The People's Court - General Discussion

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

Not happy with the watch fiasco. The plaintiff got an unjust enrichment

See, I would have thought that also, if I hadn't watched ("watched" haha!) this. But for the fact that def screwed up, plaintiff never would have gone to Bulgari and incurred that cost. After the lost screw, then making plaintiff return to the store in vain, I get why she no longer wanted to deal with them. I have no doubt she was telling the truth in that Bulgari refused to merely provide a screw without giving the watch a going-over, just to protect themselves, I assume. Anyway, IMO, I think the verdict was justified.

Quote

tenant wants deposit: plaintiff wants his $1400 deposit back,

Oh, poor me! I don't understand how things work in this country, so  I never complained there was no heat for 4 years. (I'm sorry, but my climate is like that of New Rochelle and no way in hell could anyone survive with no heat). He has no idea how to call def. and ask for heat, but DOES know just how to go and file a small claims case against her. Those kitchen cabinets were beyond disgusting and I can imagine how much effort was involved in scraping off layer upon layer of grease or whatever turned them all yellow.

Quote

 No doubt the guy is a jerk (I don't buy his story about the pomeranian repeatedly lunging at his collie's throat), but does the fact that he wouldn't even talk to the plaintiff or make any attempt to apologize or to find out how badly the pomeranian was hurt make him liable.

My sympathies are totally with the Pom, whose owner left it outside to escape through a hole in the fence. Poms may be small, but they are a Spitz breed and can be very feisty. No way to know what really happened, but def. - who may or may not be a jerk and I thought his whole "going for the throat" was puffing to make his defense better -  has a right to fend off loose dogs when he's walking his dog.

Plaintiff needs to be glad her dog is alive, since many terrible things can befall a tiny dog running loose in a neighbourhood - hit by car, attacked by other dog, poisoned, attacked by a cat, snatched by someone, etc etc. Fix your damned fence, lady, and get the "None of this is my fault!" wide-eyed look off your face.

[speac]

The watch case would have been justified if Bulgari had just replaced the screw for $300+ but they did a whole lot of other stuff besides--as someone pointed out it is kind of like going in for a headlight, have them loose a screw and then expecting the person to pay for a whole front end.

We actually do call our dog, 'the dog' and he doesn't seem to mind.  He actually gives us kissies because he knows we have two kids but he is THE dog or so he tells us.  We used to live next to someone who would let their Pom wander.  It may have been their sweet pocket puppy but everyone else called him the Cuisinart.  He was a flying furry missile with teeth, not a pleasant dog--and yes he did take on very large dogs. 

[OhioSongbird]

My brother keeps Poms (has for years).  Strictly indoors or in the totally secure fenced in back yard....my bro is kind of anal that way.  Cute as hell, comical, smart and super cuddly but you would think they are German Shepherds  the way they bark at the mailman or any cat they see thru the front door.....;-)

I felt sorry for the little guy, too.  Def was a jerk for sure.  Not even an apology....his Mother must be so proud *rme*. 

[ElleMo]

17 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

My sympathies are totally with the Pom, whose owner left it outside to escape through a hole in the fence. Poms may be small, but they are a Spitz breed and can be very feisty. No way to know what really happened, but def. - who may or may not be a jerk and I thought his whole "going for the throat" was puffing to make his defense better -  has a right to fend off loose dogs when he's walking his dog.

Plaintiff needs to be glad her dog is alive, since many terrible things can befall a tiny dog running loose in a neighbourhood - hit by car, attacked by other dog, poisoned, attacked by a cat, snatched by someone, etc etc. Fix your damned fence, lady, and get the "None of this is my fault!" wide-eyed look off your face.

Yes, my sympathies are for the dog as well.  I don't think the guy meant to hurt the Pomerian, but I do think he purposely made contact with the dog.  I doubt  tapping a stick on the ground is going to distract a dog who's slipped under a fence just to chase after another dog.  In defense of the guy, I have a Lab, which is a pretty big dog, but if I were walking it and a little dog was coming up to attack it, I'd probably end up kicking it away if I could.   I would do that in attempt to keep both dogs from hurting each other, though.  And no matter how hard I kicked it, it would probably be less of an injury than my dog picking up a littler one and shaking it back and forth like a rag doll.  She has done with two ground hogs in my back yard (or one really stupid ground hog that didn't learn his lesson the first time.) And she was only playing at the time. 

[DoctorK]

Oh I loved the keyless start Audi case! Defendant had all of the facts, a video illustrating his defense claims (and incidentally completely destroying the plaintiff's argument). As icing on the cake, he had screencaps of his on-line discussion with the official Audi help site confirming his defense again. The plaintiff was, sorry to say, dumber than a box of hammers and seemed stunned in the hallterview. Also, one of my pet peeves applies to the plaintiff: if you are going to put on a dark suit, dark tie with a white dress shirt, for God's sake, get someone to explain to you how to button the top shirt button and snug up the tie.

