Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER
Lillybee

The People's Court

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

landlord wants money for rent and neglect to house:

SRTouch outlines it all in his usual excellent manner, so just have to add that I hated the smirking asshole plaintiff, like, a lot. But def's wife sounded just like the parents we see all the time who vehemently deny that their little darlings would ever dream of doing the horrible things they actually did. "My husband doesn't walk around the house butt-naked", she says, but we know he does, just not when she's around. That's the only thing plaintiff said that I believed and I'm very thankful the video was not offered in evidence. I'm surprised P didn't have cameras in the bathroom and bedroom. Even JM seemed to think he must have been wearing shorts at the very least, but we just know def was sitting his naked ass on someone else's sofa and doing a nasty deed. I guess he was feeling better and got a little frisky.  Reason #4,287 why I would never rent my house out. After having everything professionally cleaned and sanitized afterwards, the rental income would not be worth it. Plaintiff is an asshole until the end.

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

non-pament for services: 

Astonishment here at plaintiff, who is quite elderly and earns her living rigging masts and sails on boats. Whoa! It almost defies belief and makes me think of how many litigants we see who are young to middle-aged and completely disabled,  can't do any job at all because their backs hurt (although it doesn't hinder them from popping out babies or doing stonework under the table of course) or have PTSD/agoraphobia because they tripped on the sidewalk years ago.

Geezer def refusing to pay her since he says she was doing it for free because some day in the future he might think about using the boat for charitable purposes, after he and his buddies are done with it? Shame on you! Pay the lady.

2 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Bad used car sale:

I guess JM didn't see narrow-headed, freshly-douchebag-haired, scrawny twerp def. roll his eyes at her. He deserved an even worse reaming than he got. At least plaintiff got the cost of fixing up her 14-year old Volkswagen window.

Edited by AngelaHunter
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

34 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

SRTouch outlines it all in his usual excellent manner, so just have to add that I hated the smirking asshole plaintiff, like, a lot. But def's wife sounded just like the parents we see all the time who vehemently deny that their little darlings would ever dream of doing the horrible things they actually did. "My husband doesn't walk around the house butt-naked", she says, but we know he does, just not when she's around. That's the only thing plaintiff said that I believed and I'm very thankful the video was not offered in evidence. I'm surprised P didn't have cameras in the bathroom and bedroom. Even JM seemed to think he must have been wearing shorts at the very least, but we just know def was sitting his naked ass on someone else's sofa and doing a nasty deed. I guess he was feeling better and got a little frisky. 

 

Jeez O'Pete.

I was half watching this while preparing my lunch.  I did not catch this tidbit.  Thank goodness or I'd have lost my soup and sandwich.

So Plaintiff saw him naked on the couch?  Who in fresh hell sits on a couch naked?  I think AngelaHunter solved this case.

I'm still shocked from the Massachusetts-butt hole-breast grabbin' cousin's claim that everyone here does that.  The image of kidney recipient patient sitting naked as a jaybird on a couch raising his own blood pressure is just too much for me to handle.

I might need something a lot tamer during my 2:00 lunch.  Perry Mason.  At least the weirdos wear a nice suit and tie.

 

  • Like 1
  • Laugh 2

Share this post


Link to post

I just got a new TV, 4K UHD QLED, this morning (my splurge for the decade), and this is one show that ought to stay in standard def.  (I had HD already but this is really a new experience.)  Not only does the awful 70s wood paneling set show even worse than usual, but the litigants do not present well.  The bags under the landlord plaintiff's eyes--I can't unsee that.  MM looks like a baby's bottom.

MM sniped about "making the kidney patient go to the Y."  The defendant's renal status is not the plaintiff's fault or problem.

3 hours ago, SRTouch said:

asks why D hubby was sitting 'butt naked' on the couch, and when D asks WTH?!?

Even if rent is free, a person has a right to walk around the house they inhabit any damn way they want.  And not to be video'd.  And plaintiff has a little smirk on his face the whole time MM is reaming him out for violating their privacy.  That was the creepiest part of all.

3 hours ago, SRTouch said:

MM thinks reason P got so huffy was because he was expecting D to have his back in some work related HR issue (she is a supervisor in HR)

And that was the right thing.  She could have lost her job if she'd shown someone favoritism in return for free rent.

So then the next case, and I can see every ravine in sailboat lady's face.  This is better than if I would ever start wearing my glasses.  I thought the long blonde hair was a wig, but the video showed that's her real hair.

4 hours ago, SRTouch said:

when dispute arose over payment P contacted the charity, and their reply is D isn't part of their charity - he tells MM that he and his 5 co-owners plan their own offer boat to charity once it's fixed up

Hallclown and Levin both said the charity was for cancer patients, but sailboat lady said it was for veterans.  And defendant says it's not a real charity, but just a bunch of guys doing something together.  And then it turns out he's not part of the charity anyway.

And now I'm looking at the grease tracks in the car salesman's hair.  I can count them.

Years ago, when I was young and almost as stupid as I am now, I bought a used car that ended up failing inspection.  The dealership basically told me to F myself because the sale was final.  That car gave me nothing but trouble during its short but miserable life.  One thing after another.  My current car is 9 years old, bought new, and one of us is gonna die and leave the other behind.

4 hours ago, SRTouch said:

she thoroughly enjoyed MM shaming defendant on national tv

Why do people go into auto sales?  MM has no patience with shady car salesmen--but I repeat myself.

  • Like 2
  • Laugh 3

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, PsychoKlown said:

So Plaintiff saw him naked on the couch?  Who in fresh hell sits on a couch naked?  I think AngelaHunter solved this case.

Yep. Got the whole act on video, it seems. I hope he at least put a towel down on the sofa, but somehow I doubt it. Other people's stuff you know. If you notice, def never denied it. I'm sure he's not the only person ever to do that, but usually it's not captured for posterity. OH, wait - it is, by Redditors who want to display their personal activities to the world. Ah, cell phones and internet have brought so much to the world.

 

1 hour ago, PsychoKlown said:

 Perry Mason.  At least the weirdos wear a nice suit and tie.

Yes. At least Perry (and Pa Walton and Matt Dillon, etc) never get buck-nekkid. I really think I better stay with MeTV from now on.

1 hour ago, PsychoKlown said:

I'm still shocked from the Massachusetts-butt hole-breast grabbin' cousin's claim that everyone here does that.

Imagine, and her a SSMO2, and maybe a SSMO3 after her dalliances with the boys. I am no longer shocked by anything I hear on these shows. Disgusted, revolted, and sickened maybe but not shocked.  How I wish we could stick to contract cases with no bestial behaviors proudly aired.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Case 1:  Fuchsia-decked plaintiff suing guy whose bandana neckerchief must be modeled on his beard, trying to get $750 in security back on an apartment she didn't rent.  I'm so glad this guy's name is Sasha, because that's the name of my cat and I have been worried that I actually gave him a girl's name by calling him Sasha instead of Sacha.  Anyway, I'm glad of the closed captioning for the Eastern European accents, although def's accent is almost imperceptible.  Plus, fuchsia plaintiff actually looks quite nice and professional, unlike the usual litigants.  Until they pan down and show us her shoes.  Umph.  MM is happy that the def writes a receipt for the deposit, although he didn't use a crayon and a piece of toilet paper.  Plaintiff claims she could get her money back if she changed her mind, and of course he says no.  She blames her old landlady who scares her that the new neighborhood is unsafe and offers to cut her rent in half, so now she wants to back out of the new deal.  Now MM's confused and calls them both liars as to whether the deposit was refundable.  Now plaintiff claims defendant offered to refund the deposit in return for sex not once, but twice.  I think there's some language barrier when MM tries to pin down the level of outrage at the offer.  MM reads the plaintiff's text which reiterates the charge of demanding sex for money.  Def says she went to the cops and the cops called him, he said he didn't do it.  MM says whether or not the offer was made, it has nothing to do with whether he owes the money or not.  So she goes back to the original documentation and says, too bad, you owe the money, so no refund for you.  Def wants a month's rent, too, but MM says no, that's what security is for.  He went on vacation, thinking the place was rented, but MM says that's on him.

Case 2:  Another unrefunded deposit when someone changes her mind.  Another well dressed plaintiff, who wanted dog obedience classes and boarding, vs defendant who says he provided 2 hours worth of doggie school.  Plaintiff says she brought the dog for an evaluation.  Def says the dog was dragging the woman.  He wanted a 50% deposit on the training.   He did a 10 minute consult, and asked then for a contract and payment.  Plaintiff says she filled in the contract but never signed it, left a $550 deposit for $1100 services (training and boarding).  Def works with the dog for two hours.  Plaintiff goes home, changes her mind.  Def claims plaintiff took the dog home after he worked with it and the dog did so well, she didn't think she needed to pay for any more training.  He says she has a video that shows how well the dog was doing, but she claims it doesn't exist.  Contract says no refunds, but again, she never signed it.  MM says if you handed over the money, you're assuming it's nonrefundable by default.  Def wins.  

Case 3:  And yet one more unrefunded deposit.  Overly flashy jewelry plaintiff is suing for a car on a slow payment plan, but it took so long that the defendant finally sold the damn thing out from under her.  I wouldn't think an $800 car would need a deposit and payments.  And the car needed to be titled, too, which slowed down the transaction.  Plaintiff never even test drove the damn thing.  Last receipt shows he charged her for putting in a new battery, so the total paid is $230 plus the battery.  Now we find out plaintiff has section 8 money and income tax money, but none of that went to the payments.  MM wants to know why he gave her the key when it wasn't paid off, and he says it's some kind of memento.  Nobody had any idea of how long this transaction is supposed to take.  Def has to look up plaintiff and ask her when the hell she's going to pay for the damn $800 car.  Of course, she has another excuse, it'll be a few more weeks, which turns into months.  She's got a new phone (had money for that!) and claims she lost all her contacts.  She says she found defendant and his GF on FB, at which point GF says they finally sold the car.  GF says she thought they had a buyer at that point.  It's now sold and he got $1000 for it, but he had to put work into it.  GF says plaintiff refused to talk to her, even though it was plaintiff who contacted GF.  Plaintiff threatened that she and her husband were going to "pay a visit" to def and GF.  MM yells at plaintiff for using the word "retarded."  MM says getting lost for three months is too much.  Def wins.

