gets paid. Today little old lady hired D to install new gutters and she says he did crap job. D one of those guys who brags about how long he's been in the business, but pix/video don't exactly show quality work - I think P got what she paid for - a bandaid job which covered up work a real craftsman would say needed to be done - talking about missing rotted out fascia boards - kind of half-a$$ed job is done, doesn't look all that great and won't last, but, like I said, it was what homeowner was willing to pay for..... OTOH, P's video that is supposed to show leaky gutters has MM saying she can't see what P wants her to see..... should point out that in hallterview D is arguing MM didn't let him show HIS pix/video that he claims would have shown his quality workmanship..... anyway, I think P won this one based on her witness - apparently her witness is a friend from church who makes his living inspecting construction and advocating for business/home owners when there's a dispute with a contractor..... anyway, I think the witness swung the deal for homeowner  (I wasn't as convinced and would have argued at least a couple of his objections to job)..... like yesterday, while I'm not convinced contractor did a great job, he did do a job and I felt he deserved pay - MM ordered full refund
  3. Bait and switch exercise bike: P bought old exercise bike, decided it was not as advertised on CL and wanted seller to come pick it up and refund his money - asking  $500 - the purchase price..... D says it was as is sale (my words) - thing was 4 grand new, so old dude should be happy with his $500 exercise bike....... intro had me leaning towards dismissal, but in preview clip P talks about a money back satisfaction guarantee and gets laugh when he admits he was stupid to pay the cash without first making sure he was satisfied..... well, if there was in fact a guarantee, that changes things a bit...... MM reads CL ad to us and it gives make/model number and lists condition as being "new" - not "like new" as D says in intro..... P inquires about it and D sends him copy of owners manual - deal is $500 and D will deliver it...... sounds great, but when D delivers bike P sees that, while model number is the same, it's actually an older bike that doesn't have the bells and whistle of the same model being sold today - and (biggy) owners manual listing these great bells/whistles doesn't match this bike ..... P says when he objected, D said, "try it, you'll like it" and if you decide you don't like it after giving it a try I'll come pick it up and give you a full refund..... this is where preview has MM asking why didn't you tell D to let you try it and if you like it you'll give her the money? And P answers, because I'm stupid ma'am (yep, he sure'nuf said ma'am and MM laughs instead of biting his head off)...... ok, over to D - right off bat ad misleading because she advertised 'new' and at best it was used and 'like-new' - she dances around, admits ad was incorrect, but says it had belonged to her recently deceased parents (bid for sympathy?) and since they never used it she felt good claiming it was new - nope, says MM, new is new - not like-new...... that's bad for D, but maybe innocent - what sinks her defense is when asked she admits at one point she told P if he decides he isn't happy with it she'll refund the money and come pick it up..... huh, isn't that exactly what he wanted her to do and is now having to sue because she refused to do?......  later same day he accepted delivery, P called manufacturer, and learned owners manual she provided does not belong with this particular bike, and shortly after 8 pm that evening he calls to tell her come get it and bring the refund... more spin from D - despite fact she was one who made the sale and the guarantee, she says her brothers advised her that deal was done and just block P...... sorry, what is her defense here? She admits she made the money back guarantee if not happy, doesn't dispute that buyer called within hours to unwind sale, and her only defense is that brother who isn't here said thumb your nose and cut communication with P........ really, and just think, she brought her daughter to watch and learn about how the family honors their word/bargain...... ok, trying to spin things, she argues that when P decided he wasn't happy, at first he negotiated, offering to keep bike but only pay $100, in response she countered by sending him a $250 money order (meaning he would be paying $250 for the bike which was 4 grand new) and says either take bike for $250 or sue..... everybody has their back up, it's now the 'principle of the thing' - so he sued..... simple, her take it or leave was not their deal, MM orders D to honor her word and give the guy his full refund...... another chuckle - when P received the $250 money order he kept but never cashed it - but he did, for some unexplainable reason, send her a check for $250 - huh. But why?..... anyway, no evidence D ever cashed his check so he can just stop payment on check, he still has her money order and can still redeem it, D ordered to pay him an additional $250 so he'll have full refund..... D asks who gets bike - she does - D wants P to foot delivery bill,  but that wasn't their deal, so up to her have it picked up
Edited by SRTouch
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

19 hours ago, meowmommy said:

I'd like to know a plumber who does a job for $500. 