[SRTouch]

1. painting case: Plaintiff bought a painting from defendant based on a picture of the picture he saw online. Now he wants his money back because the colors in the painting don't go with his decorating. If color matching the rest his decor was that important, why not arrange to see the painting in the room before paying. He brought the thing to court, and at least to me it looks like it would go well with any Halloween type motif. Anyway, he saw this painting online, negotiated with the artist and ended up with a 50% discount from the asking price, met in a parking lot, looked at the picture "in person", and gave her the agreed upon $300 in cash. After he gets it home he calls and tells defendant it doesn't match, and he says artist offered to return his money. She says she offered to exchange the painting, or she could return the money in a couple or three weeks. She says he didn't want to wait, and insisted they meet that night back in the parking lot. She decides he a weirdo, changes her mind about refunded the money and tells him to get lost. Oh yeah, I totally believed he's a weirdo stalker dude, since he starts calling her from various phones, and goes so far and researching her address and going to her house. Uh oh, could it be he realized his texts were a little out there? When MM asks for the texts he only has printed copies. Defendant torpedoes her own case when she agrees she offered to meet and return the money about a month after the initial transaction and didn't show. MM tells them both that had she not agreed to that meeting and been a noshow she would have won. As it is, plaintiff wins, returns the painting and gets his money.
2. lost key case: ah, this is the case DoctorK talked about upstream. And, man, doesn't he look sharp... and and dumb as he stands there with a blank look on his face turned and looking down and to his left. Well, in this case first impressions seem to be right. Guy has one of those cars which can be started without putting in the key, but the key has to be in close proximity. He picks up his car from the defendant's shop, drives away, then stops at the carwash and can't find the key. So now he says defendant never gave him the key, so he wants over a grand (remember the old days when you needed a key it was a couple bucks. Not nowadays, it can be hundreds and involve programing a chip an the key.) Turns out, as long as he was going to sue and get a new key, why not try to get an extra set of keys, and as long as he's asking for two keys, might as well ask for gas money, wasted time, etc (surprised he didn't try for pain and suffering). Anyway, defendant came to court prepared, and makes plaintiff look pretty silly.
3. tenant suing for return of deposit: wow, defendant showed up with ALL KINDS OF EVIDENCE. I mean it's like some kid's science project. No stack of photos for this dude, his pictures are mounted on board. MM comes down off the bench for a closer look... what's this, she's in blue jeans and sneakers. Plaintiffs say landlord defendant suing for way more than he's entitled to. They argue that since he knew they were both smokers, he shouldn't get anything for the damage caused by cigarette smoke. Landlord wants to charge his pet fee since they regularly had a pit bull "guest". They argue the pit came over everyday with their friendly neighbor, but since it wasn't their dog they shouldn't have to pay. Ah, but defendant has statement from another neighbor saying it WAS their dog, and they they let it run around loose. In the end plaintiff loses, but instead landlord only gets about a quarter of what he's asking. Turns out, he spent to much time mounting his pictures and forgot some of his receipts. Part of his countersuit was thrown out because he was trying to hold them to the terms of the original lease, but it had expired and they were actually month to month. 

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

Plaintiff bought a painting from defendant based on a picture of the picture he saw online.

OH, that doofus annoyed me so badly. I have a few original paintings in my house which I bought because I loved them, not because the colours went with my decor. Def. never should have agreed to refund his money. He saw the painting both online and in person and didn't deserve a refund. BTW, I really liked the painting!

Clueless, slack-jawed key guy? I really loved def. Not only did he have great evidence, but also an awesome Italian accent. One of the best litigants ever. He should have been compensated for the time wasted to bother with dopey Slack-Jaw, who was unable to answer how he started his car with no key in it. Duh!

Quote

tenant suing for return of deposit: wow, defendant showed up with ALL KINDS OF EVIDENCE. I mean it's like some kid's science project. No stack of photos for this dude, his pictures are mounted on board.

Couldn't stand any of the litigants, but watching landlord/tenant cases never fails to make me rejoice that I own my home.

[OhioSongbird]

I liked that painting, too!  I have lots of art all over my house...most originals from local painters, flea mkts, estate auctions, etc.  Plus I dabble a bit myself (actually sold one!), mostly modern stuff in bright colors.  I agree he should have taken it home first to really see the colors.  The artist is right, tho.  He can use a different spectrum of lights to change the hue.

[seacliffsal]

I actually have a different take on the dog case in which the Pom got loose.  While I really feel for the dog, I am with the defendant that he really didn't owe an apology to the owner.  I LOVE my dogs, and all dogs, but if a dog was coming after one of my dogs, I would totally hit the dog with anything I had.  I have often had to get loose dogs away from mine (who are always on a leash).  I have used a hard plastic stick, a wood stick, whatever is available; if I had a cane I would have used it.  In fact, one of my neighbors now always carries a broom handle when he walks his dog as loose dogs have come after it before.  The plaintiff owed the apology for letting her dog get loose.  Feel bad about hurting a dog that attacks one of mine?  Sure.  Feel obligated to apologize for injuring a dog while trying to keep it from attacking one of mine?  No.  I expect an apology for the owner's inability to keep his/her dog under control and for me having to defend my dog risking injury to myself and possible injury to my own dog.  It doesn't matter if my dog is larger than the loose dog who attacks mine, or comes after mine.

[SRTouch]

Oops, I really need to pay more attention... moved from JJ

 CELL PHONE PLAN FAIL: another of those cases where someone puts their good friend (actually a cousin this time) on their 2 year plan, get a "FREE" phone, only to get stuck making payments when the "friend" decides to take the phone and leave the plan. I'm not sure who came up with the "free phone" idea, but they were a marketing genius. I sometimes wonder how many people ever finish paying for that fancy phone, as they "upgrade" before paying it off. In this case, the phone is an iPhone 6s plus, and with the great "free" phone gimmick, dude owes $793.33 for the phone which is now probably worth $100-200. As usual, defendant doesn't feel she owes anything because the phone was "free". To make matters worse, when he asks for the back back he's told she sold it. When we shift over to Woody (so-called because her hair was colored to match Woody Woodpecker) MM tries to explain to clueless girl that her actions stuck her cousin with an $800 bill. Woody doesn't care about the position she put cousin in, after all when she had an argument with cousin's bf the turncoat side with the bf instead of sticking with blood. Woody totally unrepentant, knows she stuck the cousin with big bill, but doesn't care, but ordered to pay the bill.