So three women suing three men for deposits, and all losing, and I agreed with all three.

SRTouch, this recapping is hard!!!  😬

 

Edited by meowmommy · Reason: Because I'm an obsessive, anal bitch when I find a typo.
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

@meowmommy did a great job today as I was AWOL  - I took quick trip south to Texas..... as she said, three folks looking to get non-refundable deposit refunded.

#1 put down security and signed a lease. A week later her almost ex-landlady lowers rent in old place and she decides to stay. She has no case, so tries to extort deposit refund by claiming new landlord offered to return money if she had sex with him - not once, but twice. She even goes so far as sending him a text threatening to go to police and sent a letter to guy's wife - and follows through with the threat. The only evidence sex was ever mentioned is when she threatens the landlord. Landlord keeps deposit since he lost a month a rent - actually, he wanted more as he still hasn't rented place, but MM isn't happy that he has made no effort to find new tenants.

#2 is a closer call, but still P fails in bid to get back refund. This time, P hubby contacts dog trainer about boarding and training their dog while they go out of town. Trainer doesn't have a set rate, he wants to see and evaluate dog first, but tells hubby it should be around $1100 (p wife disputes price, she says she expected to pay less) with 50% deposit up front. After the evaluation, trainer sticks with the $1100 total. P fills out her information on the contract and pays the 50% ($550). According to trainer he spends next couple hours training dog, and dog does amazingly well. Nah, didn't happen says P, her version is she was there 10-20 minutes and little to no training occurred. Oh, and even though P filled out contract and put down the 50% deposit, D didn't make sure she signed it before he started training the pup. 12 hours later she finds a friend who agrees to board the dog during their  trip and she & hubby decides pup really doesn't need training. Sooooo, of course they demand refund of deposit, and since she never signed they sued. MM says nope, a signed contract would have been nice but not absolutely a must. She gets P to admit a couple times that the deposit was paid to get trainer to reserve time for training, and trainer wrote it on his calendar. I had a friend here watching who felt trainer should have returned a portion, but way I see it, even without signed written contract, they had a verbal agreement that P breached.

#3 was silliest case - a 22yo Honda that sat at least 6 months and P agreed to pay $800 without even taking it for test drive. No telling how long it sat, but my guess is every gasket or rubber part is dry rotted and needs to be replaced. Oh, and when they made deal there was no title, so everyone agreed P could wait til seller got title before she paid. She says she had the money when deal was made, but by time D got title 6 weeks later her $800 was spent. Over the next 2-3 months she pays a little here and there, then she drops off the grid. D drives around her neighborhood looking for her, finds her, gives her a ride to church and P gives him another payment (total paid $230). Then she ghosts again. Couple months later she contacts D's gf about 'her' car. Ah, gf tells her, you ghosted, car sold to someone else. Actually, sounds like the good church going lady got kind of nasty demanding car or refund and turns out car hadn't been sold yet. Church lady even sends text threatening to come over with her hubby and get physical. D and gf are done with P, and D goes ahead and finds another buyer - someone who actually has money and is willing to pay $1000. Nope, this one doesn't get any money back, either

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Meowmommy, you did a fine job and between you and SRTouch, I have little to add.

Sex for money: Althought plaintiff got on my last nerve as JM had to keep hustling her on as she wanted to spend the whole case talking about her financial problems and how expensive it is to live in L.A. (Yeah, we know but I started to think she was maybe going to hit up  JM or Douglas for a few bucks). I did absolutely believe her when she said creepy, baggy-eyed def tried to barter sex for money, mainly because he started getting belligerent, declaring how there is no evidence to that, nothing in writing, she can't prove it, etc.

1 hour ago, meowmommy said:

Another well dressed plaintiff, who wanted dog obedience classes and boarding, vs defendant who says he provided 2 hours worth of doggie school.

Amusing how wifey plaintiff tried to back out of the contract because her hubby boy, who said not a word and looked like a 13-year-old about to cry during the case, wasn't there to put his manly stamp of approval on the agreement. Kiddies need to learn how to be better hustlers if they want to pull shit like this. She thought she was pretty slick, learning the training techniques then trying to stiff the trainer. Big surprise that she lost the video she took of him training the dog. You just know these two dingbats treat that dog like a Wooby or a baby and it will never be trained. I'm just hoping it won't be one of the zillions that gets dumped because "He won't listen!"

30 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

#3 was silliest case - a 22yo Honda that sat at least 6 months and P agreed to pay $800 without even taking it for test drive.

"We didn't never make no agreement." Would that be a triple negative? I'm not sure. JM: "Did you test drive (this ancient heap)?" "No, m'am," plaintiff proudly declares. Who would think of such a thing? JM didn't seem to think her threat of showing up with some guy at the def's house was a big deal.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
44 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

I took quick trip south to Texas....

You need to let us know when you're going to do stuff like that so one of us can step up.😁

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

You need to let us know when you're going to do stuff like that so one of us can step up.😁

Well, I did step up but he was on it already.  I think I should sue him for making me do all that work when he was going to write a recap anyway.  🤣🤣🤣

 

 

  • Laugh 5

Share this post


Link to post

^^^ Yes, sue.  You can whine about how you felt bullied, pressured and had no choice in the matter. Maybe throw in a little "emotional distress" for how it messed up your little lady head?

  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

looked like a 13-year-old about to cry during the case, wasn't there to put his manly stamp of approval on the agreement. Kiddies need to learn how to be better hustlers if they want to pull shit like this.

Yeah, both of them looked and acted like twelve year olds. They really did try to scam the defendant out of his well earned money.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

I did absolutely believe her when she said creepy, baggy-eyed def tried to barter sex for money, mainly because he started getting belligerent, declaring how there is no evidence to that, nothing in writing, she can't prove it, etc.

I totally agree.  Bottom line, though, is that the case was about her trying to breach a contract - which she did - so the ruling was correct.  She wanted to breach before he even said a word.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

On 1/6/2020 at 6:56 PM, AngelaHunter said:

What was truly egregious was the def getting  a restraining order on the twerp for texting her and asking for his money back.

....

Of course he was at a horror convention and of course he used "edibles". I have no idea what they are but I'm assuming they are drugs of some sort.

Seriously.  She not only wanted to have her cake and eat it too, but she expected him to bake it for her.  How badly do you need to twist something in your own head in order to make it work for you.  He was no prize, but not worthy of such a low blow.

Not sure if you were being sarcastic or not, but edibles are typically food with cannabis/weed/pot baked into it.

 

On 1/9/2020 at 10:28 AM, AngelaHunter said:

Her smirky, "Apologies!" after Doug in the Hall badgered her into it was worse than no apology. She felt not one iota of remorse or shame. I really hoped he'd get the 5K or at least 2500$. The 500$ was insulting in exchange for her outrageous behavior, IMO. Say what you like about JJ but I'm pretty sure he would have gotten the 5K in her court.

That really pissed me off.  Doug even called her on it - "That's it?!"  I had a feeling that he was only going to get $500, but now I really wish that JM had thrown the book at her.  That was the epitome of "sorry/not sorry."  And she should have been VERY sorry.

Poor guy - but - with any luck - the exposure on the show might drive some business to him.  Hopefully he is a GOOD contractor who is deserving of the business.  I will laugh my head off if we see a case in the future where someone is suing him and when JM asks "How did you find out about him?" answers: "I saw him get wrongly sued on this show, and decided to look him up..."

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I had to laugh at the rerun of the entitled twit who bought two huge TVs while couch surfing, including sleeping in the son's bedroom of an old family friend.   Then when he told her to move out (his girlfriend was not happy about the woman living in the house with her boyfriend), she claims he went crazy, announced she was the love of his life, and she needed to be his girlfriend.    Then she moves, and leaves the TV behind, and claims he sold or threw out her TVs because she wouldn't  pick her TVs up instantly.   Actually, it was two months later that the defendant told her to pick them up, she said the mother would, but the mother (who wouldn't let the daughter move in, apparently her husband or boyfriend said no) said she couldn't pick them up either because she's disabled, or her car isn't big enough.   Then the man said he put them on the curb, (which Judge M doesn't believe), and they disappeared.   The plaintiff and her mother certainly think they are the women everyone wants, don't they?   

I find it laughable that anyone is all that wild to be with the plaintiff.   I'm glad she was given nothing, and thinks that' what she deserved.

Then the woman had a fiance with back child support, and she loaned or gave him the money.   Another person who claims that she'll be paid back when the tax refund happens, and of course, it never does.     Plus, man called off wedding, and plaintiff wants to be paid for her lost venue deposits, and her wedding dress.   That's not happening.   She wanted $4500+, and she's not getting anything.       Another desperate person who will pay anything for companionship.    Why do women with kids take up with some guy who doesn't pay his child support, and think he'll treat her and her kids better than he treats his own off spring?  

Since ratings sweeps months (where the ratings companies collects viewer numbers for every show on the air) are November, February, and May, then I'm guessing we'll only get really wild ones for reruns (I have two on schedule a day, 8 a.m. new (if they have a new one, otherwise it's a rerun), and 10 a.m. rerun).     Then when February starts, we should get new ones

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

^^ You got better reruns than I did (we're back to repeats already?) I got the two sisters fighting over 20$ and jars of pennies from Momma or whatever. Toothlessness, murdered English and all that crap. I skipped it.

We also got again the battle of the Betas over a fish tank. Def's daddy needs to stop trusting his boy to do grown-up business. Skipped.

If we must get reruns, can't they give us better or older ones? Quel bore.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

 

On 1/13/2020 at 5:10 PM, AngelaHunter said:

If we must get reruns, can't they give us better or older ones? Quel bore.