That's exactly what the plumber we hired charged us yesterday! We now have water in the kitchen and a working sink. He and his helper worked about 8 hours and when my husband expressed reservations on how much it might cost the plumber said not to worry about it he would just charge us the original $500 he had estimated it would cost. Maybe we should sue him for intentional infliction of emotional distress for treating us like a charity case! (Actually he was wonderful and we would use him again in a heartbeat). 

  • Like 5
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

get outta my way!

It's always amusing when crappy drivers describe over and over again their faulty driving maneuvers, perhaps hoping that repetition will eventually make them correct. I am sure you have heard submissions along those lines at the dinner table or in the lunch room at work.  And here we had two examples of it!

The plaintiff is a menace on the road because she does not know how to take a turn safely, while the defendant is an idiot who does not know his legal obligations when two vehicles lightly "kiss" (as he says).

7 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

I bet the little old lady from church pulls stunts like this all of the time, and gets discounts on work, or freebies, just to get rid of her.     

This is one instance where JM's legendary knowledge of everything construction failed her. But we know how vulnerable she is to old people who behave all cute and diminutively charming. This one was a cheapskate who did not want to pay to have all the fascias repaired before the gutter repairer had to start the work, but she neverthelsss got right through to JM's heart. Like you, I am certain this is not the first time she uses her "I'm just a little old lady from church"  act to get what she wants and screw other people.

Edited by Florinaldo
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

another chuckle - when P received the $250 money order he kept but never cashed it - but he did, for some unexplainable reason, send her a check for $250 - huh. But why?

The reason is that he is a nice guy.  The money order is made to his order.   He wants to return the money to the defendant.  Most people would just send it back to the defendant.  The plaintiff, realizing defendant would not be able to deposit a money order in his name and would have to go back to the place she bought it and get a refund, saves her the trouble and sends a check to her order that she can cash.  He then should deposit the money order and they would be even regarding the $250.  He was being helpful either because he is nice or he thought he had to give her the money back in a way she could get it and didn't realize it is her problem to sort.

I didn't think JM was fair to the gutter man.  She should have turned to him after the expert testified and said what do you have to say?  He should have been given an opportunity to counter the expert and, at least in the edit we saw, he was never given that opportunity.  Why was the plaintiff's guy's opinion given more credence then the defendant's own expertise?  The plaintiff witness in this case was not an unbiased expert, as he is a friend of the plaintiff from church.  Where was he when the plaintiff was doing all this?  Why didn't she get his advice earlier on in the process?  Think the expert's opinion was given too much weight.  Felt like plaintiff brought an expert so she wins.  Just think the defendant should have been allowed to counter expert's testimony by being allowed to point at the pictures and explain his side.  JM, obviously, was already going to rule the way she wanted and ignore him, but he still deserved a chance to give his side that he did a decent job.  Felt wrong from the edit we got to see.    

Edited by Bazinga
  • Like 5
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, Bazinga said:

The reason is that he is a nice guy.  The money order is made to his order.   He wants to return the money to the defendant.  Most people would just send it back to the defendant.  The plaintiff, realizing defendant would not be able to deposit a money order in his name and would have to go back to the place she bought it and get a refund, saves her the trouble and sends a check to her order that she can cash.  He then should deposit the money order and they would be even regarding the $250.  He was being helpful either because he is nice or he thought he had to give her the money back in a way she could get it and didn't realize it is her problem to sort.

Hmmmm, makes sense...... I can truthfully say I've never received a money order, so never had to deal with them. 

16 minutes ago, Bazinga said:

I didn't think JM was fair to the gutter man.  She should have turned to him after the expert testified and said what do you have to say? 

Exactly. The expert started out making a point of saying gutter should have been straight/parallel to edge of roof..... I'm no expert, but seems to me the gutter should be pitched so that water drains towards the downspout. On an older building where settling/sagging may have occurred, no way would I expect gutter to be consistent with roof..... OTOH, still remembering I'm not an expert and have never installed a foot of gutter, I wonder well how those straps the D used would work keeping the pitch consistent - not saying it couldn't work, but I envision a string, a level, and lots of those straps needing to be installed over the length of the run to prevent sagging/pooling in the gutter..... Oh well, as I said in the recap, I wasn't as impressed as MM apparently was.....