'NOTHER SECURITY DEPOSIT CASE: Plaintiff suing claiming she moved out of the defendant's condo because the landlord was always hassling her about one thing or anoyher. Defendant says tenant was behind in rent, and was eventually evicted. Plaintiff admits she signed lease even she moved in, but says she later "rejected". Huh, you mean you can sign a lease, move in, then object to the rent, "reject" the lease, and you no longer have to pay the amount you agreed to in the lease. Ho boy, good luck with that defense. Plaintiff has convoluted story. She says plaintiff hired her plaintiff's son, a licensed contractor, to repair water damage in the condo. In exchange, she and son were going to live there, and get a $600 reduction in rent. Defendant  also paying the son, in addition to the rent reduction, but says son never completed the renovation, for which she has a contract. When MM asks plaintiff for her 6 month lease, which she agrees she signed, she doesn't have it and tries to explain that away by talking over MM. For some reason plaintiff seems to feel defendant did something wrong because she, the plaintiff, didn't read the lease before signing it. When the first 6 month lease expires, she signs the new lease, but finally reads it. Three days after signing, she "rejects" it and tries to renegotiate. Part of the reason for rejection seems to be defendant now expects the full rent (apparently defendant was supposed to keep giving a $600 rent reduction until son finally completed the work, no matter how long he took). Plaintiff changes that stance when MM scoffs at the idea, but she doesn't feel she should be held responsible, like any other tenant, for the damages to areas which sonny boy has yet to complete work on. Ah, not only does plaintiff have screwy ideas about what a lease means, she continues to interrupt and talk over everyone in her annoyingly loud shrill voice - oh, and of course she is going to say what she wants instead of answering questions. Ah well, much as I dislike plaintiff, the countersuit for back rent is out the window because it was illegal to rent the condo while rent was ongoing. So we're just left with the original case, the return of security. Defendant has a list of damages, but no pictures or receipts, but plaintiff admits to causing some of the damage. Guess it's a good thing going she can't stop yapping, but without receipts it's up to MM to administer some rough justice. In the end, defendant keeps security depost, but loses out on counterclaim for rent. In hallterview plaintiff is very disappointed and says she's never going to watch the show again - oh and I finally come up with someone to compare that voice with, Fran Drescher from the Nanny. Other thing I picked up from hallterview. This landlord thought she was being nice letting this woman she didn't know move in - and why did she need a place... she was being kicked out of her previous place.

SOCIAL SECURITY CLAIM: Plaintiff, looking all sharp with his blue suit and bowtie, is suing teenage gf. Says he did some work on her son's Social Security disability claim, she fired him, and he's suing for the time he put in on her case and... pain and suffering - total $1900. First thought, what qualifies this joker, who apparently thinks he can sue for pain and suffering when someone doesn't pay him for his time, to be filing someone's SS claim. Ah, MM has the same thought, and asks spiffy. He claims to be a paralegal graduate. I don't know what the rules are for paralegals, but it sounds like this guy openly solicits people, looking to "help" with SS claims... doesn't sound kosher to me, but what do I know. I do know that government bureaucracy pretty much makes it impossible for your average lay person to figure out the rules. It sounds like MM doesn't object to what he does, as she proceeds to question the defendant. Lots of silliness... it sounds like they were both just trying to score a payday. Case comes down to the evidence plaintiff presented. He has a nice signed contract that says he receives nothing until she receives the SS payment. Her claim was denied, so according to his own evidence, he doesn't get paid. Oh, and when MM looks over the claim he submitted she declares it was a fraudulent claim because dude was writing pretending to be the woman.

SOAPBOX time: This time last year my tenant was working as a manager at a fast food place. Since that time, he has undergone multiple surgeries on his right ankle, has more coming, and when they finish the right ankle they are saying they might have to start on his left. (His problems stem from diabetes, which led to a degenerative bone disease, Charcot - essentially, the bones in his ankles are dissolving resulting in multiple ankle fractures.) Before all this started he had medical insurance through the state which helps pay the coverage through an employer. When he was no longer able to work, he lost that insurance, so he was without coverage for a few weeks as they switched him to another program. He has been denied twice now for disability, despite multiple letters from his doctors saying he can put "no" weight on his ankles. He's now hired a lawyer who will paid when/if he ever gets disability. He is about to run out of unemployment. Heck, if it wasn't for friends, family and church (and oh yeah food stamps) he'd be homeless. Heck, he hasn't paid me rent since February, so don't know if I should still be calling him my tenant. Ah well, this is just a rant about the system not working...

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

 you mean you can sign a lease, move in, then object to the rent, "reject" the lease, and you no longer have to pay the amount you agreed to in the lease.

That woman, with her shrill, nasal voice just couldn't shut up. "Reject" a lease after you sign it? After all, she admits that, unlike with the first lease which she couldn't read before signing because there was construction going on she actually - yes! - read a document before signing it this time. But she rejects it!  She also admits to damaging new appliances through her own negligence, but that's not supposed to be her fault either, plus the appliances weren't top of the line, so who cares if they're dented and broken? Def wasn't much less annoying, but did get what was owed her from the shrieking plaintiff.

Quote

 it sounds like they were both just trying to score a payday.

I don't know too much about this, but is someone entitled to a huge 15K lottery win - snatched from taxpayers -  because their child needs speech therapy? Paralegal didn't sound overly knowledgeable or educated (considering his poorly written, fraudulent letter) never mind the fact that he thinks a contract case involves "pain and suffering"  for not getting money when his own contract prohibited him from being paid if the def. didn't score?

