Jump to content

Type keyword(s) to search

The People's Court - General Discussion


  • Reply
  • Start Topic

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

So today's new case "Taking Advantage of a Buyer" is so funny.    The woman bought a 2003 Jeep Liberty, and says a 17 year-old car had issues.    Plaintiff claims the salesman gave her a verbal 30 day warranty, no proof.   The defendant/de says a buyer can get a third party warranty, but the dealer doesn't offer anything.      The dealer owner (I guess owner) came out and towed the car in for her, and then says that the reason everything was failing in the car is that she drove for many miles (he says about 30) after the serpentine belt came off, that explains a lot about what was wrong with the car.     Plaintiff gets nothing.    Plaintiff's fake crying would be so much more effective if she actually produced tears. 

My cable went out in mid-show, right after this case.  I'm sure with the morning recent reruns, this one will be on in a week or two, and I can catch the cases I missed. 

My goodness she should have answered the phone and got an extended warranty!  I get 10 calls a day for this 

  • LOL 5
Link to comment
53 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

So today's new case "Taking Advantage of a Buyer" is so funny.

It was. First she tries the "Oh, poor little me! I'm a grown-ass woman but I never bought a car and I don't know anything so he took advantage of me!" That didn't work, so then she turned on the fake waterworks. That didn't help. Def - who had a great Jed Clampett accent - was beyond nice to her and went out of his way to help her when he was not obligated to do so. A lawsuit is his thanks. I believe he had to call the cops when she went ballistic at his lot. This "He told me verbally I had a warranty" doesn't wash either. Who the hell would give a warranty on such an old vee-hickle? We got a "tooken" from her and the best line was, "The rug was flipped under my carpet."

Even kindly Judge John all but sneered when he said that she bought a 17 or 18 year old car and expected it to be perfect. Do not drink every time P says "my car". Everyone feels sorry for her. I'm not sure why.

  • Love 4
Link to comment
(edited)

Today's new case "Handyman Problems" is bizarre.    The plaintiff does pressure washing on a driveway, and patio for Mr. Andre, and his mother.    They refuse to pay him, because they claim they never hired him to clean anything.   However, Mama Andre moved her car out of the driveway, so the plaintiff could clean, and Mr. Andre (her son) helped move the furniture off the patio, so plaintiff could clean there.       As Judge Marilyn keeps asking, if the defendants didn't hire the plaintiff, why did they move their car and the patio furniture so the plaintiff could pressure wash?     This case is ridiculous.     So when plaintiff gets the money, the defendants don't pay him anyway, because the show pays him.

So the next ridiculous case is a tenant who won't move out, was supposed to be out by 1 December, but is still there in January, and the new tenant can't move in.   Then the defendant claims the new tenant wants to be paid for not moving in.   The landlord/defendant has to return the security deposit, for one reason, the state law about the letter saying why the tenant won't be getting the security deposit back, with in 30 days (or something like that).  

 

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

Today's new case "Handyman Problems" is bizarre.

I find bottom feeders who try to beat someone out of a paltry sum like 200$ to be especially despicable. JM detested him, as he continued to reply in babblespeak to her basic question, which she repeated at least 3 times: "WHY. DID. YOU. MOVE. THE. PATIO. FURNITURE (for this person who was not authorized to be on your property?) More BS spews from his piehole. Momma is just as bad - she don't know nothing about any of this and between the two of them they refused to scrape up 200$ to pay for work done. Darling boy tells her to move her car, she moves it, no questions asked. "The rain presided", def says, for some reason. In the hall, he informs Doug that he feels "unjustified" (I'll say!) and plans to appeal this. I wonder where he's going to do that? The Supreme Court? JM never gave him a chance to tell his side of this story! On the contrary, she did but he just was incapable of giving anything approximating an honest answer. I'm eternally grateful to whoever invented closed captions. Without them I could never have understood this case.

 

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

So the next ridiculous case is a tenant who won't move out, was supposed to be out by 1 December,

Just the usual: I'm a landlord but don't know about my obligations. I have the very evidence needed to prove my defense, but (wouldn't you know it?)my daughter dropped my phone in the toilet, the dog ate my homework, or whatever. Yeah, JM has never heard that before. I didn't believe either of them.

Then we had a silly plaintiff who really wanted to buy this particular boat. JM says it's 22 years old, but it's actually 33 years old (1988). Did he take it for a test drive on the water? Of course not. It was in Def's yard, so how could he? Did he have a mechanic check it out? Well, no - he was selling his house and had no time for such trivialities on something for which he paid 5K. The battery was dead. Def jumped it and the engine turned on. Isn't that good enough? Why would he check anything else? D told him it was in great condition!  He doesn't know anything about boats, except how to drive them. I'm trying to imagine him as a coast guard. Even though he did nothing to check out this geriatric thing he was buying, he wants all his money back because he finally took it to a boat mechanic who gives a huge estimate for all the many, many things wrong with it, including that the steering wheel isn't attached to the rusted out components and that the electrical system is completely shot.  P gets back the 440$ he has to pay for the electrics,  because shifty, lying D (who keeps invoking "My three sons" as though that will garner sympathy) in his ad said it was all new. How new? Well, he can't remember and has no receipts for work he had done, but take his word for it. His definition of "new" is very subjective. P keeps his boat and maybe learns not to take the word of a total stranger who is trying to unload his unusable, wrecked boat.

This case got us this from Levin: "It's the case of Glug, glug, glug - you're a crook, Bub." Levin, please crawl back into the cesspool that spawned you.

Edited by AngelaHunter
  • LOL 4
  • Love 2
Link to comment
(edited)

Today's s$*% show is "Complaining Customer".   First case, they bought two couches from defendant's furniture business, and the couches aren't wonderful (bought in June, and this was filmed when the plaintiffs had Christmas couch pillows up), and they say the fabric isn't holding up.    So they apparently weren't 'fluffing and puffing' the cushions up, and claim their three dogs are never near the furniture (I don't believe that).   The contract says that the store doesn't warranty the furniture, the manufacturer does.   However, the plaintiffs said the manufacturer said it was pet damage, and owner damages, but not the store's fault.   They picked the wrong fabric for one.   I bet their German Shepherd can get over the baby gates easily, so there is going to be pet damages to the furniture.  

The pillows were some down stuffing mixture, so apparently you had to fluff them. 

The fabric on the sofas and the pillows looked like a very large yarn, and that's not going to hold up to wear.   I bet the husband is the source of the wear on the couch, and as the defendant said, you need to take care of the pillows and cushions correctly.  

Next ridiculous case is a car owner who was rear-ended by defendant.  Defendant says the plaintiff cause the accident, and besides, plaintiff's car was as wonderful as defendant's car.    With today's modern bumpers, a 'tap' is enough to replace the bumper.   Never forego the police report, or go to the defendant's favorite body shop, or their friend.   A hint: when the person who hits your car wants to handle the accident, don't do it.  Don't ever agree to take cash in lieu of police reports, and filing with the insurance.   Defendants actually say that the bumper could be fixed, not happening.  $1,000 to plaintiff.

Last ridiculous case, tenant suing landlords for his security deposit.   As usual, tenant claims all of the damage was already there when he moved in, and he has no pictures to prove it.   If the plaintiff is talking from his new house, it looks very nice.   There's so bad wall damage.     Then, one bedroom is Pepto Bismol pink, with hearts all over the wall, another bedroom was purple. broken window glass, decals behind the stove back splash that had to be scrapped off, and painted and spackled.     Plaintiff loses, and defendants keep the security deposit. 