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Florinaldo said:

I am certain this is not the first time she uses her "I'm just a little old lady from church"  act to get what she wants and screw other people.

Haha! Could be. I'm always suspicious of people who appear sporting huge crosses and/or  just must manage to shoehorn in that they go to church, because as we know anyone who goes to church is beyond reproach. 🙄 I won't pretend I have any idea who was right or wrong here. I get my gutters cleaned every year and that's all I know.

Recumbant bike woman: "I don't know anything at all. My brother and my husband told me everything to do and say." JM: "I notice they aren't here." RBW: "Exactly." I guess it was the "I'm just a little lady so don't expect me to know anything about all this man stuff."

The "My car kissed yours" just reinforced my desire to drive less and less after seeing here the kind of people who are on the roads.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

I guess it was the "I'm just a little lady so don't expect me to know anything about all this man stuff."

That is very probably her go-to easy out: blame the absent husband and/or brother because "they know all about that man stuff which is way beyond my meager lady brain".

Plaintiffs were naive in sending her a check instead of returning the money order; there is a point where being nice veers into idiocy (as he freely admitted). With luck she won't cash the check before they put the stop payment on it (I would not put it past her to do so).

Edited by Florinaldo

Share this post


Link to post

1 hour ago, Bazinga said:

The plaintiff witness in this case was not an unbiased expert, as he is a friend of the plaintiff from church. 

Not only that, but as he was describing his work, he said that his customers are usually property owners who are suing contractors. I suspect that in fact this is his whole business.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
32 minutes ago, Florinaldo said:

That is very probably her go-to easy out: blame the absent husband and/or brother because "they know all about that man stuff which way beyond my meager lady brain".

So many female litigants on this show do that, "Oh, I can't worry my pretty little head about cars and construction and all that man stuff. Hey, I'm a girl!" but if they had ever watched this show they would know that is exactly the wrong excuse to give JM.

36 minutes ago, Florinaldo said:

there is a point where being nice veers into idiocy (as he freely admitted).

The "I'm a nice person"(so I let my teenaged daughter's loser boyfriend move into my house/paid for a car for some ex-con I hooked up with last week/sent money to a Nigerian scammer) is usually offered in expection of admiration. That this plaintiff admitted, "I'm stupid," saved him a spanking.

  • Like 1
  • Laugh 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

The "My car kissed yours" just reinforced my desire to drive less and less after seeing here the kind of people who are on the roads.

I have literally gotten to the point where I never want to drive.  I just put gas in my non-fuel efficient car last week for the first time since July.  But I have to drive about a hundred miles this weekend. 

I always expect something bad to happen.  And then I usually have DD in the passenger seat where she likes to backseat drive despite not having a driver's license at age 29.  

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

but if they had ever watched this show they would know that is exactly the wrong excuse to give JM.

OTOH, I can't stand it when MM claims to be a construction expert because her male relatives were/are in the construction business.  If her father and her brothers were neurosurgeons, would she feel qualified to cut open your skull?

  • Laugh 5

Share this post


Link to post
58 minutes ago, meowmommy said:

I have literally gotten to the point where I never want to drive. 

Me too, which is why my 2014 Toyota Matrix, bought brand-new, has 11,000 miles on it. I've had too many close calls caused by other drivers.

  • Surprise 1

Share this post


Link to post

We live in a senior adult community, and have almost been backed into TWICE in the last two weeks by people who think they don't have to bother to look before barreling out of their driveways because it's a small community, and the chances of anyone driving by are slim.

We don't drive as much as we used to, and will NEVER get on the freeways during rush hour.  Being retired, we're never in a rush, so there's no point in clogging up the highway.

The woman yesterday who kept trying to make it the other driver's fault because SHE was in the wrong lane is a prime example of the mindset of too many drivers today.  If she was in the right (and if he had insurance as he claimed), his insurance would have paid off.  I think she sued him because they denied her claim.  But don't worry - she's STILL going to pursue this to make him pay.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, AZChristian said:

The woman yesterday who kept trying to make it the other driver's fault because SHE was in the wrong lane

She also said something that is weirdly common on this show: "He hit me on purpose." Like, what?? They all sound like paranoid lunatics when they say that.