I couldn't listen to the stupid cell phone case. I'm glad Judge Judy banned those, and just wish both shows would ban both those and animal cases.

[Jamoche]

Is Little Miss Woody Woodpecker capable of going more than 30 seconds without playing with her hair? It's not even in her face - it looks like she's picked up the idea that playing with her hair and touching her face is somehow all cutesy and endearing. It's so not.

The lease rejector is straight out of Central Casting for "annoying nosy neighbor" - the kind that's peeping out her windows to catch Samantha Stevens doing magic. If I understood it, part of her complaint was that repairs weren't made - and her son was the repairguy?

Social Security - sucks to be the kid, but mom and her long-ago boyfriend give off a serious grifter vibe.

[ElleMo]

18 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

I don't know too much about this, but is someone entitled to a huge 15K lottery win - snatched from taxpayers -  because their child needs speech therapy? Paralegal didn't sound overly knowledgeable or educated (considering his poorly written, fraudulent letter) never mind the fact that he thinks a contract case involves "pain and suffering"  for not getting money when his own contract prohibited him from being paid if the def. didn't score?

Apparently not, because the application got rejected.  

I did some quick checking and found out that:

"The child must have a physical or mental condition, or a combination of conditions, that result in 'marked and severe functional limitations.' This means that the condition(s) must very seriously limit your child’s activities.  . . . Following are some of the conditions that may qualify: • HIV infection • Total blindness • Total deafness • Cerebral palsy • Down syndrome • Muscular dystrophy • Severe intellectual disability (child age 7 or older) • Birth weight below 2 pounds, 10 ounces"

https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10026.pdf

This smelled like a huge scam to me.  If you noticed, at one point he mentioned that she filed something on her own that she shouldn't have.  I bet that means she truthfully answered questions and he planned to lie or embellish the child's disability.

Not sure if it is the same in every state, but in NJ, state or county will pay for speech therapy for toddlers/preschoolers and the school district will pay for school aged kids.  They will also pay for things like busing if the speech therapist does not come to the school but is at a different school somewhere else.  There would be no need to file for social security and it would get rejected here too.

[AZChristian]

2 hours ago, ElleMo said:

Apparently not, because the application got rejected.  

I did some quick checking and found out that:

"The child must have a physical or mental condition, or a combination of conditions, that result in 'marked and severe functional limitations.' This means that the condition(s) must very seriously limit your child’s activities.  . . . Following are some of the conditions that may qualify: • HIV infection • Total blindness • Total deafness • Cerebral palsy • Down syndrome • Muscular dystrophy • Severe intellectual disability (child age 7 or older) • Birth weight below 2 pounds, 10 ounces"

https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10026.pdf

This smelled like a huge scam to me.  If you noticed, at one point he mentioned that she filed something on her own that she shouldn't have.  I bet that means she truthfully answered questions and he planned to lie or embellish the child's disability.

Not sure if it is the same in every state, but in NJ, state or county will pay for speech therapy for toddlers/preschoolers and the school district will pay for school aged kids.  They will also pay for things like busing if the speech therapist does not come to the school but is at a different school somewhere else.  There would be no need to file for social security and it would get rejected here too.

Sounds like they were looking for a Crazy Check.

[seacliffsal]

I must be especially grumpy as once again I did not like how JM put unreasonable expectations on a defendant.  She told the defendant photographer in the food photo case that he should have known to refrigerate the plaintiff's baked goods; she also kept asking him if he was a child or an adult which is demeaning in and of itself. Why?  Do all photography studios have refrigerators and freezers for clients' unlimited usage?  How did it become his responsibility to take care of plaintiff's cheesecakes?  JM did find in the defendant's favor, but the way she was talking to him/grilling him about caring for baked goods just rubbed me the wrong way.  He was already giving the plaintiff a discount, and I don't believe that his studio doubled as a storage site. 

[AngelaHunter]

Today we had a contractor who was not just figuratively oily and slimy, but literally. He also seems to think it's perfectly fine that he has "eight or nine" cases (or judgements?) against him. His sleeziness actually gave Levin a run for his money.

Food photographer:

Quote

 she also kept asking him if he was a child or an adult which is demeaning in and of itself. 

I agree with that, but he did start on a bad foot with her, by being rather arrogant and snotty and interrupting. Plaintiff's demands were ridiculous and unreasonable, considering she never bothered to show up again. She should have delivered the food in a cooler and not a cardboard box. Anyway, his pictures looked fine to me and I'm glad the annoying plaintiff lost.

I couldn't quite make heads or tails of the DJ/MC thing, but was wondering if Darnell appeared in full drag with that facial hair. I was also very troubled by the mention of them being able to procure a lion to be used as a backdrop or decoration for this odd-sounding party. This is 2016 and wild animals should be procluded from such disgusting useage.

[SRTouch]

Ah, let's see, yep this is the right forum... can'the hardly believe I put TPC recap in JJ twice within a week.