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Love 3
Link to comment
30 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

So they apparently weren't 'fluffing and puffing' the cushions up, and claim their three dogs are never near the furniture (I don't believe that).

I don't know if the dogs used the furniture - I had a 60lb dog who used my sofa for a bed. She got it dirty but never pulled the seams apart.  I was thinking that the 300-odd-lb hubby flinging himself on the sofas maybe could have caused that broken-down appearance.

34 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Next ridiculous case is a car owner who was rear-ended by defendant. 

Just outrageous all around. Def hit P in the rear, so automatically her fault even though she argues that it's normal to hit the car in front of you if they stop unexpectedly. Big brother had to "protect" his little sis who was driving, and both decide that this little "tap" was nothing. Yeah, they all promise to pay for the damages until they don't like the price. Shameless pikers. I was so enthralled with poised and coherent plaintiff and her "conversing" instead of the usual "conversating" I wanted her to win. Of course, she did.

36 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Last ridiculous case, tenant suing landlords for his security deposit. 

Ugh. Moon-faced, idiotic, juvenile father of two plaintiff with his "everything was in that state when we moved in" and "Oh, well, I got drunk and smashed a hole in the wall. It happens, teehee!" bugged me so much. Stupid, lazy, entitled moron got zero, which is what he deserved. In the hall he whines and blubbers how he wasn't allowed to tell his story.

  • Love 4
Link to comment
2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

I don't know if the dogs used the furniture - I had a 60lb dog who used my sofa for a bed. She got it dirty but never pulled the seams apart.  I was thinking that the 300-odd-lb hubby flinging himself on the sofas maybe could have caused that broken-down appearance.

Just outrageous all around. Def hit P in the rear, so automatically her fault even though she argues that it's normal to hit the car in front of you if they stop unexpectedly. Big brother had to "protect" his little sis who was driving, and both decide that this little "tap" was nothing. Yeah, they all promise to pay for the damages until they don't like the price. Shameless pikers. I was so enthralled with poised and coherent plaintiff and her "conversing" instead of the usual "conversating" I wanted her to win. Of course, she did.

Ugh. Moon-faced, idiotic, juvenile father of two plaintiff with his "everything was in that state when we moved in" and "Oh, well, I got drunk and smashed a hole in the wall. It happens, teehee!" bugged me so much. Stupid, lazy, entitled moron got zero, which is what he deserved. In the hall he whines and blubbers how he wasn't allowed to tell his story.

I thought the same thing about the husband in the first case.

  • Love 1
Link to comment

Definitely the husband.  My husband was "oversized" and ruined an expensive leather couch by laying on it constantly.

I have a black lab and I've never allowed her on the furniture.  She doesn't even try.  When I was sick in bed recently I kept trying to get her to come up on the bed with me;.. no dice.

If you don't let them on the couch when puppies usually they won't go.  

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

 When I was sick in bed recently I kept trying to get her to come up on the bed with me;.. no dice.

Probably thought you were trying to trick her. We adopted a 5-year dog and no way would he get on the furniture even when invited. The dog I had after him lived on the furniture - beds and sofas - to the point that her feet rarely touched the floor.😆

As for the case: Did anyone see the price on the bill for them? Maybe they were cheap foam and someone the size of the hubby plopping on them all the time would make that cushion sag that way.

 

Link to comment

I've done some sewing in the past, so I know a bit about fabrics.  I think it was a combo of the husband's weight and the fact that the type of fabric needed serious reinforcement (like interfacing), especially at the seams.  Once something like that starts to go, it just keeps going because the strength of the seams is compromised by the missing (shredded) fabric.  

Their couches looked like tweed . . . and they weren't terribly expensive (although they were suing for $5,000, I think they only paid about $2,400 for both).  I suspect the quality of the fabric and workmanship were in the "you get what you pay for" category.

  • Useful 4
  • Love 3
Link to comment

Awful cases today. Plaintiff, Archie Bunker's annoying, meat-headed cousin, is suing for the deposit he paid on a cah. He saw the cah, he wanted the cah, he never had a cah of his own, just trucks. He seen this cah as he was comin' or goin' to or from home so beat a path to the neighour's place to buy the cah. Def is wearing a backward baseball cap. Is this some signal that the wearer is an idiot - you know, like in nature the colours orange and black signal "I'm toxic. Don't eat me!"? Def keeps interjecting as P is rambling on and on that "Crack is a terrible drug" and that P was coked or cracked up when he came over and they went for a test drive. JM tells him to knock off the shouting out and wants to know why def would get in a car with a driver who is coked up?  This whole topic prompts P to give a lengthy oration about how he's been drug-free for 27 years and he'll never forget the day he quit coke or crack and his email address - 043093 - signifies the day he quit and he goes to Addicts Anonymous and he'll never forget that day and all that. "Good for you", JM says and desperately wants to get back to the particulars of the case. P gives D a 1250$ deposit on the cah conditional to D fixing the rear turn signal lights. D agrees, thinking it's just a bulb but turns out it's some sort of electrical problem so says he won't pay for that. He says he offered to pay P half for the expense. P says that's a lie and wants his money back.  D agrees to give him the deposit back because he was "under duress" from P's harrassment of him so just said that to make P go away. P sent D "several, several texts. Several!" and was also seen skulking around D's property at night. Whatever. D gets his 1250$ back and thank goodness this is over.

I couldn't last out the next case. We had Daddy Homer Simpson who appeared to be very drunk or drugged, suing his beastly daughter for rent and utility bills. Daughter, who seemingly was previously sponging off her older sister,  and husband and two kids - later on mother-in-law too - were homeless and moved into Daddy's house where he lived peacefully with his girlfriend. Daddy says that daughter drove g/f out of the house. That I do believe. Then Daddy kicks out daughter's husband because he bought chicken and eggs and they already had chicken and eggs so the new chicken and eggs were wasted. Really? In a house bulging with so many hungry bodies? My head is starting to hurt. Daddy, who finds all this amusing, made his now-departed "Queen" or Goddess or something (as he called his g/f) deal with daughter. I think he's afraid of daughter. Water bills and other stuff need to be paid. Daughter gets Daddy a bunch of money from the government to help with his mortgage and so on, to the tune of over 6K but still doesn't pay rent and blah blah. Then daughter starts blubbering and snivelling and mopping her eyes and nose with what looks like a dishrag and I'm out. The only interesting part is that Daughter is sitting under a ceiling fan which made her look like she was wearing one of those old-timey propeller beanies:

 

tpc_163724.jpg

  • LOL 7
  • Love 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

Awful cases today. Plaintiff, Archie Bunker's annoying, meat-headed cousin, is suing for the deposit he paid on a cah. He saw the cah, he wanted the cah, he never had a cah of his own, just trucks. He seen this cah as he was comin' or goin' to or from home so beat a path to the neighour's place to buy the cah. Def is wearing a backward baseball cap. Is this some signal that the wearer is an idiot - you know, like in nature the colours orange and black signal "I'm toxic. Don't eat me!"? Def keeps interjecting as P is rambling on and on that "Crack is a terrible drug" and that P was coked or cracked up when he came over and they went for a test drive. JM tells him to knock off the shouting out and wants to know why def would get in a car with a driver who is coked up?  This whole topic prompts P to give a lengthy oration about how he's been drug-free for 27 years and he'll never forget the day he quit coke or crack and his email address - 043093 - signifies the day he quit and he goes to Addicts Anonymous and he'll never forget that day and all that. "Good for you", JM says and desperately wants to get back to the particulars of the case. P gives D a 1250$ deposit on the cah conditional to D fixing the rear turn signal lights. D agrees, thinking it's just a bulb but turns out it's some sort of electrical problem so says he won't pay for that. He says he offered to pay P half for the expense. P says that's a lie and wants his money back.  D agrees to give him the deposit back because he was "under duress" from P's harrassment of him so just said that to make P go away. P sent D "several, several texts. Several!" and was also seen skulking around D's property at night. Whatever. D gets his 1250$ back and thank goodness this is over.