1 hour ago, AZChristian said:

have almost been backed into TWICE in the last two weeks by people who think they don't have to bother to look before barreling out of their driveways

I nearly had a serious accident last summer from  someone doing that. I was driving home along a narrow, slightly winding 2-lane/2-way rural road, going the limit of 50mph. In front of me someone backed out of a blind driveway, fast, must have seen me and just stopped, blocking the entire lane. A quick glance showed me a car was coming in the other lane. I jerked the wheel hard to go around the stopped car and zipped back into my lane with a millisecond to spare. My car rocked so hard I was afraid it might overturn. I was left shaking and the backup idiot just casually left. I didn't know my reflexes were still that fast!😯 So yeah, I try not to drive too much.

  • Like 2
  • Surprise 1

Share this post


Link to post

So I guess it's a new case with the Sainted Single Mother of ? suing the father of one kid with her, and she claims he assaulted her.   Unfortunately, the video from the plaintiff's brother's house shows plaintiff is lying, and case was dismissed.   It's really funny that the witness in court is defendant's lawyer.     Since defendant was on probation, he would have been jailed for quite a while, just on probation violation, and if they had filed the assault as an additional charge he would have been jailed for a long time probably.   What a despicable person the plaintiff is.  

I can't believe SSMO? wants to be paid for items defendant was storing for her, told her to pick up in January, and she never does, so there are pictures of her stuff next to the rubble of the demolished building in April.    Defendant is counter claiming for the false arrest.   Plaintiff gets nothing, and defendant gets $5,000 (he redid lawyer's kitchen for the $5,000 retainer for the false arrest case).

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Big mistake this morning - sat down to watch before I finished first cup of coffee..... may be an entertaining cases, but too much before fully waking up..... oh dear, it's a 2 case day and second is bad breakup with both sides asking for 5 grand - geez, skipped that one before Douglas finished swearing in contestants........ oops, forget idea of watching later, I watched ruling and then automatically deleted the recording 

  1. roomie battle royal: P claims she loaned roomie/landlord, defendant, money - they had kerfuffle, D file for restraining order - she wants 5 grand...... D says P escalated the kerfuffle to a physical altercation, which is why she filed for the restraining order - according to intro, P then extended their spat to D's work place which ended up costing D money, so she figures if anything it's P that owes her not other way around - she also wants 5 grand....... oh my, check the 'tude on P - MM just asked how/why P ended up moving in with D and P starts bouncing around and starts with the head Bob and 'tude - I can't tell, but looks like her hands are on her hips, or maybe even in back pockets under that black sweater.... oh dear, a couple Sainted Single Mommies..... P tells us the CL ad she found that led to these two living together was for a live in nanny, not a roommate - yep, she says ad D was offering free room for live in nanny - passes up a couple sheets of paper when asked if she has ad - once again a court tv judge spoils things by actually reading litigant's evidence - when pressed, P admits she does not have actually ad....... more 'tude from P, accompanied by dance and hand waving..... meanwhile D standing by looking like..... go back in time, way back, to when Cosby was a good guy on tv and Sonia Braga appeared as Theo's teacher, the 'Dragon Lady' (ok, I spent a full minutes searching and being reminded of the look - but on the show Theo's teacher comes in looking hot, chats a while, then switches to teacher mode and pulls her hair back, puts a pair of glasses on end of her nose, and proceeds to counsel Theo for whatever.... ok, from get go P not making sense - just finished trying to convince us she moved in rent free in exchange for being D's nanny, then in same breath she's talking about moving in after giving D her rent money - huh? wasn't deal for free rent? - yeah, she says, but D didn't have money to pay HER rent, so P loaned D money, but expected to live rent free in broke-ass D's apartment..... makes perfect sense, no red flags in that story - a match made in heaven..... oh my, need to zip through this nonsense 'cuz I can't take any more about how P took pity on D, identified with her as they're both single moms struggling to make ends meet, and P took money out of saving grace only because she 'wanted to help - she wanted to help!' Yada yada..... I stop when I see MM talking to D, but what I'm hearing is about how P'sounds two brats were climbing on crib of D's unborn baby - I either need to rewind to figure this out or skip ahead, and I opt to jump ahead..... oh my, now D is talking about P massaging some nekkid MAN in the living room...... nah, maybe I'll go back and watch this after my third cup of coffee - what's this? They actually spent a half hour on this case! Zip ahead to a solo hallterview - P has left the building! after she gets escorted out by Douglas because she can't shut up as MM announces the ruling - from D hallterview I gather these two still live in same apartment, and D is talking about breaking her lease - if P won't move she will..... more questions than answers at this point, so I'll be revisiting this one (may need whole 'nother POT of coffee, first) to find out WTH happened to the combined claim for 10 grand that resulted in D being awarded 400 bucks
  2.  bad breakup: p says ex tossed her stuff outside during the breakup, and she wants 5 grand..... apparently ex bf doesn't deny her stuff got tossed - but he says he was storing her stuff for free and gave P several notices the stuff needed to be moved as storage location was going to be demolished - doesn't dispute he moved her stuff outside, but says he covered it and did his best to protect it after telling P where it was and to come get it one last time - yep, as expected, he has 5 grand countersuit....... all, from ruling I'm going to come back to at least watch this case - seems his 5 grand case is because she filed charges he assaulted her, he was arrested and facing 4 years in prison, but charges dropped when prosecutor saw video disproving her assertion he shoved her - he wins 5 grand she gets squat
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