1. homeowner vs roofing contractor: plaintiff says he met defendant at the local gas station when he went to get coffee, they got to talking, and defendant mentioned he was a general contractor. What luck, plaintiff needs a roof on his garage, and he just happens to run into someone who does that type of work. They talk, and at first there's a $2400 estimate for the job, but plaintiff says he negotiated it down to $1650. (Huh, how come he's suing for over $4500?) Plaintiff gives the guy $1150 cash to start the job and says defendant said work would begin that weekend. Weekend comes, guy's car won't start. Everyday it's some new reason why he can't show. Tuesday plaintiff tells him not to come because his wife is home sick, but guy sends over workers anyway and they tear off old shingles, leaving site a mess. Now MM shifts sides to see how much of the plaintiff's story the defendant agrees with. He agrees negotiated the price was $1650. He admits to leaving a mess that first day, but says it they worked til dark, and planned to be back bright and early next day. He says contrary to plaintiff's claim, they replaced decking where needed and that they covered the roof with tar paper underlayment. It rains the next day, so part of plaintiff's claim is water damage, but defendant says roof was watertight so he's saying the water damage claim is bogus. Plaintiffs not happy with the work so far... No one shows up as promised for three days, they tear off the roof, leave a mess, don't show the next day. When workers finally show up again they aren't ready to work, as contractor dude needs to go get rakes to clean up the mess. Plaintiff's wife goes off on the workers waiting for boss man to bring them rakes, so workers leave. This part of defendant's story doesn't make sense... left a mess because it got dark... rains the next day, so no work on the roof in the rain... surely he could call/text customer explaining why he's a noshow, that would give plaintiff a chance you tell you the mess is bugging him, so why not clean up the mess and that the wind blew off the tar paper underlayment, but no call, instead plaintiff is in garage putting plastic over contents to keep it dry... then we have the whole "workers left because plaintiff's wife yelled at them" story. What'd they do, walk home? Way I understood it contractor was their ride, he dropped them off, realized they needed rakes and went to get them. Ah, when MM asks he says the wife gave them a ride. He can't tell us what the wife said because he wasn'the there, but he writes in his answer that she was drunk. I question if these workers even were there, as he doesn't even know where she supposedly took them. If they exist they're probably day labor he picked up on the way to the job, and of course he didn't bring them to court. It's getting pretty deep, dude! Back to plaintiff. He tells us that, yes they stapled underlayment on roof deck, but it blew off during the rain storm - and that explains his water damage claim. And, yes, he has pictures, to which MM exclaims "Good God above!" Contractor dude and crew ripped the shingles off, partially blocking access to the house, and left it for 4 days before plaintiff fired the guy. All my sympathy for contractor is gone. They had half a day's worth of work just cleaning up the mess, which they could have done in the rain. Anyway, contractor agrees to return $900 of the $1150, but says he doesn't have it right then. Not good enough for plainyiff, guy never bought materials, so why can't he return the money? He waits a couple days, then hires some else and files suit. Now contractor dude starts a long sob story about how how honest he is, it was the weather, it was this and that. MM tries asking him questions a couple times, but he talks over her and continues his sob story. She's ready to rule, but now plaintiff interjects he did a background check on defendant after filing... Uh aren't you supposed to get your references and check out the contractor BEFORE you hire him and fork over $1150. Turns out our honest contractor dude has had 8 civil judgements against him for this type of job performance. Uh oh, dude is in for it now, he's the type of contractor that makes her dad and brothers look bad. Defendant admits judgements went against him, sometimes the judgements were wrong, sometime circumstances were against him and he couldn't help it. Of course plaintiff wins, and of course he doesn't get the amount he sued for (turns out he wanted  what he paid someone else to complete the job). Don't know why, but loser defendant claps as judgement is passed, in hallterview he says he loves everybody. And, the moral of the story is... don't hire strange contractors at the convenience store coffee pot.
2. PHOTO FAIL this time plaintiff is suing the guy she hired to take pictures of food for her business. Defendant says he's been a photographer for 30 years and plaintiff didn't explain what she wanted, he offered to work with her to fix the problem, but no money back. (I know a little about this because I was there when they took photos and made a video for ads athat the pizza place I worked at. There were all kinds of tricks they used to make stuff look good, but made the food inedible, including spray on adhesive and WD40.) No contract, but lots of text and emails. Plaintiff says she was to pay $300 and defendant could keep the food. She's says half the stuff was frozen, and she told him to keep it frozen so it would look fresh for the pix. She admits she was in no rush. Photographer defendant dude ended up taking weeks to take the pictures, didn't keep the frozen stuff frozen, food was bad by the time he got around to photographing. Pictures and food were garbage. Course picture dude denies he was told to store food properly. Dummy admits he took a couple weeks before getting around to taking the pictures. How did this dapper dude in the nice blue suit survive long enough to have gray hair and beard? He admits he left the food, including cheesecakes, at room temperature for 2 weeks, and tries to blame the customer because he says she didn't tell him to store the food properly. MM asks him what he did with the food... no answer, just a repeat of "there were no instructions" on storing the food. Back to plaintiff, unfortunately none of those texts and emails spell out how to store the food. (MM is already more than a little miffed defendant dude after his "no instruction" defense, now he keeps interrupting as she tries to talk to plaintiff.) Now MM looks at his pictures, pictures taken with her phone and samples of the actual product. This part of the case isn't so good for cake lady, as MM doesn't see much difference. Going through the messages, little chuckle when MM asks why she fires the guy Christmas Eve, why not wait a couple days? MM doesn't understand plaintiff firing dude, as everything sounds good in the emails, dude is trying to work with her etc., then she up and fires him. I gotta agree, he's asking her to come in so she can tell him what she wants, she's offering to bring in fresh food, then all of a sudden it's not working, he's fired. Sure, the whole not storing things sounds bad, but really that doesn't matter. It's barely noticeable in the pictures, and besides he offers to take pictures of fresh food if she brings it in. MM is ready to rule, but plaintiff really wants to continue the case. All the head shaking, hand waving and attempts to interrupt are pointless, case dismissed. Defendant actually wins part of his counterclaim, as he only received $150 of the $300 agreed upon price. 
3. STIFFED DJ CASE: Plaintiff, who shows up with 6 people, says he was hired for defendant's event, and defendant refuses to pay. Can't help but notice the crowd as the double doors open for their entrance. Three short guys in front and TALL guy, towering over everyone else, in the second day group of three. Poor defendant is alone in court. Says plaintiff was a lousy DJ and doesn't deserve to be paid. One of the 6 person group is here to carry the contract - no need to talk, just gets and and hands it to Douglas, guess when you're a big time DJ working for 750 bucks you have a whole staff follow you around to do your heavy work. Hmmm, perhaps reason DJ wasn't that good, at least according to plaintiff's side of the table, is that defendant didn't have enough money to hire the DJ, and agreed to hire dude from the second string, he normally works as an emcee. Turns out the party goers were all dolled up as drag queens, even supposed to have had a live big cat.  Wow, plaintiff's side expects us to believe dude doesn't know the difference between a lion and tiger. I'd throw out their case right now except somebody on defendant's side thought it would be a good idea to have a live big cat at a party. Ok, I'll forgive plaintiff for not knowing the difference... turns out the big cat was a no show. Matter of fact, pretty much everyone were noshows. Supposed to be around 200 party goers. Defendant says party was great, but only 15-20 people came. Plaintiff intersects that to get to 15 you have to include the staff. Anyway back to the case. While defendant is off preparing for the grand entrance, his friend, who was acting as the party coordinator, decided to be the DJ and switch the plaintiff to his normal job as emcee. Now he doesn't feel he should pay, because the guy he hired didn't do what he was hired to do. Problem is, plaintiff just did as told by person he took to be the coordinator. Whether or not that person had the authority to tell him that is immaterial, according to the judge. She says defendant was at the party knew plaintiff was acting as emcee and could have insisted the plaintiff DJ. Instead he said ok when the friend wanted to DJ and have plaintiff emcee. Oh, and he paid the plaintiffs - with a bad check. In the hallterview we learn that a lion actually showed, but the venue wouldn't let it in because of insurance concerns... what a sad life for such a magnificent animal, shuttled around to be on display at nonsense events, probably declawed and doped to the gills. When I see this type of thing I can't help but wonder if those idiots realize a big cat doesn't need to bite or claw to put a serious hurt on you. In fact, I'd almost be willing to thank the cat for removing the idiots from the gene pool if not for the chance that the animal might be put down.