I couldn't last out the next case. We had Daddy Homer Simpson who appeared to be very drunk or drugged, suing his beastly daughter for rent and utility bills. Daughter, who seemingly was previously sponging off her older sister,  and husband and two kids - later on mother-in-law too - were homeless and moved into Daddy's house where he lived peacefully with his girlfriend. Daddy says that daughter drove g/f out of the house. That I do believe. Then Daddy kicks out daughter's husband because he bought chicken and eggs and they already had chicken and eggs so the new chicken and eggs were wasted. Really? In a house bulging with so many hungry bodies? My head is starting to hurt. Daddy, who finds all this amusing, made his now-departed "Queen" or Goddess or something (as he called his g/f) deal with daughter. I think he's afraid of daughter. Water bills and other stuff need to be paid. Daughter gets Daddy a bunch of money from the government to help with his mortgage and so on, to the tune of over 6K but still doesn't pay rent and blah blah. Then daughter starts blubbering and snivelling and mopping her eyes and nose with what looks like a dishrag and I'm out. The only interesting part is that Daughter is sitting under a ceiling fan which made her look like she was wearing one of those old-timey propeller beanies:

 

tpc_163724.jpg

I noticed the old man smiled when the daughter got him over $6,000 from the government. No way he and his "lady" could have figured out how to do it. Daughter and husband furloughed from their jobs because of Covid. The old man could have helped daughter more IMO.

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

The old man could have helped daughter more IMO.

Maybe he couldn't, after having this mob of 5, including even the mother-in-law, descending on him and taking over his home. Homer was no more likable than his daughter, but I sometimes wonder what so many of our litigants would do if, like many of us, they had no parents to fall back on to take care of them and their kids and their husbands even up to middle age and beyond.

  • Love 2
Link to comment
15 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Maybe he couldn't, after having this mob of 5, including even the mother-in-law, descending on him and taking over his home. Homer was no more likable than his daughter, but I sometimes wonder what so many of our litigants would do if, like many of us, they had no parents to fall back on to take care of them and their kids and their husbands even up to middle age and beyond.

The MIL was a bit much too.

Link to comment

In ref to this case: We see only a brief snapshot of what's going on, but when I see something like this I think of my husband's eldest daughter, who has been hitting up him, her mother and her siblings for money since the day she left home. She couldn't keep a job but it was always someone's else's fault. She couldn't pay her rent or bills, so she needed money. Then she couldn't look for a job because it was cold out and she needed to buy some boots. Then she wanted to take some course and got money for that from my husband and then she quit the course. Not her fault. Then she plays house with some biker semi-criminal and gets knocked up so can't work. She gives full custody of the baby to the daddy, and then needs more money for a new apartment and on and on. I actually gave her a kitchen set I had bought(en) when living alone and paid for myself. I overheard her calling it "junk". Finally, after many years of supporting her, everyone decided to stop giving her money. She called me and whined that her own family won't help her. How heartless of them!  So, anyone hearing that would think her family is horrible, unless they knew the backstory.

When listening to the middle-aged daughter in this case, crying and whining and feeling entitled to get whatever she wanted from her old daddy until he dies, probably, I couldn't help feeling this had been going on for quite some time. Everyone has their limits. JMO.

  • Love 5
Link to comment
On 4/10/2021 at 7:57 PM, AZChristian said:

What's sad is how many people are unfamiliar with the word "no" when asked for money, a place to live, etc.  

Even you say "yes" 20 times, saying "no" the 21st time makes you a monster who "won't even help me!"

So many litigants remind me of my mother who used to say, "Give them an inch, they'll take a mile".

  • Useful 1
  • Love 2
Link to comment

Today's new case is "Kitchen Crisis".    Case 1, plaintiff hired defendant to refinish her counter tops, bath and kitchen, with self-leveling epoxy.   After some initial work the plaintiff was unhappy, because some epoxy dripped on the cabinets, and floors, and the estimate is $3500 to remove the drip marks.    Plaintiff and defendant never communicated after the damages were done.    Defendant gets snotty, so he loses.  Plaintiff gets $1600, but didn't have written estimates.  Plaintiff tried for $3500.  As Judge John says, once you pay in full, your leverage is gone. 

Case 2, plaintiff bought a Cadillac Escalade from defendant, and a few days later it croaked.  Plaintiff wants, $4,000.   Defendant says plaintiff stopped paying, and so it was repo'd, and nothing was wrong with it.      My biggest question is why the defendant is wearing a ratty blonde wig?  Car had 150,000+ miles, as is, and no warranty, but defendant paperwork says they'll fix the dashboard gages, and power steering pump, but dealer says they threw in an alternator and battery free.     Decision by Judge Marilyn is 'as is' means no warranty, and plaintiff gets $3200 back from dealer for being a jerk. 

Plaintiff hires defendant to build a pig building for her future purchase of pet pigs, and pays him $1500 deposit.    Pig pen never gets built.   Plaintiff says defendant lied to her by showing her a stock photo of the pen.   Then on the day the defendant was supposed to start work, he was hospitalized, and has health issues, and closed building company down.    Defendant says $900 worth of supplies were delivered to plaintiff, and she says property was abandoned, and most of it was trashed.   Plaintiff claims defendant lied about sending her a check for the deposit.   

Defendant will return the $1500 to plaintiff, and supplies on plaintiff's property will be picked up or trashed.  

  • Love 2
Link to comment
45 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Today's new case is "Kitchen Crisis".

I've watched many videos of these epoxy countertops. The cabinets and floor need to be completely covered in taped-up plastic, and the pros remove any and all drips. He probably watched a few videos too and figured even an idiot like him can do it and he'd make a few bucks with his half-assed jobs. This guy is a total pig, arrogant yet stupid, cashing in on this trend without knowing or caring what the hell he's doing. He probably figured, "Ah, what's this old lady gonna do about it? Screw her." after he ripped her off. I guess it's understandable. I don't know how he could see what he was doing(even if he did know what he was doing which he did not) as he appeared to be unable to open his eyes. He kept snarking at JM, "It's SELF-LEVELING!" over and over as an answer to each question and as though that's a reason for ruining the cabinets and floors. I guess he doesn't know what "self-leveling" means either. Hey, he 'went out of town' (the usual excuse) for a FUNERAL, (no bearing on the case but I wish just once JM would ask, "What is the name of the person who passed?") and what was he supposed to do about the destruction he left in his wake? Tough luck for plaintiff. Too bad JM couldn't give P the whole 3500$, estimates or no, just because def is such an arrogant, dumb, smart-mouthed, conning asshole.

52 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Case 2, plaintiff bought a Cadillac Escalade

The battle of the wigs. Def wins. His was worse and made him look like an old lady, but P's eyelashes that swept past her eyebrows may have leveled the playing field and won in another category. P thinks this old car with no warranty and 160,000 miles falls under the Lemon Law, and D is a smarmy hoopty dealer who has no evidence of anything at all. P is another one who thinks calling the police if you are dissatisfied with your hoopty is the thing to do. What the hell are the cops going to do if you're not happy with your beater? Just the usual as-is sale, but with something a little different.