roomie battle royal:

So I need a life plan. I'm already a SSMO2 (5 and 7 year olds?). God know where the baby daddy(s) are so I need to get a job to support these kids. I want to go into nursing school. All good. But something's missing. I know! What I really need is another baby! That will make things better. Where's the baby daddy? Who knows. Because of this new blessed event (I want to be a nurse but never heard of/don't believe in birth control) I can't pay my rent. SO, let's get a total stranger and HER blessed events to move in. We're both SSM! So cozy. My 2-bedrroom place is now housing two adults, 4 kids and an infant. My life plan is coming together. No problem leaving this total stranger who turned out to be rubbing naked men in my living room (check out the audience member behind def. who could not stop laughing at that tidbit.) who seems a little bit hot-tempered, and who sleeps while her kids run wild,  alone with my infant for up to 8 hrs at a stretch. I'm sure the baby will be fine. What could go wrong? Plaintiff was so unable to control herself, with violent chicken-necking, snorting and eye-rolling she had to leave the courtroom. I guess SSMhood isn't all it's cracked up to be. As usual, I feel so sorry for the poor kids who get squirted out by women who have no idea how they'll take care of them and make them live some transient life.

3 hours ago, SRTouch said:

bad breakup: 

Yet more morons. She, with her "sad clown face" was with the goofy def for seven or eight years. Of course, they never dreamed of getting married. He's a coke-head, arrested and imprisoned for possession of coke with the intent to deal it and then arrested again for violation his probation. He calls it "going away", so I first thought maybe he went on a tour of duty instead of to the slammer. Plaintiff thinks that is a good time to reproduce, maybe in an attempt to hold on to coke-head Goofy. Now she too is a SSMO who thinks she owns the kid - poor kid with these characters as parents. She thinks he is obligated to take care of her junk - 8K worth! -  in perpetuity, even though he tells her she needs to get it out of the garage of the place he just rents. She gets Goofy arrested for grabbing her ribs or whatever, and his counsel is here to plead his case.

Mandatory sterilization. We need it, for the sake of all these kids being forced to live with vicious lunatics who use them as pawns or just have them because they don't know how to not have them. But then, kids really have no rights.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

I guess SSMhood isn't all it's cracked up to be.

As an actual SSM, I can guarantee you it isn't.  It pretty much sucks, especially if you aren't looking for other people to take care of you.  And I never met other SSMs who, out of the goodness of their heart, offered to rain money on me.  

16 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

I feel so sorry for the poor kids who get squirted out by women who have no idea how they'll take care of them

I had no idea how I was going to take care of my now DD, but I assumed it was my job to figure that out.  And my #1 biggest worry until she was about 8 was finding and paying for child care.

3 hours ago, SRTouch said:

oh my, now D is talking about P massaging some nekkid MAN in the living room.

Just so y'all know, massaging naked men in the living room is NOT part of the nursing school curriculum.

3 hours ago, SRTouch said:

find out WTH happened to the combined claim for 10 grand that resulted in D being awarded 400 bucks

Basically MM said a plague on both their houses.  She just looked at the rent owed against the loan given and threw out everything else.