[NYCFree]

I get what you two are saying about it being demeaning to ask an adult if he is an adult or child.  However, the defendant kept trying to argue that the plaintiff didn't specifically tell him that a cheesecake had to be refrigerated.  That is a preposterous argument.  To me, that's like saying "she didn't tell me the fish had to be kept in water the whole time, I'm not responsible for their death."

[SRTouch]

Word of warning - my satellite was wonky (tech term) this morning and recap has a hole where I had to reset it. So end of first case and beginning of second missing.

1. 'Nother roof case: Today's plaintiff didn't put down as big a deposit as yesterday, and no rain damage, so she's only suing for $935 ($700 deposit and couple hundred for missed work and hassle of filing case). At least plaintiff sort of knew the guy, not just someone she hired at the neighborhood gas station coffee pot. She says she paid him the deposit a year ago, and dude never came to do the work. Says there was the occasional phone call, always promising he'll get to as soon as he finishes another job. She was okay with that at first, no big hurry, but eventually got fed up and wanted her money back. Over to defendant, older guy in ugly shirt, who tries to take over the proceedings. Judge asks him a question, and he doesn't want to answer. Twice she asks, he wants a picture shown, finally she says no, no picture, answer her question. Lot of hmm and haw, says estimate was for $4700, agrees she gave him $700 deposit. Cockamamie story about how how he sent workers, but car in driveway (guess it's a really narrow property) prevented them unloading materials. He tries to argue that he had set the day for the work with her, she says he just showed up. Continues in that vein, he says he tried repeatedly to contact her, but she wouldn't call him back. Yesterday's roofer dude was more entertaining, no more truthful but more fun to watch (well, they stayed with him too long, but it was kind of like a drinking game where you drink each time there's an obvious fib). Today's joker says he has texts in his phone, just not any that support his trying to contact her. Hmmm now why would he bring up texts from a year ago, saying he doesn't have all of them, just the ones at the beginning when she hired him? That just makes it look like he cherry picked texts to be deleted that would make him look bad... better to go with the "new phone" excuse. Anyway, his story is he keeps calling, even goes to the house at night to set up a date, then HE gets fed up. He says he offers to give her part of the money back, but she's only willing to accept $650 back out of the $700 deposit, and he says he wasted more than $50 dollars worth of time. MM tells him it's absurd that she would refuse to move the car and dodge him after giving him a deposit to do her roof... and of course he is repeatedly interrupting and trying to talk over her...and the screen goes black I'm sure plaintiff won, but am left wondering how much - I would give her the $700 drposit, but no missed work or hassle money.
2. (fifteen minutes later, we rejoin second case, already in progress) missed the intro, bad breakup apparently led to bf suing ex-gf over her keeping the engagement ring and her countersuing for custody of the pet chinchilla. Anyway, I missed pretty much the whole thing, coming in just as bf played a voice recording where he asks for the ring and she wants the chinchilla. Only thing I hear from gf is when she tries to interrupt as MM is ruling. From the ruling I gather she left the ring on the counter and he says he never got it. MM tells us it's her obligation to hand it to him, preferably with witnesses, as she has to be able to prove she gave it back. Plaintiff is big winner, he gets to keep the chinchilla... oh and she has to give him 2 grand for the missing ring.
3. ah, saw this whole Bedbug fumigation case: plaintiff says he stored some stuff with defendant while plaintiff's place was being fumigated, and stuff was damaged and some went missing. Defendant, who doesn't want his name or company name used, has a moving/storage company - doesn't want us to know what he looks like either, as he sent an an employee to court in his place. Anyway, plaintiff doesn't know where the insidious little monsters came from, but he ended up completely emptying his condo and putting everything in storage while the condo was fumigated. We get a laugh from the plaintiff's side, as he tells the judge his friend helped pack his stuff. She says he must be a good friend as she wouldn't chance getting bedbugs helping pack a friend's crap, and friend says he stripped naked to pack the stuff. Ah well, this representative for the defense is the wrong guy to have sent. Turns out he was the driver, and can't really testify to what was packed by plaintiff or the moving company. Says boxes were sealed when they were loaded on truck, still sealed when they were returned after fumigation. Tries to say company didn'the pack any boxes, but he stayed with truck during the whole loading/unloading. To make things worse, nobody has the contract. Assistant defendant dude has an unsigned typed piece of paper, and plaintiff is checking his pockets and comes out with he must has left it at his office. Defendant dude ends up admitting they must have lost the original... maybe there was a reason defendant didn't come. So, now defendant guy has no contract, no first hand knowledge of what was packed and stored. Plaintiff has pictures and video of damaged stuff. Plaintiff wins, but only $500 out of the asked for $1656, pretty generous in my opinion as he has little evidence, nothing about what stuff was worth or that missing contract showing the movers packed anything. But, then what he was awarded was rough justice for the damaged stuff, nothing for missing stuff that may or may not have ever existed.