Yes indeed.

Although I did enjoy today's entitled plaintiff who wanted out of a lease because she couldn't cool her arse in the landlord's pool that was situated right outside the patio of her basement apartment.

She was also out of sorts because the landlord specifically stated 'no smoking' in the basement abode.  Plaintiff claims she didn't smoke but in the event some future company she's hosting chooses to do so.....they can't.  And she make it abundantly clear that she did not want any hubbub with the landlord.  Personally, I think she smokes.  

Well, JM's decision favored the pasty, sickly looking landlord with an asthmatic wife.  And that was probably the right call but lets just say the Plaintiff made her point in front of Doug by flouncing out of the courthouse.  

But the real treat was listening to the landlord's hallterview.  He had a prepared speech addressing all the trials and tribulations of the under appreciated landlords. According to him they have many more responsibilities and ungrateful tenants (and potential tenants) trying to cash in with bogus claims makes their job all that more difficult.

I must confess to discreetly dabbing away at a tear that somehow formed in my eye.  My co-worker grabbed for the tissues too, she claimed she had to blow her nose but I suspect she too was moved by his speech.  

I learn so much from daytime tv on my lunch hour.   

 

 

  • Like 3
  • Laugh 2

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, PsychoKlown said:

He had a prepared speech addressing all the trials and tribulations of the under appreciated landlords. According to him they have many more responsibilities and ungrateful tenants (and potential tenants) trying to cash in with bogus claims makes their job all that more difficult.

And I missed it! Maybe I need to ease up on the FF button.

4 hours ago, PsychoKlown said:

 Personally, I think she smokes.  

Me too. If I were renting, it would never occur to me to ask the landlord if it's okay to smoke weed, not because I smoke weed of course, but I might have some guests who want to. I wouldn't ask if pets are okay, if I never planned to get one. *Sigh*. Another one who signs stuff she hasn't read. Does anyone? We never did hear about all those oppressive rules, did we? The smoking was the only one I heard.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

A rerun of the woman who wants her late husband's very old jet ski (1997 model jet ski) back from a former employee that paid $500, was given a bill of sale, title, and registered it.   Defendant later sold it to a co-worker who has registered the title.        This all started before the husband died years ago, and this woman actually tried to file theft charges against the defendant, and police saw defendant's paperwork, and declined to prosecute (this was in 2015).      The defendant also worked at the late husband's company, managed by the husband's brother, and worked there for over a year after the jet ski police report was settled.   So I'm guessing the plaintiff is the only one who is holding on to this. 

 This woman needs to let it go, it's an older wave runner that was legally sold, and resold.    All these years later she's still filing court suits, and brought her attorney to court with her?      Then she claims the signature on the bill of sale is forged.     This woman needs to let this go, and if she wants the jet ski so badly, buy it from the second buyer.     The hall-terview with Doug is ludicrous, where the woman claims she wanted to expose the defendant's misdeeds, but he didn't do anything wrong.    I bet she will never give up on this jet ski.  

Then there are the two old geezers who were on the condo board (neither is now) about locking the storage areas so homeless can't squat in them.    This is a Florida condo, and plaintiff says people need to get constant access to store gasoline in the storage areas for post-hurricane use.     The plaintiff claims the defendant pushed him down, and he had to have knee surgery.   Defendant says the plaintiff fell down on his own, and he never touched him.    I can guess why plaintiff was so unsteady, he is another who has to sit in court to show the judge how feeble he is.      I can see why plaintiff is no longer on the condo board.    

(My local channel shows two TPC episodes a day, and right now they're both reruns).  

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Okay we're definitely getting different eps. The ones I saw today I don't recall seeing before. Either my memory is more shot than I thought or it got pre-empted here for weather, mass shootings or something else.

Saw a picture of a dog in the first case, so FF through it.

Next was the dweeby, high-pitched Beta who works  in some high-pressure telemarketing place pushing vacation packages or some such. He wants everyone to wuv him, so he  starts lending his co-telemarketers money. The sleezy, smirking def gets wind of that so asks plaintiff for 600$. Plaintiff says sure, and this after TWO WEEKS of knowing him. "He's the best salesman there!" he squeaks and JM drolly observes, "I can tell." I guess he was looking for love in all the wrong places. P says D agreed to give him 100$ interest which we know is loan-sharking but plaintiff denies knowing this. Of course, loud, smirking, uber-salesman (he made 1000$ in one week) refuses to pay him back, saying it was a gift(!!). P goes to his boss to complain, asking boss to garnish D's wages. Oh, plaintiff also involved the boss in the other loan he made to a woman who worked there, having him witness the contract and also agreeing to garnish that employee's wages. Someone is lying, so JM gets the boss, Steve, on the phone. He confirms story P told. JM notes that if she were their boss she would fire both of them, because one of them is a lying hustler and the other is a loanshark and an idiot. Okay, she didn't say "idiot". She makes both of them STFU and awards plaintiff 500$ because he says D did pay him one hundred and the 100$ interest is not legal. He's lucky he got anything back. 

Last case was even worse. Plaintiff does landscaping and neck-bearded little twerp hires him to clean up a property he owns. His texts and emails confirm it's for grass cutting and trimming of shrubs. Sounds easy until you see the yard looked like a jungle, with grass and massive weeds growing wild about 2 - 3ft high. Plaintiff does a really good job of it and def refuses to pay him one cent of the measly 175$ he was being charged. Why? Well, he didn't complete the job. Def wanted shrubs moved and/or removed. No, he never told the plaintiff that or said it in his emails or texts, because he quite naturally assumed that grass cutting and trimming would include that. Those are terms of the trade and he had no knowledge of this complicated language in which one thing actually means something quite different. JM informed him that no, this is not the language of the trade, but simple English, where "trim" does not mean remove or transplant. I really wish she had given him a worse spanking, the little shit. In the hall the neckbeard whines to Doug that the judge is wrong and she never gave him a chance to explain. Doug, call the wahhmbulance for this wee crybaby. Absolutely shameless. Just pay the money, you little cuck.

 

Edited by AngelaHunter
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Wouldn't ya know, when we start getting new cases I end up too busy to do recaps..... I have some traveling to do today and tomorrow for medical stuff (chauffeuring a friend up to Oklahoma City for tests/surgery). Anyway - here's quicky recap for today

  1. piano consignment ripoff?: p left her piano with D to sell on consignment years ago, wonders where the heck her money is. He sent her partial payment and told her it had sold, but that was back in '18 and she's tired of waiting for rest of money....  while P keeps everything, including the receipt from '84 when she originally bought the piano, D may be world's worst book keeper...... turns out the sale in '18 fell through and D still has the lady's piano..... P not happy when MM tells her her case is not ripe - the contract she (P) provided clearly says D doesn't owe her anything until piano sells, and heck she's already ahead of game because he's given her 2 grand before the sale.... MM offers to have D return the piano, but if he does P will not only have to return the 2 grand partial payment she has received, but contract says P would have to pay for shipping....... case really all about poor communication with these two not keeping in touch through the years on status of piano.... case dismissed without prejudice
  2. 'Nother communication failure: again, case should have never made it to court. D doing landscaping as a summer job, and rock from weed eater shatters P's sliding glass door. D right away takes door to shop recommended by P - shop says it will cost $400 - D agrees to pay..... glass ends up on back order, P ok with that at first, but then after the weeks go by D stops responding to her texts..... finally, P tired of waiting, decides she wants brand new door and sues for $2500..... MM enforces original settlement, D to pay the  $400 and get glass replaced
  3. tenant suing for monster smart tv ruined by leaky ceiling: P in this one has strong accent requiring CC to be turned on - D another lawyer looking foolish on national tv..... D intro tries to deny leak ever happened, then tries to argue maybe it was P's AC's condensation that caused damage (by leaking sideways from 4 feet away, asks MM), then instead of bringing building super or anyone with personal knowledge of case he brought an expert witness to testify about value of tv, but his expert is an accountant who knows nada about the tv or leak - oh, and D has a $1500 countersuit claiming P filed bogus suit...... only reason to watch is to see lawyer dude act the fool and try to argue law with MM ignoring his arguments - dude also tries to 'affirm' his conversations with the super, but seems to me his ''affirming'  is another way of saying hearsay....... oh, and seems missing super offered to settle with P for $500, but P wanted tv replaced and not money..... ok, MM has fun poking fun at lawyer and accountant expert right up until she gets fed up with lawyer's nonsense..... P wins, but does not get new tv price, instead gets value of used tv - turns out value of P's old tv only $225, so he should have taken super's settlement offer of $500
Edited by SRTouch
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
36 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

piano consignment ripoff?:

That woman was so abrasive and unpleasant - is it ever a good idea to roll your eyes when a judge is talking to you? -  and btw, no one cares about her empty nest and why she was selling the piano. Couldn't she have gone, just once, to the shop during these years to see if her piano was there? Def, a lovely man in his lovely piano key tie, is from a different time and place (he made me think of the shopkeeper in "1984") and no one else would have sent her the 2K or given the other buyer his deposit back. Let her pay to take back the piano the way she agreed to do in her contract - and she'll still have a windfall of 1900$ -  and sell it herself. Good luck with that.

42 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

'Nother communication failure: 

And another man-child who needs his big hover-mother here to tell him what to say about what happened even though she wasn't there. He should have asked Mommy to reply to plaintiff's texts for him and maybe they wouldn't have ended up here.

 

45 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

tenant suing for monster smart tv ruined by leaky ceiling: 

I was distracted by the audience member behind the so-called lawyer who was laughing hysterically at his BS. Plaintiff is a child of God or something although I"m not sure how that factors in to him trying to hustle 1900$ for a 4-year old TV. He was offered 500$ for it and should have grabbed that but it wasn't good enough and in fact he was insulted at such a paltry sum. You know what you can get for 500$ these days?