38 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

She gets Goofy arrested for grabbing her ribs or whatever, and his counsel is here to plead his case.

Calling the police for the behavior she claimed in the demo with Douglas would be ridiculous, even if true.  And of course the video showed her to be a liar.  In addition to an ingrate.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, meowmommy said:

I had no idea how I was going to take care of my now DD, but I assumed it was my job to figure that out.  And my #1 biggest worry until she was about 8 was finding and paying for child care.

I'm betting you didn't offer a room to some random person about whom you knew absolutely nothing and say, "I'm going to work. Take care of my infant. I'm sure you're a wonderful person and I trust you."

I wouldn't leave my dog with a stranger, never mind my baby!

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, AngelaHunter said:

I'm betting you didn't offer a room to some random person about whom you knew absolutely nothing and say, "I'm going to work. Take care of my infant. I'm sure you're a wonderful person and I trust you."

I didn't offer a room, but I have horror stories that I don't want to share, even after all these years.  Like I said, child care was my #1 worry when DD was little.

  • Like 2
  • Sad 2

Share this post


Link to post

  1. Used car deal gone bad: not believing this is a serious case at all - at all. P acts like she is doing a stand up act instead of suing for over 2 grand....basis of case is P bought clunker from Simon - Simon doesn't want his last name or business used. Apparently this is second time Simon sold her a car - she drove last one 5 years before it died. Only objection P raised when she went to see car was she wanted a dented fender fixed before she bought it. Good old Simon banged out the dent, but tells her he can't paint until it warms up since he doesn't have access to a paint booth. Meanwhile, P keeps finding things wrong with car. Even though it was an AS-IS sale, Simon is working with her. Some disagreement on whether or not he was charging for all these little repairs, but MM doesn't press the issue since Simon was under no obligation to fix anything except the fender. Final straw comes when P notices something hanging down - which turns out to be one of the straps holding gas tank on car. She wants it fixed immediately - for free of course - and Simon tells her she'll have to leave the car for a day - oh, and, of course, pay for the repair - kerfuffle ends with her demanding full refund. It's obvious she's losing as MM explains she has no warranty and Simon had no obligation to fix anything (except the fender). But, P and her witness are having WAY too much fun mugging for the camera. Then we hear D's countersuit - seems he wants money cuz P posted bad review and picture comparing him to some cartoon character I never heard of - but MM is so happy she recognized the cartoon she's laughing along with P instead of slamming P for filing a frivolous suit and publicly shaming D on FB.... D wants to be rid of P and is happy to let her have 300 bucks for someone else to paint/finish fender repair..... P celebrating getting $300 of the over 2 grand she sued for
  2. Helicopter mom suing over dance competition choreography: P's 15yo son is big into competitive dancing. Kid came in 3rd in nationals last time, & mom decides he needs a new routine to move up in the standings this year. She's acquainted with D, who is a professional dancer/ choreographer, and hires D to produce a new routine and send an instructional video kid can study. According to mom, kid is supposed to learn the routine, they'll video kid dancing, the professional 'mentor' will review the tape and send comments/suggestions - big mistake is she pays him $500 up front before ever seeing the instructional video. After numerous missed deadlines, time has about run out for her to submit new routine to the dance competition board (has to be approved prior to competition), so she tells D time's up and she going to have to give up on the dream of new routine. Soooooo, at last possible moment D sends a video, but it's just D dancing, no instruction/suggestions, just the guy dancing - MM asks several times if D ever prepared/sent the instructional video - nope, D says, he sent a 'dance video' and P thanked him for his services, said it wasn't what she wanted, and ended the relationship.... oh my, D getting lippy with the judge..... not happening for D here - P has many many texts telling what she wanted, talks about how she paid for an instructional video she never received - heck we even hear she isn't asking for a full refund - she paid him total of $550 but wants $500 back - liar says D - MM not happy with D to begin with, really not happy when he starts talking out of turn, really really unhappy when he doesn't shut up when she tells him - D really not offering a defense besides 'she didn't understand what I was going through - I was homeless - I lost my password - sent it 3 times don't know why she never received it - and his final answer, she kept sending me messages asking for it so I quit answering' .... uh, no she paid for services you didn't provide..... P gets her money - D thinks whole think is 'hysterical' in hallterview - Doug says but you didn't come off looking so good today - yes I did, or look good, and so do you
  3. Tenant wants lotto money after he was unfairly booted from apartment: p comes in with inch thick stack of papers saying landlord kicked him out because his step daughter was living there and she was't - wants $4500.... D says it was actually 3 additional people over and above number permitted by lease - he wants almost 4 grand in back rent and legal fees (hired a lawyer to get tenant to move)..... ok, from preview looks like more than a simple tenant case - apparently P was not only a tenant, but also hired to help D's elderly mother.... when testimony begins we hear D claim tenant was routine late paying rent, and on 1 occasion failed to pay - D says he overlooked late/missing rent payments because P was the world's best aide for dear old mom - D says he agreed to P making up for a missed month's rent by paying an extra $100 a month for 6 months - nope, says P, the extra  $100 a month for 6 months was because of the extra people who came to live in house (and eventually those extra people were the excuse P used to give him the boot)..... if I understand what I'm hearing it wasn't an eviction, it was more like a 30 day notice, so what's with the big $4,500 lawsuit....  ok, MM asks, did tenant pay the final month rent after receiving notice - no P says landlord - yes says tenant - prove it says MM (tenant needs to prove it this time as he wants it return because, well, not sure why, just because - P starts to hand her the inch thick stack of paper, and MM says nope, just prove you paid rent the final month you lived there - dude flips through his papers before finally admitting he can't prove it..... ok, dueling attorney letters - both sides pass up letters their lawyer sent the other side and both are asking other side to pay the $350 they paid their lawyer to write the letter..... oops, looks like D's lawyer won this battle, as he references a notation in the memo on a check where P wrote that $100 was for the month he missed paying rent - but his testimony was he never missed a month and was paying an extra hundred for the extra people he had moved into the house.... ok, using MM's math, P owes $2600 in rent  (though she says the lease would allow D to collect $200 additional per month nice landlord isn't asking for that, plus he discounted the rent $100 in December as a Christmas gift) but but, says P,  he wanted me to pay an extra $54 a month because the water bill went up (I think I heard D ended up deciding not to keep water bill payment after P gave it to him because a contractor used a bunch of water making cement & D decided not to charge tenant)..... oh dear, poor P just looking silly - I haven't been following the math, but really looks like landlord was giving tenant break after break, and then when he was fed up and asked him to leave tenant sued for deposit back even though more than that amount was due in past due rent..... ok, lady in robe who gets paid to decipher these silly claims decides P gets nothing and landlord gets $200 - convoluted math really not explained, but I think she decides P owed $2600 rent, subtracts the $2400 deposit which D kept, which leaves $200 - then a bunch of add on stuff - like legal fees - is dismissed
Edited by SRTouch
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