Edited October 7, 2016 by SRTouch
**** keyboard and **** autocorrect

[Broderbits]

I can't watch any bedbug-related cases anymore; they just make me paranoid and itchy. Never seen any IRL and don't want them on my tv!

[AngelaHunter]

I love mouthy, loud, arrogant contractor cases.

Quote

better to go with the "new phone" excuse

Or one we heard awhile ago: "My grandson dropped my phone in the toilet." In one whole year, he couldn't manage to contact her to tell her to move the car from the driveway? Sure. I had my roof done awhile ago. Contractor gave me a date, told me he'd call a couple days in advance. He did call, he came, roof was done that day. Easy!

Quote

 bad breakup apparently led to bf suing ex-gf over her keeping the engagement ring and her countersuing for custody of the pet chinchilla.

This went differently than I expected. Even though I find it ridiculous when grown men bring their mommies to court with them, plaintiff dodged a bullet by not marrying def, who turned out to be quite the bitch, and a liar on top of it all. She admitted in the hall that the ring was "at home." Good luck to her new boyfriend. He's going to need it.

Then we had the "Duh! Bedbug case." Plaintiff has the contract to prove defs were supposed to do a certain job, but - wouldn't you just know it? - he didn't bring that very evidence.  Def. saw nothing and knows nothing that was done, but the company didn't want any of the people who actually were in the condo and dealing with the items to appear today.  He did what we know MM just loves: Take her for a fool and hand her a ridiculous, unsigned typed piece of paper (Probably so new the ink was still wet) and calls it a contract. 

Plaintiff wants full value for his espresso machine even though it's eleven years old ("I hardly used it. I NEVER used it." ) I wanted to see pictures of his lanky friend, packing stuff in the nude. Oh, wait - no I didn't.

[AZChristian]

SRTouch, you called it on the first case. Plaintiff got $700; nothing for lost wages, etc.

Edited October 7, 2016 by AZChristian
Autocorrect sucks.

[Jamoche]

Oh, contractor time. It would take a Time Lord to figure it out. My bathroom flooded thanks to upstair's neighbor's leak, and my contractor would take up to a week to get back to me after every phone call. Then when they finally got it done and I griped about the delay during the walkthrough, he blamed it on the insurance companies taking so long to work out who'd have to pay. Like I cared! I could afford to cover it myself and wait to be reimbursed, and I'd told him so.

@SRTouch - what you missed: Contractor says he showed up at her house unexpectedly and talked to her son on a day she was working late, and decided that he wasn't going to "chase her around". Uh-huh. In the age of text messages. I so believe that. 

JM - all reasonable, to plaintiff: Nobody wants to do roofing with a car right underneath it.

To defendant, smackdown time: Roofers don't just see the car and keep going! For a whole year! They do what it takes to get in touch with the car owner to get the car moved! 

Defendant's wife: "He saw the car and drove on. And then went back a month later and it was still there." And then in the halterview "It's her fault for having the car in the driveway." Without knowing what day they would be there? There are all sorts of reasons why someone might keep their car in the driveway, from "is likely to get clipped by idiot drivers" to "will be ticketed" to "duh, it's my driveway."

Judgement for plaintiff.

[lilabennet]

I loved the plaintiff's mom in the engagement ring case.  Paraphrasing:  "I'm just glad to be rid of her."

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

I loved the plaintiff's mom in the engagement ring case.  Paraphrasing:  "I'm just glad to be rid of her."

Yeah. Seems she has her baby boy back living with her. And he's 26 years old!