Badly-bewigged used car salesman declares with something akin to pride that he's been sued in small claims court "at least" TWENTY times, and the judges in Cincinnati never, ever asked him for any evidence or paperwork of any kind when he's sued yet again for his nefarious practices. In Cincinnati courts they just take his word for it, whatever he says. He seems to think all this weighs in his favour, and that JM is just unreasonable and way too picky, asking him all these darned questions. He isn't even going to peddle cars to P's drug dealer husband, cousins, or friends anymore, so there! Mr. Weinle, you are one of the reasons people hate used car salesmen. The beater moved on to yet another owner and now being repo'd again. A regular cash cow, this poor old Escalade.

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Plaintiff hires defendant to build a pig building

FB contractor. I think CL and FB may be generating the majority of cases we see. Def  sends P a Google stock image of work he says he did and here tries to say that IS his work, but no proof of such, and then blames his Uncle Tony for promising to refund P when he is unable to do the work. He says he was hospitalized for two weeks and he had no idea of any of this. Uncle Tony never informed him of any of it. He really is so very sorry he screwed plaintiff over and would do anything to make it right, now that he's exposed on national television, well anything except respond to a single one of her many texts, emails and registered letters or refund her before she was forced to drag him to court.

I hope plaintiff, who was well-spoken and appeared to be intelligent,  finds a real contractor the next time she wants work done. Yes, it costs a little more, but hopefully won't end with your money vanishing and a court case.

  • Love 3
Link to comment
26 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

I've watched many videos of these epoxy countertops. The cabinets and floor need to be completely covered in taped-up plastic, and the pros remove any and all drips. He probably watched a few videos too and figured even an idiot like him can do it and he'd make a few bucks with his half-assed jobs. This guy is a total pig, arrogant yet stupid, cashing in on this trend without knowing or caring what the hell he's doing. He probably figured, "Ah, what's this old lady gonna do about it? Screw her." after he ripped her off. I guess it's understandable. I don't know how he could see what he was doing(even if he did know what he was doing which he did not) as he appeared to be unable to open his eyes. He kept snarking at JM, "It's SELF-LEVELING!" over and over as an answer to each question and as though that's a reason for ruining the cabinets and floors. I guess he doesn't know what "self-leveling" means either. Hey, he 'went out of town' (the usual excuse) for a FUNERAL, (no bearing on the case but I wish just once JM would ask, "What is the name of the person who passed?") and what was he supposed to do about the destruction he left in his wake? Tough luck for plaintiff. Too bad JM couldn't give P the whole 3500$, estimates or no, just because def is such an arrogant, dumb, smart-mouthed, conning asshole.

The battle of the wigs. Def wins. His was worse and made him look like an old lady, but P's eyelashes that swept past her eyebrows may have leveled the playing field and won in another category. P thinks this old car with no warranty and 160,000 miles falls under the Lemon Law, and D is a smarmy hoopty dealer who has no evidence of anything at all. P is another one who thinks calling the police if you are dissatisfied with your hoopty is the thing to do. What the hell are the cops going to do if you're not happy with your beater? Just the usual as-is sale, but with something a little different.

Badly-bewigged used car salesman declares with something akin to pride that he's been sued in small claims court "at least" TWENTY times, and the judges in Cincinnati never, ever asked him for any evidence or paperwork of any kind when he's sued yet again for his nefarious practices. In Cincinnati courts they just take his word for it, whatever he says. He seems to think all this weighs in his favour, and that JM is just unreasonable and way too picky, asking him all these darned questions. He isn't even going to peddle cars to P's drug dealer husband, cousins, or friends anymore, so there! Mr. Weinle, you are one of the reasons people hate used car salesmen. The beater moved on to yet another owner and now being repo'd again. A regular cash cow, this poor old Escalade.

FB contractor. I think CL and FB may be generating the majority of cases we see. Def  sends P a Google stock image of work he says he did and here tries to say that IS his work, but no proof of such, and then blames his Uncle Tony for promising to refund P when he is unable to do the work. He says he was hospitalized for two weeks and he had no idea of any of this. Uncle Tony never informed him of any of it. He really is so very sorry he screwed plaintiff over and would do anything to make it right, now that he's exposed on national television, well anything except respond to a single one of her many texts, emails and registered letters or refund her before she was forced to drag him to court.

I hope plaintiff, who was well-spoken and appeared to be intelligent,  finds a real contractor the next time she wants work done. Yes, it costs a little more, but hopefully won't end with your money vanishing and a court case.

"Badly bewigged" and "poor old Escalade".  You do have a way with words. Lol

  • LOL 1
  • Love 1
Link to comment
15 hours ago, rcc said:

"poor old Escalade". 

I swear, some of these litigants and their shenanigans actually make me feel sympathy for inanimate objects, like ancient hoopties that are swapped, peddled, put in car jail, towed, seized, attacked with baseball bats, and dragged hither and yon. 😱

  • LOL 4
Link to comment

A heartwarming case of family unity "My Sister Punched Me in the Face"   at a family gathering plaintiff sister is suing defendant sister, partly over $300 loaned by one sister to the other.   Then plaintiff sister's daughter was approached by defendant sister and some other relatives, and told daughter will be sharing her huge weed stash with the d. sister and relatives.   Plaintiff's daughter got punched, and her lip was injured.   Many punches were thrown.  From testimony, this melee is quite common at the family gatherings.     The biggest casualty of this case is the English language.  Defendant says she started the fight, and then everyone attacked her, and she's still not going to repay the $300 loan.  Plaintiff pays $300, nothing about the battle. 

Case 2-Plaintiff hires handyman/contractor to fix leaky floor on her extra room, received an estimate from defendant.  Plaintiff claims water was coming through the floor, not the roof, and claims defendant wanted her to fix the roof.   Defendant wanted to put a french drain system by the foundation, but plaintiff says she wanted defendant to fill the holes at the edge of the foundation.     This all started in late 2018.  Plaintiff even complained to the licensing board about defendant, and her complaint was denied.     She has no pictures of before the work was done, and only a bizarre one after, and nothing recent.    The plaintiff has zero understanding of how to do a french drain.   

Defendant says he told plaintiff the foundation is bad, the house doesn't have rain gutters, and she needed to contact a foundation guy.   Another person who wants to spend money on a patch job, when she needs to hire a foundation company and pay out big bucks.  

Plaintiff bringing this to Judge Marilyn eighteen months after this happened, and to the daughter of a contractor, was a huge mistake.  The licensing board was angry about something, and defendant says it was how he should do estimates. 

The fake crying by the plaintiff is hysterical.    Plaintiff gets back $1905 of her $3800.  Hopefully plaintiff will use the money to buy a decent wig

 

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • LOL 1
  • Love 6
Link to comment
55 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

A heartwarming case of family unity "My Sister Punched Me in the Face" 

I had a feeling as soon as this started that this loving family sees knock-down, drag-out brawls at family gatherings as just to be expected. I was afraid there was a video of all these women, including Mom, attacking each other like wild animals out in the yard. Thank goodness there wasn't.  Disgusting, ignorant guttersnipes. Def Raquel's towering tenhead (as opposed to even a fivehead) was mesmerizing. Raquel then brings her daughter into this. Nice to see she raised her little girl in her own image. Daughter has no problem with this brawl, seemingly started because Def's daughter's girlfriend didn't want to share her weed stash when P wanted to get high. Hey if someone won't share their weed with you - attack!

Lovely, smug, smirking daughter says, "They started saying words out they mouth. It's just how they is." Jesus...🙄 I'm sure she has a brilliant future ahead of her.

JM, I know you kept it brief, but do you really think your counselling is going to improve family relations in this three generations of women thugs, who see nothing out of the ordinary about physically attacking each other at any family get-together?