Used car deal gone bad: not believing this is a serious case at all - at all. P acts like she is doing a stand up act instead of suing for over 2 grand.

I guess this plaintiff wasn't a SSM with a kid going to college so doesn't get back a ton of money for the old beater with no warranty that she chose to buy. When she wasn't laughing like a hyena her imperial attitude that def should fix the heap in perpetuity was highly annoying but certainly not uncommon.

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

Helicopter mom suing over dance competition choreography:

I don't claim to understand modern dance, but what he was doing looked some elaborate form of yoga to me. His litany of excuses sounded so ridiculous. Well, we do know he thinks he looks really good and that business deals for which he was paid are kind of a joke to him. Plaintiff - smarten up.

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Tenant wants lotto money after he was unfairly booted from apartment: 

What a little cockroach the plaintiff was. Another one who thinks the world (or his landlord) owes him something. He shouldn't have to pay what he owes if the person demanding payment is better off financially than he is. "He don't need it," cockroach tells Doug in the Hall. No lottery for you.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Simon doesn't want his last name or business used.

Why do these people bother to go on national television but then try to hide their identity?

I'm mortally sick of MM trying to make every case between members of opposite genders into a romantic relationship.  

I have a ball of yarn that looks like that thing (hair?) on the plaintiff's head.  Lovely little smirk when she arrogantly informs MM that there's a warranty on as-is sales.  But I disagree with MM on the counterclaim; if that stuff she wrote isn't defamation, I don't know what is.  