In all the years I've watched these shows, I can recall off-hand ONE lawyer who knew his business, was competent and actually knew the law. Here we had another utter clown who sounded ridiculous, trying to use rank hearsay as evidence to countersue as in criminal proceedings of "Malicious prosecution". One of the best parts was his dopey "Expert" witness. JM expected him to report on the condition of the TV, ability to fix it, how it could be damaged by a window a/c nowhere near it, cost to replace it or whatever. He's an accountant, who took the time to draw up charts and graphs on the value of the old TV with and without extended warrantys or some such nonsense. What a pair of foolish bozos. I will never, ever hire a lawyer.

Doug in the Hall was simply savage: "You're a lawyer. How could think talking back to the judge was a good idea? It made you sound really stupid." Never stop being you, Doug. 😂

  • Like 10
  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

And another man-child who needs his big hover-mother here to tell him what to say about what happened even though she wasn't there.

I really don't think he could have stopped her without using some sort of physical restraints. The judge was sending a very mixed message, what with admonishing hovermom one minute and giggling at her the next. MM & I have very different ideas of what "cute" is.

That final defendant is why people hate lawyers.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
59 minutes ago, Broderbits said:

The judge was sending a very mixed message, what with admonishing hovermom one minute and giggling at her the next.

Right. We all know that JM treats her oldest daughter, who is a grown woman, like a little baby. Times have changed and I guess I haven't kept up with them. Back in days of yore when I was young, an adult man or woman would have been mortified to have Mommy along to fight their battles. Now it's standard, even if the "child" is 45 years old.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, SRTouch said:

P not happy when MM tells her her case is not ripe - the contract she (P) provided clearly says D doesn't owe her anything until piano sells, and heck she's already ahead of game because he's given her 2 grand before the sale.

She thought she was so smart and snarky, and she was just nasty.  But the defendant should have kept better records.  And don't bring Yelp to court, ever, except for that case last week where the plaintiff was specifically libeling the wrong defendant.  I kinda wish MM had ordered the plaintiff to return the $2K, seeing as the defendant gave the deposit back to the buyer with cold feet.  She really has no right to it.  

We had a piano store around the corner, and it went out of business last year.  

2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Couldn't she have gone, just once, to the shop during these years to see if her piano was there?

That's the part I don't understand.  It sounds like a fairly unique piece, and she's got the paperwork to identify it.  She should have marched over to his store to find out what was going on.

3 hours ago, SRTouch said:

D doing landscaping as a summer job, and rock from weed eater shatters P's sliding glass door.

I really am not sure the plaintiff should have been entitled to anything.  The rock was in her yard and it therefore was an existing hazard no matter how competently the landscaper was working.  If a rock falls off a truck on the highway and hits your windshield, I believe you can't collect, even if the truck is full of rocks.  And $400 is a huge chunk of change for someone doing landscaping as a summer job.  

I don't know how people find old texts so quickly on their phones.  

58 minutes ago, Broderbits said:

I really don't think he could have stopped her without using some sort of physical restraints.

Yeah, I don't think the defendant was asking mommy to pipe up; she did it on her own.  But he should have left her at home or at least in the audience.

2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

I was distracted by the audience member behind the so-called lawyer who was laughing hysterically at his BS.

Lawyers/law students have historically not done very well on TPC, have they.  

Seems to me the picture of the giant bubble--excuse me, little hole--of water in the ceiling right above the TV was kinda slam-dunk evidence of where the water in the TV came from.

Absence of renter's insurance is not a defense to liability for negligence.  How much did the management company pay this lawyer and this accountant to fight this case in court??  For that incredibly simple Excel line chart that any kid could produce?

Maybe the show pays enough that the plaintiff would still make out better with his $225 than the $500 he would have gotten.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

7 minutes ago, meowmommy said:

Absence of renter's insurance is not a defense to liability for negligence. 

Yes, but the lawyer was unaware of that. I'm sure his appearance here will do wonders for his business. "The person who actually went to the appartment and saw first-hand the damage? Oh, well, I never thought of bringing him, but let me introduce you to my expert witness, the accountant."

Someone has to graduate at the very bottom of the class and those are all the lawyers we see here.

 

11 minutes ago, meowmommy said:

Seems to me the picture of the giant bubble--excuse me, little hole--of water in the ceiling right above the TV was kinda slam-dunk evidence of where the water in the TV came from.

"Allegedly".  I think I'd rather have a used car salesman represent me in court. 😄

  • Like 1
  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post

I haven't laughed at an episode so much for a long time but that lawyer and his expert accountant were good comedy. He sincerely thought if threw around legal terms JM would be dazzled by the intelligence and award that ridiculous countersuit. Pompous fool. And then Doug in the hall after the lawyer snarkily rambles on about how the people have spoken through the great Judge Milian, blah, blah puts him in his place with a dismissive "Get it off your chest". 

Just wish I could see a group of attorneys who know this windbag watching it and rolling with laughter. 

  • Like 6
  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, knitorpurl said:

I haven't laughed at an episode so much for a long time but that lawyer and his expert accountant were good comedy. He sincerely thought if threw around legal terms JM would be dazzled by the intelligence and award that ridiculous countersuit. Pompous fool. And then Doug in the hall after the lawyer snarkily rambles on about how the people have spoken through the great Judge Milian, blah, blah puts him in his place with a dismissive "Get it off your chest". 

Just wish I could see a group of attorneys who know this windbag watching it and rolling with laughter. 

My favorite part was when he included "Malicious Prosecution" in his countersuit and JM had to point out to him - an ATTORNEY - that MP is for criminal suits, and this was a civil suit.  What an idiot.  

And don't get me started on the accountant with his graph.  

Aren't we all grateful that we don't work for the property management company that employs these two?

  • Like 2
  • Laugh 3

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, SRTouch said:

piano consignment ripoff?:

That plaintiff was as much of an irritating twat as the one from a week or two ago who sued the wrong person because of a coincidence of names, without doing any other verification. This one sued without even checking if her piano was still at the shop. And she was still crying foul about having been mistreated during the hallterview, much like the other one reluctantly spurted out a totally insincere "apologies" to the defendant. Perhaps these two were separated at birth.

That being said, the shop owner needs to keep better records. Things are not done today on a handshake as they probably were when he started his business and if there is a problem, he will require a paper trail that he can locate.

 

16 hours ago, SRTouch said:

tenant suing for monster smart tv ruined by leaky ceiling: 

The management company obviously gets its legal representation at the discount lawyers store, where they must have had a "Rent an attorney, get a free accountant" promotion.

 

13 hours ago, Broderbits said:

really don't think he could have stopped her without using some sort of physical restraints. The judge was sending a very mixed message, what with admonishing hovermom one minute and giggling at her the next.

I thought he did a very capable job on his own as a mature adult, but the mother is obviously of the helicopter variety, with a irrepressible need to butt in at every moment. Which of course elicited sympathy in MM who also behaves that way with her children from the bits of info she lets out from time to time. When she does that (or when she giggles along with the bad girls) she often corrects herself, only to revert to the same questionable approval a moment later.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, Florinaldo said:

This one sued without even checking if her piano was still at the shop.

/snip/

That being said, the shop owner needs to keep better records. Things are not done today on a handshake as they probably were when he started his business and if there is a problem, he will require a paper trail that he can locate.

--------------------------------

The management company obviously gets its legal representation at the discount lawyers store, where they must have had a "Rent an attorney, get a free accountant" promotion.

I could almost understand consignment goods/paperwork being misplaced in something like a pawn shop specializing in lots of little pieces of jewelry.  But confusion in a PIANO store?  And it's a grand piano?  

-----------------------------------

Great comment about the attorney/accountant!!!  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Florinaldo said:

The management company obviously gets its legal representation at the discount lawyers store, where they must have had a "Rent an attorney, get a free accountant" promotion.

Obviously! 😂

10 hours ago, knitorpurl said:

Doug in the hall after the lawyer snarkily rambles on about how the people have spoken through the great Judge Milian, blah, blah puts him in his place with a dismissive "Get it off your chest". 

I forgot that part. Love ya, Doug!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Had to get up at 3 am to drive friend up to Oklahoma City to check in for surgery, so quicky recap - then time for a nap...... 