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Case 2-Plaintiff hires handyman/contractor to fix leaky floor on her extra room

This was nutty, from plaintiff, who threw her hands over her face, wailing and writhing like she was possessed, weeping mightily with no tears, to the def. who started out seeming perfectly legit and then devolved into a smarmy kind of scammer, using another contractor's license and name. JM questioning the P gets " I don't know! I don't have those texts, etc! I can't remember! It was so long ago!" That structure looked ready to fall down anyway.

Doug in the hall says to contractor Nick, "It kind of killed you there, saying you're bonded on the card when you weren't." Nick says, "Yes, well - that's how you grow and I've grown since then and yadda yadda." Really? So deliberately falsifying your credentials and misleading someone is just a minor, innocent mistake during your growing pains and getting caught in your lying is a way to grow?

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Hopefully plaintiff will use the money to buy a decent wig

 

No kidding. That one was seriously rachet.

  • LOL 2
  • Love 4
Link to comment
2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Case 2-Plaintiff hires handyman/contractor to fix leaky floor on her extra room

I was sorry the bonds issue intervened, because I think the plaintiff should have received no reimbursement at all.

She is willing to ignore the real issue, i.e. her shifting foundation, is opting for a cheaper patch-up, and then sues when (surprise, surprise!!) the problem reoccurs. As far as her claim that they did not lay down pipes, how would she know? She understands nothing about the technical aspect of the work, did not observe them 100 % of the time and is unwilling to listen to explanations.

She should live with all of the financial consequences of her stupid choices.

  • Love 7
Link to comment

Today's new episode "Wig War".   Case 1, a woman wanted a wig built for her, and she says the wig maker screwed the wig up.  However, defendant says the person who actually screwed up the wig was the second person that plaintiff had work on the wig.   I now know more about wigs, installs, etc. than I ever wanted to.    Defendant says plaintiff wanted a wig intended to be put on and taken off, put on so it couldn't be removed, so he says plaintiff's wig installer screwed the wig up.    Decision is plaintiff gets $200 plus court costs.    Wrong decision in my view. 

Plaintiff suing defendant over plaintiff cutting his mouth on a piece of plastic that was in his dessert, Deep Fried Ice Cream at a sushi place.   When he bit down on the ice cream, he found a piece of plastic in it, the server took the plate, and plastic away and she stayed gone for 15 minutes.   This is all on video from the restaurant cameras.   The piece of sharp plastic is bigger than a quarter.   They actually charged the plaintiff for the ice cream, and they paid and went to the ER.  The hospital bill was $1041.      However, plaintiff doesn't have the dental bill, so he's not getting that. 

So plaintiff received ER bill, $1041, and $1000 for pain and suffering, but not the $7,000 he wanted. 

(In the foundation, leak case from yesterday, if the defendant had been working for the other licensed person it would have been fine, but he wasn't.   However, I think plaintiff will keep getting patch jobs on that foundation until the entire house falls on her head.   I don't think the plaintiff deserved a penny back). 

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Love 5
Link to comment
26 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Today's new episode "Wig War

Yes. My DVR told me "Wig War" and I think I may have said out loud, "WIG WAR? Are you kidding me"? I FF, stopped and heard about a wig "Installation" and that was it. Zip to the next case.

As soon as that great big baby started his lengthy rehearsed testimony, " Sentimental outing... our first date was there... my wife was seven months pregnant... I'm such a gentleman... fed my wife the ice cream" and all that shit, I knew he was going to try to scam and he certainly did.

I agree it would be no fun to get a piece of plastic embedded in the roof of one's mouth, but 9K, seriously? Great big boy, husband, and daddy gives such a histronic tale of intense pain, bleeding out, shock and horror, etc. He says he missed 8 days of work(!!), for a cut in his mouth! He has no proof of missing any work and seems affronted that JM doesn't just take his word for it.  He went to his dentist, who told him to keep the cut clean. He has no proof his dentist charged him anything. Take his word for it for this as well.  He's suffering PTSD - for a cut in his mouth! He had to take ibuprofen (aspirin) for his excruciating pain! He gets in touch with some lawyer, who I guess told him he'd never get the big bonanza he wanted. He never sent his 1K medical bill to def, just sued her. She says he never sent his ER bill or replied to any of her questions.

He informs JM that he's being very reasonable by not taking this case to the Supreme Court, since people get "hundreds of thousands of dollars" if they find a hair in their restaurant meal. That was the final BS statement to make JM decide he's just a hustler looking for a lottery win (you know he sat with his little wife, rubbed his hands together and told her, "Oh, baby - we're gonna clean up with this one!") and even so she awards him an extra 1K for his pain and suffering, which seems okay. BUT, but! He's now emotionally scarred for life and afraid to scarf up Doritos and burritos. Honestly? Skipping some of that might be a good thing for him.

Judge John gave off mild Judge Corriero vibes in after the verdict when he says he would have awarded P at least another thousand for his pain and trauma because he sympathizes with dental agony. P's teeth weren't affected, though.

  • Love 6
Link to comment

The case with the plastic in the ice cream had a plaintiff obviously looking for a payday. No insurance, pregnant wife, no dental receipt and wanted $9,000 from the defendent to "make it go away." JM gave him a little over $2,000 which I thought was fair. JJ would have given more. Yes he should get something and they shouldn't have charged for the meal but defendent was lucky she waited for JM to hear the case.

  • Love 6
Link to comment

In this morning's rerun, "Robbing a Guy Blind" Judge Marilyn tells a defendant she shouldn't have left without mentioning it to the ex, and over text.    Doesn't she realize that some people like the plaintiff who is suing for a lot of various stuff he claims she left, and is lying about it, wouldn't take a bye-bye in person well?    

  • Love 3
Link to comment

Today's bizarre new case on "Fender Bender Fury" is odd even for this show.

Case 1-plaintiff is making a left turn from the main road, no traffic signal, or stop sign for her, when defendant pulls out from the stop sign, making a left hits plaintiff.   Neither one made a police report.   Truly strange happens when owner of defendant's car (it's actually his girlfriends, and his second accident in it) claims plaintiff said she would pay for the damages to both cars.   I'm sensing another try to get court money for a scam case.   In the absence of police reports, or any other proof, no way to prove who was at fault.    Neither side proved anything, so nothing for anyone.  (Judge John disagreed with Judge Marilyn's decision).  Note: not all states do police reports for non-injury accidents, or accidents on private property, to include parking lots.  

Case 2-Plaintiff paid defendant $5,000 for a birthday party, Covid cancelled the party, and defendant won't return the money to plaintiff.   Defendant said he'll change the date, but plaintiff says no.   This was for plaintiff's 80th birthday, and her 60th anniversary.   The total for the party was $23,000+ for the venue, buffet, and just about everything, for 225 people.  This was all planned for last year, but planning started 18 months before.   Judge Marilyn says that when the date comes around, if the state says plaintiff can't have a 225 person party, and then defendant would have to refund the money.   So plaintiff filed too early.  Case dismissed without prejudice, and plaintiff can refile if at the time of the party, the governor says the party is too big.  

Case 3, two more plaintiffs who are suing their former landlord for $1,000.   Landlord says plaintiffs got into spat with a former neighbor, and landlord had to use security to replace all of the windows.    Plaintiff says the entirely smashed window was from when he was moving a couch, and he just left it that way.    Plaintiffs moved to a better rental house, and were month to month, gave less than a month's notice to landlord.     For once, defendant/landlord wins. 

Anyone want to speculate on what current landlord said when they watched this show, and saw the massive damages to the defendant's house? 