I was a little suspicious of $300 to paint a fender, but I checked here and it says a bumper paint job runs $100 - 300.

When the dance mom started with the "Tomorrow, tomorrow," I expected either a chorus from Annie or the speech from Macbeth (Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow, Creeps in this petty pace from day to day, To the last syllable of recorded time).

DD watches Dance Moms.  I asked her if that routine would get the kid 3rd place in nationals; she said that she's seen better routines that didn't place.

It's not the mom's job to know what the defendant's going through.  It's her job to get what she paid for.  What a self-centered twit, the defendant.

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

if I understand what I'm hearing it wasn't an eviction, it was more like a 30 day notice, so what's with the big $4,500 lawsuit

The stories the tenant plaintiff told about who was living there, when, why and how were all bullshit.  Along with what he paid and when.  And then he tries to get money for the increased water bill when he knows the defendant didn't cash the check.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, meowmommy said:

But I disagree with MM on the counterclaim; if that stuff she wrote isn't defamation, I don't know what is.  

I had a very brief experience with what is and what is not libel/slander/defamation. I was told by a lawyer that as long as you  describe your experience with the person or company  in first person it is not defamation, e.g. "I paid $$ to this person who promised me - X - never delivered and won't take my calls." To make a sweeping statement like, "He/she is EVIL/rips off people," would be defamation as I understood it.

  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 11/8/2019 at 5:12 PM, meowmommy said:

The stories the tenant plaintiff told about who was living there, when, why and how were all bullshit.  Along with what he paid and when.  And then he tries to get money for the increased water bill when he knows the defendant didn't cash the check.

Poor guy seemed to think writing a check meant he paid irregardless if money even left his account. He was making same convoluted argument about the $100 check in December.  MM tells him landlord gave him a $100 gift when he wrote void on the check and gave it back, and dufus argues landlord didn't give him $100 - D just didn't accept the check - huh? If you hand me $100 bill and I turn around and give it back, I'm giving you a hundred bucks..... followed by some nonsense about D crossing out the routing number on the check when he voided it before returning it - I have no idea what crossing out the routing number had anything to do with anything if he wrote void and gave check back

Edited by SRTouch
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I've been catching up on TPC episodes that were on my DVR.

Today I watched the case of the woman who got extensions put into her hair, but now has bald spots . . . which her doctor diagnosed as "traction alopecia."  

She believes it was because the extensions were badly attached, and caused trauma and bald spots because they were rubbing around too much.

My opinion (based on too many hours of watching Darcey et al on various reality TV shows):  Everyone who has extensions seems to spend their whole life stroking, tugging, and playing with their hair.  No wonder they have bald spots . . . they're constantly pulling on something that's attached to their actual hair.

Back to TPC:  judgment for the defendant.  Plaintiff didn't prove that the extensions had been installed improperly.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
On 11/5/2019 at 9:06 PM, meowmommy said:

IWho the hell decided a middle school prom was a good idea?  Because kids aren't already cruel enough.  And then a damn limo.  I guess parents have lots of money to burn these days.

Sure got the feeling that whether or not Junior got to go to prom was more important to everyone involved than if he was able to pass the eighth grade.  Maybe that's why the kids aren't going to the same school next year--Junior maybe got held back?

"We didn't sign no contract."  Not sure she passed the eighth grade, either.

I

This case had me boiling mad as JM spent so much time criticizing the school and the administration about how unfair it was they didn't notify the parent/student until the day of the prom.  Hey JM, you get hundreds of liars standing in front of you every year.  Why in the world would you think this parent is telling you the truth about the school?  The defendant stated sharing that the school had notified the mother about the situation before then, but JM just cut her off and kept blaming the mean old educators for this horrifically sad turn of events.  There are so many educational policies about notification to parents about student grades.  AND, this would have been a situation in which there would be even more communications going home as it would have affected her son graduating from middle school.  I was livid at how the judge just accepted everything the mother said about how the school handled the situation.  I wish JM had pulled a Judge Judy and actually called someone about it....(I know, I know-student confidentiality and all, but still...).

Not even to mention the absurdity of having a middle school PROM.  Just have an eighth grade dance-don't start messing with changing it to a prom and all that is entailed in that.  

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

×
×
  • Create New...

Customize font-size