  1. event planner stole donation jar: P says she hired D to plan a birthday bash/ fund raiser event  - seems she wanted to party and raise money for her daycare playground - not only was party a flop, but claims D made off with some of the proceeds - wants 5 grand....... D says P is way off in her calculation of what was collected - admits taking $300, but says P claims there was over $6400 cash raised - she has 5 grand countersuit for party planning fees....... if I'm understanding this right, P says she hired, and agreed to pay $1800 for a black and gold themed birthday bash/the fundraiser..... uhhhh, so why does it look like the party decorations are black and RED...... at first MM tries to understand what P expected from party planner by asking questions, but P acts like she isn't sure who was to do what, so MM asks for, and P gives her, their written contract..... quick read of contract and MM announces it's worthless - lots of big words but no substance..... ok, strike one was P not able to tell us who was supposed to do what; strike 2 is worthless contract with tells us nothing; so, now MM turns to D to find out if she can tell us who was supposed to do what....... uhhhhhh, D seems to not get that MM wants to hear some details - she started this line of questions by asking who was to supply the tables, who rented linens, etc and when she turns to the party planning defendant she hears "I was supposed to do everything"....... no details, just like her contract....... finally D breaks down and tells us all she was supposed to do, but when we go back to P she argues no, D wasn't supposed to do all those things, and MM says those are the things typically expected from an event planner when people waste their money hiring a party plannrt, so why pay $1800 to D instead of putting that money towards the supposed fund raiser...... geez, I'm only half listening but decide it's not worth rewinding to get P's story straight - something about how she was at some other event and was late arriving to the party, went upstairs to change, came out on balcony, looked out at party and saw colors all wrong, goes inside, opens up a bottle of something and starts drinking - oh, and says there were 70 people at party but only 15 people prepaid, so...... how much did she expect her fundraiser to raise....... anyway, sounds like D's Uncle was working the door and collecting from people who didn't prepay, and D claims there were only 40-50 total party goers - P says D told her she gave all the money collected at door to Uncle, D says no way, never said anything such thing..... after commercial break D tells us two people were working door, her Uncle and someone P had there, and total of $350 was collected at door...... but now D is contradicting herself and MM is getting frustrated with both sides - D now says there were 3 people collecting at door, her Uncle plus 2 people supplied by P, and her Uncle collected the $350, and these two people P had there collected from some people but let others in free - P says only Uncle was working door collecting money..... P has video from party - why I'm not sure as it just looks like a bunch of drunks - and MM is watching vid trying to see if she can get a feel of how many were there.... I'm over this mess - doesn't look like anyone has any actual evidence and they're just taking turns calling each other liars (and if video is any hint - was that P twerking - I figure P was too drunk to know what was going on at the party)...... zip zip..... well, looks like MM has taken strong dislike to D, she seems to be accepting all these written statement from party goers that they paid at door, maybe they're affadavits, but if so I missed it, sounds like hearsay to me.....I think part of her dislike may be the worthless contract, along with the 'tude D is showing...... ok, now P getting lectured - nope, don't care - zip zip - MM deals with countersuit first - nah, no evidence of anything, just more 'tude as D argues with MM - no idea how MM arrived at her figures, maybe just tired of D arguing, she announces P is awarded $1500 - not sure what D says when decision is announced - CC caught "thank you very much" but that wasn't all D had to say...... hmmmmm D doesn't have much to say to Doug - but what's with her witness claiming a cat was killed by P's dog.... nah, never mind, I don't want to hear it...... 
  2. neighborhood feud: P wants D to pay his share of tree removal and fines for a tree in their shared property line.... wants 3 grand..... D argues it was P's tree all along - says he approached P complaining about P's tree being overgrown and endangering D's garage, P ignored him (well, actually intro clown says D claims P killed tree to make it even more hazardous), so D complained and city fined P and ordered him to remove tree - D has 3 grand countersuit claiming garage damage and harrassment....... does not sound like P has a chance to win since city has apparently already decided it was P's problem tree, so without a survey P is just being a pain in the a$$..... uhoh, not sure how long I'll last trying to understand P's accent and reading CC...... not liking what I'm hearing - P admits D told him years ago that tree was damaging his garage, but since P didn't actually plant the tree he considers any damage tree was causing to be an 'Act of God' - finally, after three years, he says he decided to just kill the tree.... uh, yeah, if a live tree was damaging neighbor's foundation with roots, just kill it and leave it standing so wind can blow it down - gotta laugh,  P acts like it's perfectly reasonable to kill a 50 foot tree and leave it standing where it can fall on neighbor's property - heck, even P is laughing as he tells MM the tree was dropping branches on neighbor's garage and he admits he maybe shouldn't have killed it and he wouldn't do it again...... uh, yeah, just doublechecked, he's the P and is suing the neighbor whose garage his act damaged...... what'should this? so somebody else reported the dead tree as a hazard, not D, but P decided it must be this neighbor whose getting dead limbs landing on his garage, but noooooo, later he learns it was another neighbor who is worried the tree is going to fall in his yard - another one suing wrong litigant this time even though he knows this guy didn't report him....... not sure when we're going to hear something which would mean P has a case against D........ anyway, when city fines P he finally hires a tree service, and pays $1450 for tree to be cut back to there are no longer dead limbs hanging over D's garage - didn't remove whole tree, just topped it and left trunk standing g. .... MM trying to figure out why P is suing D, and how in the world he came up with his damage figure....... I give up when P tries to explain (especially as he later learned it wasn't even D who reported him to city) and zip ahead...... ok, dueling surveys because P decides tree was D's tree all along, and D goes out and pays for a survey of his own when served with lawsuit..... ah, at least now we hear from D....... P's survey worthless since it doesn't show the tree, D's says tree was 97% on P's, and 3% on D's side of line...... ok, P's case dismissed (from her summation I gather their jurisdiction limits max is 3 grand instead of normal 5), and now MM is going over the countersuit, which makes a little more sense but is also ultimately dismissed....... if possible, P proves to be an even bigger a$$ in hallterview. ..... 
  3. used car deal: ok, getting tired and cranky so zip ahead before intro - yeppers, as-is car sale, P  (buyer) suing for thousands in repairs but repairs not covered by warranty...... case dismissed..... P learned nada, when she reaches Doug she's still arguing "as-is is as-is-garbage"....... from hallterview it appears seller did some repairs he wasn't required to do, as Doug says he was pretty good guy - and we hear P shouting out around the corner where she's signing those papers

Naptime, nighty night 

Edited by SRTouch
  • Like 3
  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

 

 

The management company obviously gets its legal representation at the discount lawyers store, where they must have had a "Rent an attorney, get a free accountant" promotion.

 

 

And the accountant was still expensive at that free rate,  LOL  OMG, I thought for sure these two must be wannabe actors playing a joke.  I really laughed at this episode a lot!

  • Like 1
  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Had to get up at 3 am to drive friend up to Oklahoma City to check in for surgery, so quicky recap - then time for a nap...... 

  1. event planner stole donation jar: P says she hired D to plan a birthday bash/ fund raiser event  - seems she wanted to party and raise money for her daycare playground - not only was party a flop, but claims D made off with some of the

I love how even your quicky recaps are so thorough! Watching the People's Court wouldn't be half as fun without heading over to primetimer and reading your recaps later in the day. Thank you!

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
  1. 'nother neighbor feud with a tree - as a bonus, today we have a damaged fence: P claims neighbor's landscaper damaged her fence while trimming D's tree - of course her fence is worth big BIG bucks....... D says landscaper denies causing damage, and even if the fence was damaged it was old and raggly and not worth anywhere near 5 grand....... gotta agree with D, no way should she have to pay for a whole new fence, at most a couple hundred for the damaged portion (actually, MM tells us the new fence will run $17,000) - depending on actual damage and the shape of fence when squished...... geez, according to MM, P isn't even claiming the tree fell on the fence - instead damage caused by his ladder? - oh my, P now telling us landscaper banged his ladder against her fence 3 times and caused the damage, going on to claim that while her fence is 'old, it's a sturdy fence' - oh, and she has security video of landscaper in the act..... actually 3 clips, but not seeing much - what we see is landscaper dude leaning aluminum ladder against something - from angle we don't see what - and then breaking pretty much every chainsaw safety rule.... I actually thing we're talking gas hedge trimmer rather than chainsaw..... P claiming ladder damaged fence 'because it's so heavy' makes me think landscaper must be the Hulk as he casually carries the 'heavy' ladder around 1 handed........ not thinking much of P's testimony, to often when she's asked something she looks off into the distance and/or repeats the question before answering - when she does answer, more than once she repeats question and picks up with what she was saying before MM interrupted..... another thing I'm not liking - P says landscapers 'always' hit her tree when they parked their truck, but she never approached her neighbor - neighbor says first she heard P had a problem with her landscaper was when she was served with court case....... oh my, these two are long time neighbors, P grew up in house, but P's parents are gone and P now lives there alone, but they don't communicate...... P sounds like a nut job when D describes how a wind storm blew her picnic shade umbrella from her yard onto P's, and instead of saying something P called the cops - first D knew her umbrella was trespassing was when cops knocked on her door...... yep, more P talks more she sounds like a nutcase - now she's accusing D of frequently tresspassing, and says another time P hubby stole her golf clubs and again she was calling cops..... oh, and she admits she never approached D about fence issue because 'D likes to tresspass' on P's property.... time to look at damage pix..... ok, finally getting to the fence - P admits it's old - there when she moved in back in '87 - and we're talking old chain link fence with privacy slats...... at start I said most she should get would be a couple hundred, looking at fence  - no, not seeing her damage and $200 is too much for 1 post being pushed over (heck, not even seeing damage to her 33+ year old fence)....... oh my, when we see fence from D's yard we're looking at an eyesore with half the privacy slats broken and/missing...... P hasn't proved landscapers did anything to fence and I'm giving up on this one - after commercial and Shorty on the Street, MM dismisses case....... 
  2. landscape/snow removal at the Legion: P, a Vietnam Vet, says he was hired to do landscaping/snow removal at the American Legion, and management is over 4 grand in arrears...... D is manager, and says P hired his own company back when he was Commander of the Post (still a member, but not an officer) [side notefact that guy is still a Post member means nothing - when you join, you join the National organization, not a particular Post. You can ask to be assigned to a specific post, or be assigned to a post that you've never been to. I have been a member in two different Posts which closed down as membership fell, then was a member of the central Oklahoma-wide post which has no actual building. With the National card I can go to any post and participate in functions - but can't vote on individual Post business. When our two local Posts closed, I let my membership lapse - OTOH, if I wanted to, I could beome a lifetime member with 1 check or 12 monthly CC payments and never pay another annual membership fee] - says this conflict of interest is just one indicator of his mismanagement, and that when she took over the Post was $85,000 in the hole..... oh, and some of the invoices he's suing over are ancient history (10 yo)....... according to P, he already had the contract with the Post before he was elected...... way back in 2011 he was told someone else would be doing the work, and last time he received any payment was back in '12...... so, this dispute has been ongoing for 8-10 years - D took over as manager back in '14 (since she took over the Post's outstanding debt has dropped from $85,000 to $15,000) and didn't meet P until '16....... wellllll, we're getting different stories about what was paid when, even different dates of when P was Commander..... MM has excellent point when she questions how P could have paid himself over $12,000 when he was Commander - maybe different Posts are different, but in the ones I belonged to there were monthly meetings where all expenditures were at least identified, with a couple levels of approval depending on the amount - any really big ticket items were discussed in the monthly business meeting that any member could attend and then needed more than 1 signature..... yep, according to D witness it should not have been possible, and D tells us whatever loophole existed has been fixed since she took over...... ok, sounds like maybe P should have brought along his attorneys - over the years he has had at least two attorneys who worked the case, and D presents evidence the attorneys were filing motions and lawsuits which P claims to know nothing about. At one time attorneys won a judgement, but let it lapse and be dismissed because they missed a court date...... had the attorney followed through P could have collected, but by missing the court date and having to refile, the statute of limitations has now passed, so P out of luck and we don't need a forensic accountant to go over invoices/work orders D says are questionable....... case dismissed
  3. Tenant suing landlord: P  claims basement apartment flooded frequently, was roach infested, and that D tracked her guests with cameras - wants the $1400 deposit...... D says she spent thousands on apartment renovation just before P moved in, and it was P who caused the plumbing problems by sneaking in additional tenants and almost a regular laundromat - countersuit for over $1200 in unpaid water bill - ah, somehow monthly bill went up every month D was there, so that by end of tenancy it had jumped from $130-140 to $1200 ..... nope, Like MM suggested, must be a leak, as I don't see a washing machine  using over a grand worth of water per month........ as is usually the case, I wouldn't want to rent to or from either of these two..... landlady is convinced P brought bugs with her when she moved in and wants to use that as justification to keep deposit, but as MM points out she has no evidence......tenant loved how safe cameras made her at first, but decided they were evil when Landlord's asked about people seen in video (I found her explanation of bad health and having Healthcare workers and family reasonable - hey, if my mom had health issues and was known to pass out while sitting on the toilet, I'd do my best to have someone sleeping over)...... after sharpening her pencil and giving the calculator a workout, P awarded $532 and some cents.... D gets some of the $1400 deposit she kept, plus a percentage of the water bill (IIRC lease says Tenant to pay a third of any amount over $100)
Edited by SRTouch
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