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Love 4
Link to comment
2 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

 Landlord says plaintiffs got into spat with a former neighbor, and landlord had to use security to replace all of the windows.

*Sigh* No court shows for me today, but that sounds intriguing. I had one minor disagreement in my life with a neighbour (we lived in a development where the neighbours were way too close and she ran her Volvo for at least 20 minutes every morning to "warm it up" and the noxious fumes invaded our bedroom and nearly asphyxiated us), but it didn't result in smashed out windows or even physical altercations. Gotta love litigants with all the control of an angry toddler.

  • LOL 4
Link to comment
21 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Note: not all states do police reports for non-injury accidents, or accidents on private property, to include parking lots.  

I know that where I live in California, unless there is bodily injury and/or need to have traffic controlled, the police have better things to do and will not respond.  They won't come at all if it's property damage only on private property.  Exchange information, get photos, and let your insurance companies wrangle it out.

21 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Anyone want to speculate on what current landlord said when they watched this show, and saw the massive damages to the defendant's house? 

If I'm that new landlord, I'd be advising them that he'll be stopping by regularly on the first of the month to collect his rent in person and inspect the premises.  I think these slobs have NO respect for other people's property.

  • Love 2
Link to comment
21 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Case 3, two more plaintiffs who are suing their former landlord for $1,000.   Landlord says plaintiffs got into spat with a former neighbor, and landlord had to use security to replace all of the windows.    Plaintiff says the entirely smashed window was from when he was moving a couch, and he just left it that way.    Plaintiffs moved to a better rental house, and were month to month, gave less than a month's notice to landlord.     For once, defendant/landlord wins. 

This doesn't make a lot of sense to me.  If you smashed the window whilst moving a couch and left it that way, how is that less of your fault than getting into a fight with a neighbor?

  • Love 3
Link to comment

Today's bundle of weirdness, "Neighbor Nightmare", (my cable guide says it's new, but the "don't talk to women" sounds very familiar.   As you can imagine, Judge Marilyn is not amused.   I bet Judge John will be even less amused in the After the Case segment).

Case 1-defendant backed into plaintiffs' fence post, and they wanted $500 to fix it by their own fence company (the fence company was the original installer of the fence).     At first the defendant wife who hit the fence post was amenable.     Then, her husband got into it, told plaintiffs not to talk to defendant wife.   Then husband hired some random guy to fix the post, came on plaintiff's property with the fence guys (trespassing), and police were called.   Defendant husband actually told plaintiff wife to stop talking to him, he didn't talk to women, and told his fence guys to keep working (all on plaintiff's property).   

Defendant actually says women talk to women, and men talk to men.    Defendant got some sketchy random fence guy to replace the fence post.   Then plaintiff got the original fence company to replace the post, but it cost $100 more to remove the replacement fence post, and put in the one that had a warranty by the fence company.    So, Judge Marilyn gives $495 to plaintiffs, and defendant already paid the other guys.   My sympathies to the plaintiffs living next to the defendants.   The plaintiffs get to choose who and how to repair the fence, because it was their fence.  

After the Verdict-Judge John and Judge Marilyn were really irked by defendant. 

Case 2-Plaintiff wants her security deposit back from former landlord/home buyer/real estate agent, $1500.  Plaintiff sold house, and it was rented back to plaintiff for two months.  There was no walk through at closing, or at move out.   Defendant says she wanted to do a walkthrough at move out, but plaintiff cancelled, and defendant went through by herself.   There was a post-occupancy agreement that house would be in same condition after plaintiffs move out.    Landlord/buyer says house was filthy, holes in walls, furniture left behind, and other nasty things I won't mention. OK, pool wasn't maintained, or cleaned, toilets were filthy.     The plaintiffs never cleaned the furnace filter. and there is a lot of lint, and piled up dust in the furnace closet (my guess, they took the furnace filter out, and never touched the furnace after that).   There was also a heavy smell of smoke, garbage and rotting food, lawn was never mowed.  

Plaintiff claims since it was a fixer upper, that condition was fine.   Plaintiff claims someone was supposed to pick up the remaining furniture, so it's someone else's fault.  Real estate agent/defendant didn't do a video walk through on closing, and can't prove what damages happened after closing.  Plaintiff gets half back $725, and defendant keeps $725 of the security deposit.   No way to prove the change in house condition from closing, to move out two months later. 

Case 3-Plaintiff purchased sick puppy from defendant, and wants $5,000.    Defendant claims 10 week old puppy was healthy, and she's not giving any money to plaintiff, and defendant is counter suing for $6,000+.    They're talking about a Yorkshire Terrier puppy, for $1250.    Plaintiff made payments while puppy was still with breeder.   On arrival, puppy stopped eating, and two days later the plaintiff took the puppy to the vet.    Defendant took over the vet bills, and puppy was very dehydrated, and low blood sugar.  Then defendant took puppy home, and plaintiff would repay the vet bills to defendant, and then give puppy back to plaintiff.    Defendant was still owed a lot, and plaintiff only paid $250, so defendant rehomed the puppy to a better home.    Defendant says plaintiff took the puppy to a vet near her mother-in-law, because of lack of funds, finally went to the other vet defendant paid for.    Plaintiff will get $1250 for the puppy, and $250 for the vet bills ($1500).    Defendant made one mistake on the vet bill contract, no date that repayment had to be finished by.   However, in my view defendant did the right thing for the puppy.   Clueless plaintiff says she'll buy another puppy, for her little kids.   

$1500 to plaintiff, zip to defendant

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Love 4
Link to comment
30 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Today's bundle of weirdness, "Neighbor Nightmare

The bundle of weirdness is created where a chunk taken out of a composite fencepost turns into a big huge thing, with police called and a court case ensuing. I nearly skipped this when the verbose P wife said for the 4th time, "I reached out to Rose Fences" but I continued. Foolish me. These traditions of women keeping their mouths shut and their noses out of "man business" really doesn't fly on this continent - well, not with me anyway. A woman judge dictating to Def must have been galling in the extreme. I wonder what consequences D's wife suffered for causing all this by hitting P's fencepost. Maybe she's not allowed to drive anymore.

35 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Case 2-Plaintiff wants her security deposit back from former landlord/home buyer/real estate agent, $1500

Gee, plaintiff seemed so reasonable and demure, but turns out she and her tribe were a bunch of dirty little piggies, who left the place filthy (they even left some complimentary pee in the toilet) along with all kinds of trash and unwanted furniture. Def never replied on the issue of the ditched furniture. Did P really think someone else might want her cheap, shitty bedroom set and an old used mattress or that they might not mind being forced to get rid of it all?

I was so surprised to hear Def is a realtor because she looked about 14, but maybe that's just because everyone looks like children to me now. Personally, I'd rather not get the money back than have photos of my dirty nest exposed on national television  - I would die of shame -  but I guess P didn't feel that way. What's the problem? They didn't want that stuff so why not make it someone else's problem?

47 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

 I bet Judge John will be even less amused in the After the Case segment).

I bet HE doesn't talk much to the women in his life, but only because they don't shut up long enough for him to get a word in.😂

  • LOL 5
  • Love 2
Link to comment

This morning's rerun was so confusing.   " Taking Your Sister to Court" is one sister claiming she wants a lot of money from the mother's estate.     The house sold for peanuts, the auctioned possessions minus auction fees were almost nothing, and the defendant was executor, and did exactly what the mother's will said to do.   So why is TPC hearing a case that went through probate, and has closed?   That's the same as relitigating another court decision.    Then, plaintiff says no one gave her anything out of the mother's possessions, but the mother's will said everything sells at auction, and plaintiff didn't even go to the auction.    Then, as usual, there's the coddling of the vindictive plaintiff, and an attempt to get the defendant to make up with the plaintiff.   Plaintiff also claims the defendant leaves her notes written by the late mother threatening the plaintiff (No, it doesn't make sense, but that and other statements make me think that defendant should stay very far away from her sister/plaintiff). 

Then the woman who hired movers, and the movers found out the woman was a hoarder, and could only move part of her junk, and then says the expensive luggage she gave to one of the workers is worth thousands.   Then defendant bought a similar set (the luggage that all comes as a set) he bought in Chinatown for $40.      The mover will drop the luggage he bought off, and plaintiff's bonanza attempt (she was suing for thousands) is dismissed. 

I bet you that the first thing that woman did when she got the luggage back was to put it for sale on an auction site.    Followed by getting in big trouble for selling knockoffs, and claiming they're designer. 

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Love 2
Link to comment
18 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Then the woman who hired movers, and the movers found out the woman was a hoarder, and could only move part of her junk, and then says the expensive luggage she gave to one of the workers is worth thousands.   Then defendant bought a similar set (the luggage that all comes as a set) he bought in Chinatown for $40.      The mover will drop the luggage he bought off, and plaintiff's bonanza attempt (she was suing for thousands) is dismissed. 

I remember that one.  The plaintiff didn't even know what brand the luggage was, and wasn't aware - until a friend told her - that the brand was VERY expensive (except when you buy it at a booth at a flea market).

  • LOL 3
Link to comment

Today's first case was something. The plaintiff seemed like a nice person while the defendent sister was a bitch. Bozo the Clown hair didn't help either. Lol Plaintiff got back money owed and Bozo can take her bogus gift cards back. Sweet moment between JM and JJ after the verdict.

  • Love 6
Link to comment
1 hour ago, rcc said:

Today's first case was something.

Here we go again - big show-off proms are mandatory for a momma who has no money. JM asks, "Why can't (your daughter) do her own nails? I do!" OH, please JM! We're not talking about filing and applying nail polish, but gluing on talons. Can't do that at home.

Both of them inform JM how many family members they've buried recently, but don't seem nearly as upset over that as they are over the cost of doing the girl's nails and hair and getting her a dress. Belligerent def who was wearing a burgundy Shirley Temple wig, was very rude to JM, and informs Doug in the Hall that P is just mad because she lost her Sec8. The whole thing was distasteful. I can only hope (probably a false hope) the graduate left school able to speak better than her mom: "She ain't pay me nothing for no chairs." Dear god...

Here's my story: Last year I needed a new deck, so I spoke to some person I know who told me her boyfriend, a little wharf rat called Mr. Johnny, could do the job. He was fresh out of prison on a weapons charge and during our consultation, he brought a bag of weed to my house and asked if I minded? I don't like to be judgmental so I said it was okay and hired him for a total of 4800$. The subject of contracts never came up. I gave him 2K to start and just hoped he wasn't too high to do the work. Then he had a dental appointment so couldn't come. Really? He was rocking some snaggletooth, but whatever.

Then he had Crohn's disease so couldn't come and sent some other unknown characters to do the work. When he finally did come he didn't have the right tool (an auger), digs the posts wrong and has to dig them deeper. Then the inspector noticed another problem with a post in the wrong place. I sent texts asking him what the hell? He replied, calling me "Little lady" and said I should "take a deep breath" and relax. Then I decided I didn't want him working anymore. His drunk girlfriend told me they spent all night getting high and drinking "Jack"  and then Mr. Johnny had to leave town because he got in with a bad crowd, so stop being so picky! He'll show up eventually! My neighbours felt sorry for me and finished the work. I paid them 7K. No, 2K. Oh wait, maybe it was 950$ or could have been 1K.  I don't know!

My math sucks, but JM figured that with the money P wants back, she would get a new, big deck for 2K. Not happening, but I can't remember if she got anything at all.

 

 

  • Love 4
Link to comment

New show today "Rental Car Ruckus"  Case 1-Plaintiff has a tenant who needs a rental car for a week.   Plaintiff rents car in her name, doesn't get the insurance.   Defendant isn't listed as an additional driver, so two or three days later, defendant falls asleep or something at the wheel.   Rental car is totaled, and defendant hits two other cars, and plaintiff owes $11,000, on the destroyed car.   Defendant sent a text to plaintiff, saying plaintiff should run it by her regular car insurance, but plaintiff doesn't have that either.   This all happened 3 1/2 years ago, and defendant never paid anything.   Defendant is counter suing plaintiff for half of the damages, because plaintiff should have paid it, or put additional insurance on rental car.  But, in my view, since defendant wasn't listed as an additional driver, then insurance wouldn't have paid anyway.   Plaintiff's bank account was garnished for over $1,000 for the rental car, and bank fees.    Defendant says she's being garnished for $100 every two weeks, and it only started a month ago.   

Defendant case is dismissed, because it's despicable.   Plaintiff $1245. 

Case 2-Plaintiff worked on basketball team for defendant for three days, and wants to be paid.  Defendant says plaintiff was an unpaid intern.  Plaintiff wants $35 a day, for three days, total $105. Plaintiff receives $105, plus legal interest.  

Case 3-Plaintiff's dog was attacked while fiance was walking the dog.  Defendant is Pit Bull owner, who claims the leashed pit bull only was defending himself, when unleashed plaintiff's dog came after defendant's dog.  In the video submitted by plaintiff, it proves defendant is a total liar.   Both dogs were Pit Bulls.    Plaintiff is suing for $5,000, the only vet bill is $114 for a rabies shot update.   Defendant lied about everything. 

As always, plaintiff's dog wasn't injured, but he's her son's emotional support dog, so she wants a bonanza.   $114 for rabies shot, and an additional $1,000 for psychological care for the plaintiff's dog.   First time ever as far as I know.  

 

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Love 3
Link to comment
34 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

New show today "Rental Car Ruckus"

P said she watches this show. Maybe so, but apparently nothing she watched penetrated her cranium, it seems. She agree to fool the Budget rental company by pretending she was renting the car for herself when it was actually for her dear friend, who has no money and no credit cards. Def, with a rather haughty and imperious expression for a deadbeat who stiffs a friend, says she TOLD P to get insurance. D can't drive the car (I kind of doubt she even has a license) for more than 2 days without crashing it. P is on the hook for damages. Def has no money, remember? Well, no money for stuff like a rented car she crashed. Why should she be responsible for the car, insurance, or the damage she did? Why would either of them pony up 10 bucks or so for insurance? Seems P, with her now-ruined credit FINALLY learned her lesson. Better late than never, I guess.

40 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Case 2-Plaintiff worked on basketball team for defendant for three days, and wants to be paid.

I had a bit of a problem with P, who wanted the money to "purchase" a rescued dog. This is not a purchase price, but an adoption fee to help cover the costs non-profit rescues incur while taking in these dogs, many of whom need very pricey vet care. If you can't afford the adoption fee, how on earth will you pay for all future vet bills, supplies, food, etc, which can be very costly? Anyway, couldn't stand the pink-cheeked, neck-bearded, lying def twerp, so I was glad he lost.

  • Love 5
Link to comment

Bizarre note, there is no title for this episode.    Case 1-Plaintiff claims defendant stole his designer sunglasses, and both litigants, and the defendant's lamp have the same hairdo. 

The entertaining part is Judge John's stories about how he destroys, and loses his sunglasses constantly.     

Case 2-Plaintiff hired defendant to replace the fuel tank in his truck, and claims defendant botched it.     Judge Marilyn calls plaintiff's mechanic to verify the issue.   This is all over $189.  In the defendant's place it would be better to pay the money, than to go on national TV for this case. 