Thank you SRTouch. I don't know when I'll get to see the show again, but reading your detailed recaps almost makes me feel I have!

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

"Was he sitting in some secret closet writing checks to himself, or did the board know what he was doing and what their money was being spent on?"

Also, ten years? No statute of limitations, then?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

There was a bizarre fence case this morning, I don't know if it was new or a rerun (my cable guide is always off), but it made me glad my neighbors are nice people.     Plaintiff is suing over a 40 year old chain link fence, that was old when she moved in.  It's one of the chain link fences with vinyl (or sometimes older ones are aluminum slats) woven in, and one brand name is Beauty Fence (it's always ugly to me).    Plaintiff claims that when defendants had some landscaping work done, that the workers hit her super old fence with a ladder, and the top wires that hook fence fabric to the top rail, popped off.     

It's really funny that plaintiff wants the defendants to pay for an entirely new fence for thousands.     I've replaced, or reinforced the top clips before, and they're about $20 bucks for a lot of them, and you just hook them to the top of the fence fabric, crimp the hook closed with pliers, twist it around the top pipe, and twist the bottom around the chain link.    It literally takes very little time and effort.     

The really strange thing is that plaintiff has always been one of 'those' neighbors that complained about defendant's daughter practicing tumbling, and somersaults ending on her lawn, and complained to defendant about the intrusion.   The defendant says that was when daughter was in elementary school, and the daughter is now 39.   

The defendant also tells Doug that the plaintiff's home has all kinds of floodlights, and cameras, and is a total pain to live next to.    However, I feel sorry for the defendants, because they will never be able to sell their house and get away from that woman.    No buyer is going to ignore the tons of security lights, No Trespassing signs everywhere, and the cameras focused over the fence to buy that home.   I think the plaintiff got $100 or so, and Judge M laughed at the claim to replace the fence.    That fence was in terrible shape. 

The plaintiff seemed so normal at the beginning, but at the end the cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs was showing. 

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

No recap today as I'm battling a hellacious headcold bordering on a migraine. When I get like this I just stay in bed in a dark room.

  • Sad 4

Share this post


Link to post

The first case today was two generations of bad mothering. This one was ugly but both sides were equally repellent.  It was a mother/daughter case - mom opened her door to her daughter, the daughters newborn and new BF.  It went downhill when the BF stopped paying rent (she was letting daughter live there rent free) and Mom went off.  Before you know it, the females are yelling, daughter is filming the mother, accusing Mom of having dementia, and calling the cops on each other.

The plaintiff seemed like an old bitter battle ax, yelling and ripping air conditioners out of windows.  However, I can understand that she may have been frustrated with her daughter, the baby factory, and her bringing in a leech that wasn't paying rent and she snapped.   I got the feeling that maybe the daughter was filming and goading the hostility in the hopes that she could wrest the home out of her mothers hands.  Her mindset could be like a lot of immature 20-somethings, that "mothers are supposed to let their kids squat" and was willing to ride that horse as long as she could, but then bringing the man-boy into Mom's house was the limit. It was obvious that Mom was bugged about already seeing daughter give away 3 kids and she wasn't going to let them lay up in her house and toss her some bucks here and there.  They just need to stay away from each other - they're toxic.

Edited by patty1h
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Yay! I got to see the 2nd and 3rd cases today.

The architect/contractor suing the defendant, his prospective client was all kinds of nutty. Both of them, for very mature, well-spoken men, were utterly ridiculous. Def. wants a stone wall with gate built in front of his property to stave off robberies. He sees P's ad on Craigslist. I'm not sure how many successful architects with lengthy careers post ads on that hellish site, but I guess they do. What do I know? I've only ever posted an a/c for sale on there and never looked for anyone to do work for me there. 

Plaintiff charges 60$/hr and JM wants to know exactly what the price would be for the project and what work would be done? Both of them kind of shrug in a "I dunno" way. Neither of them believe in written contracts.  Def says he merely told P "I don't want to break the bank." MM informs him that what might break the bank for one person could be pocket change for another. P apparently saw a Ferarri in the D's pics so figures D is loaded and he can go hog wild and wants to build a carport, new driveway and do "incorporation" of the stone wall with the house. We don't find out just what that means but it sounds very expensive. Neither one of them ever mentions scope of work or price. Of course not. JM points out that agreeing to pay by the hour with no cap on expenses might guarantee very very slow and costly work.

Must mention: Plaintiff appears to have fleas or something, as he starts scratching with both hands on his chest. But then he gets distracted or hypnotized by the lights, the LIGHTS!! and is turned sideways, staring straight up when JM is talking and she has to yell, "HEY!" to get his attention back on her. Anyway, D decides that all this just isnt' for him and stops replying to P. He's paid him 1K and P says he owes over 2K more. Also, he wants to be paid 600$ for driving twice from his state to the D's state which he had to do to sue him. JM quickly disabuses him of that notion. If he wants to have clients so far away and has to sue them that's his tough luck. He says he worked for 75 HOURS on plans for D who never agreed to anything, and D is hoping that by ignoring his texts/emails he'll just go away.

P has draftsmen to draw up plans and they must be paid. BUT, he admits he drew up these plans himself, so he has to pay himself double, I guess.  75 hours seems like a huge amount of time to me - without a contract of any kind -  but I'm not an architect or even a contractor. JM awards him 1K. Def. seems fine with that in the hall, and Doug directs him and his majestic belly the right way to get the hell out. By then I'd had enough of weirdo P and didn't listen to what he had to say.

Then we get a humdrum fender bender. P is stopped at a stop sign and def makes a sharp left turn and smashes into him. Def. tells P to go to a body shop he knows to get a good deal and says he'll pay for it. P does that and the bill is only 400$. He calls D to ask for reimbursement and surprise! D says he can't pay right now. Christmas is coming. P is surprised because he says D was driving a newer model Mercedes. I think we know that is no indication of anyone having money. It could have been repossessed the next week for all we, and he, know. Here, D tries to say the accident wasn't his fault, a truck blocked his view, P's car was in the middle of road, blah blah. P has a video at the scene to show, by the position of a manhole cover, he was not in the middle of the road. JM wants to know why, if the accident wasn't his fault, did D offer to pay? Well, he claims with a shit-eating grin, he felt sorry for P. He's just a NICE GUY, you know, so wanted to help this total stranger who caused the accident, so he said he'd pay half. Pay the 400$ you shameless cretin. As JM is leaving, she tells P he did a good job with his evidence.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

They're showing the bizarre rerun called "Tenant Tussle".    This is the one where the former roommate of the defendant wants her security deposit back, and defendant claims all kinds of awful things against the roommate.   Plot twist is there are ten other previous complaints against the defendant by previous tenants, including an assault conviction.  One includes a $5,000 judgment against the defendant in court, for a previous assault, and tenant abuse.   There are seven other previous judgments filed against the defendant too, who doesn't remember anything she's done to other people.    Defendant lies, and says the current plaintiff hit her repeatedly, tried to move in a husband, and hit her when she objected.   

Plaintiff claims that defendant threw out her food, rooked people out of their money, etc.  Plaintiff also claims the defendant came in her room, and rearranged her underwear drawer, among other offenses.   Defendant has an assault conviction too, for an assault on a previous tenant.   

As the judge says, defendant has to return last month rent, security deposit, and research fees for small claims with an adviser (who Judge Marilyn tells to go to law school).    Everyone's guess is that the defendant targets immigrant roommates, so she can rip them off, and terrorize them.    (Funny statement, defendant refuses to say how old she is, and a witness for plaintiff says she's 66, and everyone laughs). 

 Defendant is in a rent controlled (or stabilized) apartment, and she can't charge more than 50% of her rent, which is $2400.   Plaintiff gets $ 4125, security  and rent back, As Judge M says, defendant rips off roommates by driving them out, and keeping their security.  