Case 3-Plaintiff suing defendant for his dog attacking and killing her poodle.   Defendant had to put his dog down after the fight (per Animal Control), but he says his nephew was walking the dog, and he said plaintiff called him over, and caused the fight.   Plaintiff's poodle died from the attack.  Plaintiff claims her poodle was inside her chain link fence, and the defendant's pit bull hit the gate, and attacked the poodle.   Plaintiff claims the defendant's dog was being walked by his 12 or 13 year old nephew, but the leash was just some kind of chain looped around the pit's neck.  Defendant's mother blamed the plaintiff for the attack by the pit.   Plaintiff's dog bled out before getting to the vet.   Defendant finally admits that his dog attacked before, and wants sympathy because he had to put his dog down.   Defendant says the police demanded his dog be put down, but he also claims that animal control was going to adopt the dog out.   I don't believe anything the defendant says (or as Judge Marilyn says, "I wouldn't believe the defendant if his tongue was notarized"). 

Plaintiff wins, and gets her cremation bills paid.  

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Love 4
Link to comment
33 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Bizarre note, there is no title for this episode. 

True, but maybe that's a good thing so we didn't get one of Levin's stupid, alliterative, dumbass titles. Really boring case but I was curious as to why party-hard P got full purchase price for his beloved, overpriced sunglasses and not depreciated value? He didn't miss them for the last 3 years.

 

36 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

 This is all over $189.

Another boring case. I think P really expected to get the other 600$ he wanted for his inconvenience. That letter he typed up himself was a bit much. I have a hard time imagining anyone at one mechanic shop calling something another mechanic shop did "ridiculous".

  • Love 1
Link to comment
54 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Bizarre note, there is no title for this episode.    Case 1-Plaintiff claims defendant stole his designer sunglasses, and both litigants, and the defendant's lamp have the same hairdo. 

Speaking of the lamp, I wonder if there’s a small door behind this art piece that opens up and several “nesting lamps” come walking out.

Also, a shout out to the defendant’s rocking aviator glasses.  I had a flashback to an Elton John concert, circa 1978.  Philadelphia PA. 

He (the defendant) must have been might proud of that lamp since it occupied a prominent place in the screen shot.  Similar to the pit bull owner’s proud placement of paper towels and spray bottle on the top of his fridge.  

He should have used those items to wipe down the microwave.  The fingerprints were abundant.

Just another day in court teevee land.

Link to comment
32 minutes ago, PsychoKlown said:

Speaking of the lamp, I wonder if there’s a small door behind this art piece that opens up and several “nesting lamps” come walking out.

Also, a shout out to the defendant’s rocking aviator glasses.  I had a flashback to an Elton John concert, circa 1978.  Philadelphia PA. 

He (the defendant) must have been might proud of that lamp since it occupied a prominent place in the screen shot.  Similar to the pit bull owner’s proud placement of paper towels and spray bottle on the top of his fridge.  

He should have used those items to wipe down the microwave.  The fingerprints were abundant.

Just another day in court teevee land.

Yes the defendent should have cleaned his appliances before going on television. Lol He obviously didn't care that dog was killed by his dog. Selfish and he shouldn't be a dog owner.

  • Love 2
Link to comment
On 4/23/2021 at 2:42 PM, AngelaHunter said:

Anyway, couldn't stand the pink-cheeked, neck-bearded, lying def twerp, so I was glad he lost.

I wonder how many times that jerk has pulled that "no, you were an intern" ruse on the college kids and they walked away empty handed.  I'll wager he claims the same thing every time someone asks for a paycheck.  Probably the reason he puts TWO ads on Craigslist - he consistently claims that they answered the unpaid "intern" job.

  • Love 6
Link to comment

Unnamed episode about some fence issues.    Plaintiff wants almost $7k to replace part of the fence.     Wooden fence is 10 years old, and has termite damages, and that's partly from defendant watering the fence at least once a day.   Then the age of the fence keeps getting older and older.  Defendant's side yard is with plants right up to the fence line.   There is a photo from plaintiff's garage roof, showing the part where defendant can't water, the fence is fine.  On the part where the defendant waters constantly, the fence is rotten, termite eaten, and falling apart.   

It's good the fence posts are the big metal fence uprights, or the fence posts would be falling down too.    I don't know why the plaintiff even bothered coming on the show, the judge seems to think this is all amusing.      Judge  Marilyn decides for the defendant.    In plaintiff's case, I would put the next fence slightly on my side, and when the defendant's side falls down, she can pay for her own fence. 

Case 2-PLaintiff is suing former landlord for their security deposit. $2875 is the security.   Plaintiffs, like always, claim the place was immaculate.  Defendant claims the place was filthy, and washer and dryer had to be replaced. The defendant/landlord's security list includes light bulbs.   Plaintiffs (Uncle and Niece) run a project for homeless mentally ill, where they rented the defendant's property, to house their clients.     Plaintiffs never lived in the home.   (It sounds like they were running a sheltered living/halfway house operation).  Washer/dryer is one of the stackable, low capacity machine (they do cost a lot too), and a former resident says residents were putting heavy comforters, and a lot of clothes in the washer dryer, and that's how they broke it.  Defendant is the property manager, not the owner.    I know how this case will come out, because Judge M. says plaintiffs are doing God's work.    So plaintiff gets almost everything back, $2223. 

The defendant's wig in this case was bizarre, hideous, and looked very cheap.  Think clearance after Halloween at the dollar store. 

Case 3-Plaintiff hired defendant to upgrade his car to a turbo, and want $2170 back from defendant.   Defendant/mechanic claims he finished car, plaintiff had it for a while, and then took it to someone else to fix, so defendant never had a chance to repair the car, or even examine it.  Defendant does this on the side, so he never should have done this job.  Then defendant says he didn't quite finish, and plaintiff should have been patient.   Plaintiff has a receipt from the second mechanic for fixing the issues.   Plaintiff claims he paid $500 to second mechanic, and claims he'll have to sell the car off for parts now.  

Plaintiff wins.  

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Love 4
Link to comment
37 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Unnamed episode about some fence issues.

What an irritating, nit-picking little "I...I...I" pissant the P was, with his whining that "the fence got wet!!" Yeah, that happens to wooden items that are outdoors, you little twerp. That fence looked like it was scavenged from rejected, odd pieces of plywood 15 years ago and he thinks it's worth over 6K. He even climbed up on his garage roof to take pics of the D's yard!  He never even painted his side, and smeared gobs of spackle all over it! What a little nut. So incensed was he that JM didn't give him even more time to bitch and whine about termites and water that he gave Doug in the hall a "No comment" for which we were all grateful. A charmed life he must have led to get his knickers in such a twist over this crummy fence. I felt sorry for Def. Even kindly Judge John all but sneers at this silly P.

 

44 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Case 2-PLaintiff is suing former landlord for their security deposit.

I got so distracted by trying to figure out the convolutions and construction of D's wig I didn't really concentrate on the case.

45 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Case 3-Plaintiff hired defendant to upgrade his car to a turbo, and want $2170 back from defendant.

Boring. Hipsterish P finds alley mechanic on FB and lets him keep his old car for 18 months to turn it into some turbo-charged, macho machine. Def couldn't possibly finish the job for which he was paid because he works 60 hrs a week at a restaurant and has his kid on weekends so has to go and pick him up and take him back and blah blah. Give him another 18 months and for sure he would have done the job, well, if he found the time. Hey, he's busy! The cheap surely does come out expensive.

  • Love 5
Link to comment

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
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...