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

During the last segment of Friday's episode, the plaintiff kept swaying from side to side and the camera person kept moving the camera from side to side.  I could not watch the segment as I felt a bit motion queasy.  Finally, JM told him to stop or sit down.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

  1. tenant suing crooked landlord: P rents room in upscale house, gets feeling someone is entering when he's out, installs nanny-cam and catches Landlord entering room - claims landlord turns out to be a crook - wants $907....... D says he rents out rooms in his million dollar house, and that P was trouble maker from get go, didn't get along with other tenants , and was seen walking around with a gun in his waistband - denies taking anything from room, well, except for a fridge he loaned tenant..... hmmmmm notice D intro doesn't deny unauthorized entry into room - suspect yet another landlord with no concept of legal landlord/tenant rules and boundaries - also, pretty good plan for ex-burglar to rent out upscale rooms and pilfer tenants belongings - no need to go out looking for burglary victims.... P is big bald black guy who dressed casual for court but turns out to be soft spoken and sounds like he's got it together... well, as much 'together' as you can get from someone who rents a room from a stranger..... D reminded me of a dried up, middle aged wise guy - made me think of Sinatra gone to seed..... turns out these folks are from Henderson, NV, according to Google an upscale suburb of Las Vegas..... ok, we have written rental agreement, total of 4 tenants and D living there, and room had lock on door with only tenant and landlord having keys..... as claimed in intro, P notices someone seems to be entering room through the locked door while he's at work (nothing big, just things like food missing from fridge) - then P learns D is arrested on an outstanding theft/burglary warrant...... why do litigants launch into a long explanation of why they were arrested when the Judge asks if they were arrested? 9 times out of 10 their explanation is way worse than a simple yes or no, especially when MM has to stop them, say you're not answering the question, were you arrested on an open burglary warrant - more explanation instead of simple answer with a story MM clearly does NOT buy..... thing I took from D's dodging of the question was that the warrant was a result of charges resulting from dispute with another tenant and D's attempt to pass a bad check at a casino....... anyway, when P learns of the arrest he tells D that he's looking for a new place even though there's still time left on lease (MM says he has cause to break lease when he saw stuff was disappearing, he notified landlord of the disappearances, and then heard landlord was arrested on outstanding theft warrant..... not sure who would have to eat cost of breaking lease as, according to D, charges were ultimately dismissed..... ah, but P didn't just announce he was leaving, he also installed security cameras since he already suspected someone was sneaking in and now learned guy with a key was hauled to jail...... ok, P has several videos, both from security cameras and an actual camera - as in not a smartphone - problem is some of what he claims isn't seen on video...... not saying it doesn't exist, just that he should have organized videos better - like, maybe put key pertinent clips in separate folder so Judge could find what he wants her to see...... also good example of why JJ shushes  litigants when she's watching/reading evidence - MM able to ignore P rambling on but clearly has on her listening ears as clip is playing as she picks up on  conversation in video..... oh, and despite intro making it out that it was P walking around with a gun, now video clip seems to support P charge that D also had a gun in hand during a confrontation (though we don't actually see the gun).... ah, pieces coming together, conversation deals with dispute over where P parked and way back when case started MM said she couldn't read the handwritten rental agreement and hand D read portion of lease which talked about P having access to the garage..... yep, according to written lease - which MM had him read out loud in court - P was paying for garage parking, but now turns out dispute seen on clip involved D calling to have P towed after he parked in driveway because D disabled the garage door controller..... so not only was landlord making unauthorized entry into rented room, but denying access to garage when P was paying for access....... we really haven't heard much from D yet, but not sure what defense he could mount - question is how P came up with $907 as amount of damages....... apparently he wants to be paid for stuff still in room on July 1st when D changed locks even though he had only paid for rent through June 30th, but as MM tells him,  if he wanted access July 1st D could insist on rent for July, which would amount to to more than what he's suing for...... ok, both this were acting like macho fools - MM is convinced they both flashed guns,  D apparently asked P repeatedly to move car before having it towed and that D did not deny access to garage, but that door was temporarily inop........ case dismissed, nobody gets anything
  2. lousy truck paint job: p hired amateur to paint vehicle, but had to pay someone else for truck to be made right after D botched job - wants $1000....... D says P is looney over broken heart cuz gf dumped him and his car caught fire - says P snuck in and took truck parts before job was complete........ we're talking old rusted out truck that was used to plow snow - doors and bed shot and P bought other old doors and bed that were rusted, but not as bad, and wanted D to patch them up and make them good - P presents more pix of the junk parts than the parts D was supposed to work on, and a couple of work in progress - thing is, P knew this was a side job that D was doing on the side when time permitted, and he got frustrated with fact that months were passing with little being accomplished - says D estimated maybe a month to do work, and after 3 months he takes back the parts and goes somewhere else...... ok, Shorty is bound to point out the idea that 'time is of the essence' in a contract, but here the judge is going to have to decide if it's reasonable for so little progress to have been made after 3 months on a job that was estimated to take a month - oh, and was it cool for P to go repo the parts from D's house/yard without telling D - we get a chuckle when we learn D's GS watchdog slept through the repo...... ok, MM says P was had reason to bail on D, P has pix of work being down by different alley mechanic who managed to do job in a week to 10 days - problem is, no proof of what P paid for completed work...... no problem - rough justice - seems both D and guy who finished job quoted $1600, and what P is asking for is refund of the $1000 deposit he gave D..... normally, I'd say D should receive something for the little bit of work he completed - but he really didn't do much in the LONG time he kept P waiting for job to be done...... rough justice with nothing from 2nd body guy, MM left to guess what D's work should be worth - she just splits the grand deposit and orders D to return half
  3. neighbor's tree smashed shed and deck: P says it cost him a couple grand to remove tree and repair damage after neighbor's tree feel on his property, and neighbor refuses to pay - wants  $2250. ..... D says it was an act of God, tree was healthy and it was just 1 limb - there was no damage, says D just money grabbing....... oops, preview throws doubt on D healthy tree claim when we hear MM questioning how long tree hasn't had leaves - ok, seems like for at least past couple years tree has not had leaves so only question for me is how much damage was caused.... well, also it appears another giant limb is threatening another neighbor's property, so has D gotten off their a$$ and done anything to address the danger - wife admits it's BIG, maybe 3 stories tall, and hangs over three neighboring properties - apparently they don't see a problem as they hardly ever see the tree way back in the far reaches of their yard - wonder how many acres we're talking 'bout...... ah ha, plot thickens...... seems D were initially going to pay, but talked with tree removal people and learned they agreed to jack up price to stick it to P's insurance (course, that's hearsay - but not what a judge would like to hear)..... sooooo, how much will P get? - not forgetting P had right to trim anything overhanging his property before it fell and caused damage....... back to possible insurance scam - nah, not buying that - pictures show damage - insurance paid for some, not all, as P did some repairs on own..... we find out D have done something about the dead tree, and it explains why Tree removal folks may have been talking to D - seems D hired same company to take care of rest of dead tree...... ah, 'nother problem for P - no proof of what he paid - he quotes a number but no receipt or proof, and D didn't pay much more for removal of rest of tree, plus trimming a couple others trees on the property..... MM decides to give P opportunity to contact bank and prove what he paid..... D ordered to pay whatever P proves he paid tree removal people (he says $1500) plus they are to pay the $750 insurance valued roof damage at (that $750 goes to insurance company not P since he already collected it from Insurance)..... yep, later P proved he was charged and paid $1500 which sort of blows the whole insurance scam idea out of water - you do have to wonder why he was charged $1500 when D claimed same company only charged $1800 for a couple more tree trimmings plus removal of rest of dead tree..... actually makes sense to me - big part of expense for company is committing crew/equipment to location doesn't change when you tack on a couple additional trees for crew was already on scene - back when I did landscaping I gave good discounts to customers who got neighbor's to hire me - so much easier and faster to park in central location and do 3-4 yards on a block instead of 1 yard then loading up and driving to next job
Edited by SRTouch
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

So today was all "Evidence? Proof? Gee, I don't have any of that. Do I need it?" day.

I missed the beginning of the first case, but was the def. a lawyer? He had the "TPC" shady, shyster, marginal lawyer vibe going on, but gotta love the big pouf of hair he obviously took a lot of time to tease and spray just right. More "I have total strangers living with me and what could go wrong?" If you have a million-dollar house you need to turn into a flop/boarding house so you can pay your bills, downscaling might be a better option than having armed tenants there. "I've got a gun!" "Yeah, well I have a gun too!" "My gun is bigger than your gun!" OMG. Crazy. All crazy.

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

also, pretty good plan for ex-burglar to rent out upscale rooms and pilfer tenants belongings

So def is really a bonafide burglar?

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

lousy truck paint job:

Two goofballs and a old truck. Both of them want to get/do work under the table on the cheap, with no taxes paid and no receipts given, of course. Maybe def thought he'd score points with JM by mentioning his Boy Scout trip? And was that his Mommy speaking for him in the hall?

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

neighbor's tree smashed she'd and deck: 

Ugh. Couldn't stand big mouthy def, using the excuse often reserved for SSMOs and "little ladies" - "How would I know that? I'm only 30(or 35 or 40) I don't anything about anything. Oh, poor little me!" She and her neckbeard cucky hubby didn't know their dead tree might fall and do damage! This is their first house(!) even though they'd been there 3 years before the tree fell. They never looked at the tree, so it can't be their responsibility, can it? I don't think willful ignorance and trying to save a buck is a good excuse, even though they were trying to be "nice neighbours". Yeah, spending money to cut down trees is not fun or rewarding. I had to pay 3000$ to cut down a massive, ailing beech tree and a towering, 100 year old pine tree. I didn't want to, but having my house or the neigbour's house smashed by them would be a way worse headache.

Plaintiff wants to recover his money for removal of the branches and damage to his house. Proof of how much he paid? A cancelled check maybe? Oh, well - yes, he has one, but it never occured to him to bring that. *shrug* Why would it? Shouldn't his word be good enough?

I take my hat off to judges having the patience to listen to this kind of stuff.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, SRTouch said:

tenant suing crooked landlord:

Defendant looked like he was going for an Eraserhead gone middle-aged hipster with his curious hairdo.

6 hours ago, SRTouch said:

neighbor's tree smashed she'd and deck:

Defendants tried just about anything to weasel out of their liability, from "we never really saw the tree" (the one that is looming above all the other vegetation around it), to "it was only a branch that fell", and including the classic "but we are new homeowners; how can we be expected to have done our homework and researched our legal responsibilities?". The wife continued to argue it was only a branch even after photographs clearly showed it was more than that. Not that it was relevant anyway: whether it was branch, a twig, a leaf or a whole trunk, they are liable, which she did wish to grasp.

For a moment I was afraid that the plaintiff would not be able to locate his canceled check  thus giving credence to the wife's accusation of insurance fraud. Thankfully we were informed that he did. He was lucky because other TV judges would have said "too bad, so sad; this was your only opportunity"; MM is generous in frequently giving a period of grace. JJ does it much less often.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

So def is really a bonafide burglar?

Ya got me - at first I thought so, but then it all seemed to come down to one incident about a phoney cashiers check given to him by another tenant.... MM questioned him about the charges and his answer meandered all over the place so that I think she just gave up getting a straight answer..... I understood him to eventually say charges were dropped

  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Ya got me - at first I thought so

Thanks. I thought it either had been said at the beginning of the case and I missed it or, or if later on it just went whoosh over my head. The latter is often the case. 😄

He probably is though, in some way. Shady, he was.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
  1. break up loan: long time acquaintances hook up when dude is released from prison after 13 years for armed robbery - they hook up - she loans/gives him money to fix car and get back on his feet - they almost get married - they break up - he finds new woman and to marry - she wants back the money, $1400....... D says any money was gifts as he's such a great catch - he brought the new wife to thumb his nose at P....... ok, dude gets released in March, and finds/contacts P through Messenger in July - by end of July they're dating - she loans (or gifts) him some money beginning in August - these were a series of loans or gifts, biggest $500 cash, but even according to P repayment was 'when you can', no set repayment plan, but P says he DID make 2 payments of $50 - a come November they split (she says because he wanted to marry, but she wasn't ready, and besides he wanted a good Muslim wife and she isn't Muslim...... P has very questionable case, nothing in writing (not even any texts) showing loans and she can't produce anything showing he repaid a penny - she does have records showing hundreds withdrawn from account or going to Firestone for car repairs that she says were on his ride...... over to D, who says she pretty much forced money on him, he didn't want it, but, by golly, she said she didn't want him to struggle - used first $500 as partial downpayment to buy a used used car (also known as a hoopty) - dude doesn't deny receiving money, just insists they were not loans until after the breakup..... nothing new with this one, script written and used many times on court tv....... 1 minor change comes up - still insists the $500 was a gift, but now agrees the Firestone repair bill was supposed to be repaid.... I notice he doesn't answer at first when MM asks if he's paid any of that back, but since bill was upwards of $800 and he's saying he owes $700, I wonder if maybe he's acknowledging those 2 $50 payments - doesn't matter, he's admitting to owing a big chunk..... I'm actually finding dude credible  (maybe not honorable, as I think the honorable thing would be to attempt repayment of what P is asking even if he believes part was a gift), so wonder I can see MM accepting his version - then again maybe not as part of why he's credible is because he admits he owes more when presented with her receipts from Firestone - actually, more than once he seems surprised when P tells us of loans, but giving him a minute it's 'oh, yeah, she did loan me that', so dude may be honest, but his memory is suspect...... yep, MM decides his memory is just too iffy and P is able to show several instances where he has to admit she's right and his memory is wrong - MM orders him to pay what P is asking..... I enjoy his hallterview - he says problem with his memory caused by her telling him to forget about it, so he did 😉
  2. car repair suit: p needed to replace engine in her car, so hauled it and replacement engine to defendant's shop - car has been there for a year now, and claim he ignores their calls - want 10 grand....... D says he told P engine she brought was no good and he needed $500 to order replacement replacement engine but P never paid - after 6 months he placed a lien on car...... guess you can buy you anything off eBay, this lady apparently bought her replacement engine - anyway, D installed replacement only to learn it was a dud....... ah, 'nother faulty memory case, along with excitable p having trouble getting story straight - MM turns to D and isn't happy with way he starts his answer...... ah, the ever popular 'it's in my phone, but I no longer have that phone' line when he tells us how repeatedly tried to call and contact P..... hmmmm as I understood excitable P he actually went to their house to deliver bad news that first replacement was a dud, which casts doubt on how hard he was trying to contact P - oh, and I bet part of MM's feelings against D might stem from her known preference towards young girls who bring out her mommy feelings...... ok, whole lien seems questionable, as MM establishes basis of lien was storage fees without prior notice to P that she would be paying fees...... uh, strike two - first ''old phone" line now bogus lien..... more dude talks less I think of him - and he wasn't very high up to begin with....... couple more strikes (must have been a foul tip in there somewhere) dude took shortcuts in following lien laws and junked car prematurely - oh, and made instagram post calling P daughter a crackhead and calling case a joke...... P has vastly overestimated value of clunker, but with premature junkies of car sounds like she'll get something...... yep, MM awards P $2300 - and shuts down D when he tries to interrupt her ruling...... my opinion of D sinks even lower during hallterview
  3. incomplete rewire of home: P paid $3620 thus far to get house rewired and work was not completed - wants full refund...... D claims he was still working when P abruptly canned him, so he should get to keep the whole $3600...... old house broken up into multiple apartments and owner wanted each apartment to have separate utilities..... D does not help himself when he doesn't give MM an estimate of what cost should have been and starts to talk down to her - uh oh, 'nother tradesman acting like silly woman judge won't be able to comprehend complicated construction?..... when MM finally gets an estimate we learn litigants have nothing in writing and their recollection nowhere close to each other - D says estimate was 5 grand, while P says 4 grand..... already not liking these two....... these fell about when D notifies P that he needs additional $1600 to complete job, which would be job now running $5200 - dueling texts leave P looking like he was being unreasonable, as does lawsuit where he wants full refund even though he admits D did a lot of work - also not helpful that P hasn't come with an estimate from someone else to see if D's request for additional $1600 was reasonable...... MM rules D keeps the $3600 - case dismissed...... P another litigant who fails to impress in hallterview
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

break up loan: 

I'm horrified at the number of women just begging to be conned out of money. So yeah, some guy I knew from high school messages me out of the blue. He's a violent criminal who spent 13 years in the slammer, so of course I'd be interested in rekindling a relationship with him.  He's quite the desirable  catch.  so I'll give him as much money as he needs. Oops. He's pretty picky too and wants a Muslim wife, although he had no qualms about taking money from a non-Muslim woman. Naturally he has his pick of women, what with his impeccable history of success and his good looks. Now every lowdown loser has the P's name and state, so I'm sure she'll be inundated with more instant messages from guys looking for a good woman who has a credit card with a large limit. Sympathy level: Zero. I'm sorry she got anything back and really doubt that even at her age she's learned a damned thing.

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

car repair suit:

Utterly ridiculous case, with P claiming her non-working hunk of junk car is worth 5K. Maybe on some planet it would be. Anyway, best part was D proclaiming to Doug the Hall that his mechanic place is not just the best in the city or the state, but the best in the whole wide world. Wow. People, is buying engines on eBay from unknown entities a good idea? Maybe not.

 

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

incomplete rewire of home: 

I really don't know who was right or wrong and maybe it's unreasonable, but I detested the plaintiff in this case. His attitude, his smugness, his idiocy in hiring some guy he drove around with his Lyft (or Uber. I forget) and never dreaming of getting anything in writing and agreeing to a "pay as you go" verbal contract before the job starts were irritating. I guess he's used to Mommy and Daddy dealing with all that stuff, but now that they are incapacitated he thought he could step up. Wrong. The house is a 110-year-old relic which I think would be a challenge even to Bob Vila's gang. Plaintiff, take your stupid hipster beard and your big ol' man boobs and get lost.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Finally some episodes!  So many have been pre-empted in my neck of the woods due to the impeachment hearings.

On 1/27/2020 at 5:44 PM, AngelaHunter said:

So today was all "Evidence? Proof? Gee, I don't have any of that. Do I need it?" day.

JM is really inconsistent with this.  Sometimes she rakes people over the coals when they answer "I have the proof, just not here with me right now," and other times she gives them time to find the proof and present it later.  I guess it depends on her level of hatred for the litigant.

18 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

I'm horrified at the number of women just begging to be conned out of money. So yeah, some guy I knew from high school messages me out of the blue. He's a violent criminal who spent 13 years in the slammer, so of course I'd be interested in rekindling a relationship with him.  He's quite the desirable  catch.  so I'll give him as much money as he needs.

It's unbelievable how many of these women we see on this show.  Which makes me wonder how many others are out there that are even more stupid that we just don't see?

 

18 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

I really don't know who was right or wrong and maybe it's unreasonable, but I detested the plaintiff in this case. His attitude, his smugness, his idiocy in hiring some guy he drove around with his Lyft (or Uber. I forget) and never dreaming of getting anything in writing and agreeing to a "pay as you go" verbal contract before the job starts were irritating. I guess he's used to Mommy and Daddy dealing with all that stuff, but now that they are incapacitated he thought he could step up. Wrong. The house is a 110-year-old relic which I think would be a challenge even to Bob Vila's gang. Plaintiff, take your stupid hipster beard and your big ol' man boobs and get lost.

He was kind of a dick and then told Doug in the halterview that he was going to sue the previous tenant.  Dude - did you get a house inspection?  Because if you did, that would have been obvious and if you didn't, then you're a tool who deserves what he gets.  He should have had a contract with the electrician, but I believed the D with what he told.  Electrical work is no fun at all and those old wires must have been hell to try and navigate.  I'm sure he not only had to split them but replace them too.

 

The P in the truck painting case - I enjoyed his effort to dress nicely for the court - you could see the obvious fold marks on the shirt he clearly wore straight from the package.  It always gets a chuckle out of me for some bizarre reason when I see the litigants with the brand-spanking-new shirts.

  • Like 4

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