[SRTouch]

1. Housemate blowup: homeowner lets guy move into his home for what was supposed to be a short stay. Turns into an odd couple type situation, with homeowner playing neat and tidy Felix, while defendant is sloppy Oscar. What starts out as an argument over a dirty bathtub leads to fistfight. Cops come and arrest homeowner, since he admits he threw first punch and defendant has a busted lip. We switch to defendant and his gf, his witness, to hear their side. Course it's like a totally different incident. First, he says he's actually neat, and had already cleaned the bathtub. Gf seems to contradict that when, if I heard right, she says the tub drain was clogged and they went and bought some drain cleaner. My understanding was he hadn't finished cleaning the bathroom, yet. Defendant thought she needed to rehearse their story a little more, as he interjects to clarify her testimony as she talks. Anyway, while the cops are there getting everyone's statements and arresting homeowner, the cops tell defendant he can apply for a restraining order to keep homeowner out of the house if he's afraid the guy will continue the fight after he gets out of jail. Defendant applies for and is granted a restraining order, so homeowner ends up living in his truck for a couple weeks. Back to homeowner for an explanation of how he came up with almost 4 grand in damages. He claims defendant punched a hole in the drywall, and it will cost over a grand to fix (who knew I was under charging so much back when I did apartment maintenance?) Then he says that while he was banned from the house the defendant ran AC night and day, and condensation damaged wallpaper and movie posters. As MM goes through the damage pictures the defendant and his witness just keep losing credibility with me. Defendant totally loses me when we get to his countersuit. He wants 3 grand for his busted lip being permanently disfigured. Not sure how he expects to get a dime, as he has no evidence. When asked if he took pictures of the busted lip, yeah, but he doesn't have them. Says he went to a plastic surgeon, but no he doesn't have anything from a doctor. MM brings him closer so he can point to this permanent disfigurement. He lifts up his lip and shows a little bump inside his mouth. Not sure what she sees, but MM says she sees a "little bump". Sorry, but without a note from a doctor, or even a "before" picture taken prior to the punch, how do we know that "little bump" isn't from some childhood injury. I keep waiting for MM to ask about EMTs at the scene, a visit to the ER, or how many stiches etc? And, finally she does, he says he got 7 stitches (still no medical records or bills, just a police report and his word.) In the end, MM calls it a wash, nobody gets anything. 
2. Ah, peeling car paint. Plaintiff bought a 16yo toyota, 2 1/2 years later the paint on the roof has peeled, and she wants the seller to repaint it. She claims that she was promised the paint would last the lifetime of the car, but of course has nothing in writing, actually the contract she gives the judge is As Is - No Warranty. Well, of course there's nothing in writing, you can't get a lifetime paint warranty on a new car, much less a 13-14 year old toyota. Isn't going to stop this lady from trying... according to defendant she has already complained to the Better Business people, the DMV, and the Attorney General. Case dismissed.
3. I cut this one off as soon as I heard it was a cat attacked by a pit bull. Nope, not interested, in fact I going to take Silly Cat and Frank for some time in the big Out.

[BubblingKettle]

The landlord-tenant fistfight case felt like such a huge waste of time after it was over. Neither side had sufficient evidence (the plaintiff tried to prove one month's excessive AC use by showing several months' electric bills that hovered around the same amount, and the defendant didn't bother to bring anything), and the damages for both sides sounded slight but inflated. The plaintiff shouldn't have been so butthurt about the movie posters...the posters and the plastic frames looked like Dollar Store or Walmart items --  crap that's not worth suing over. Tile cleaning or re-grouting is a simple DIY and not worth thousands. And I'm betting the wallpaper was past its expiration date, too. If the plaintiff wants a very clean home, then he might as well stop taking tenants. I could be wrong, but I wouldn't be surprised if the defendant was a bit messy...his fiancee was slovenly, and well, sloppiness (or not minding sloppiness) can be a pattern with some people. And someone needed to get some caffeine for the young Asian man over the defendant's left shoulder. 

Donna from the second case sure kicked up a lot of dust for a contract that said "as is" all over it. 

I turned the show off for the third case about the cat who lost his life in a pitbull attack. 

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

And I'm betting the wallpaper was past its expiration date, too. If the plaintiff wants a very clean home, then he might as well stop taking tenants. I could be wrong, but I wouldn't be surprised if the defendant was a bit messy...his fiancee was slovenly

Past its expiration and butt-ugly, now that the 80s are gone. If def. really did cause it to peel, I'd be thanking him for saving me the trouble.  Both of them sounded like ridiculous idiots and really  - how many times do we hear about these foolish roommate stories going well? If I couldn't afford to live in my home without renting my bedrooms out to an assortment of characters (often total strangers) I'd sell it and buy a property I can afford. Girlfriend of the oily-haired def - please say she's not knocked up. Sounds like the last thing those two need is another mouth to feed. Didn't really matter about plaintiff's property or def's fat lip. Rightfully, neither of these morons, in yet another "Proof? We don't need no stinkin' proof!" case got a dime.

Donna, do you have any inkling of how silly you sounded, claiming a lifetime guarantee on a car you bought when it was 14 years old? I'm kind of not surprised the dealer wouldn't put it in writing. The Attorney General is the person to call when  paint peels on your ancient car? Holy moly.

People are weird. True story: My friend was driving a 13 year old Toyota when someone hit her driver's door. Door worked fine but she "can't drive around in a car with a dent," so went through her insurance to get a brand-new factory door (because her local mechanic was going find her a door at the scrap yard, naturally) Her insurance went through the roof, (since of course we're not allowed to collect any of the money we've paid for 25 years without being heavily penalized) but she got her door. She got rid of the car shortly afterwards. So yeah, people do dumb things all the time.

[Broderbits]

Neither of the pet owners in the last case deserved to have animals, but the cat owner especially irked me. Declawed cat was "part of the family" but she allowed it to roam outside and the inevitable happened. If it hadn't been the dog, it would have been a car or something else. Plus it turns out letting pets roam is actually against the law in their city. No sympathy for stupid cat lady.

[SRTouch]

36 minutes ago, Broderbits said:

Neither of the pet owners in the last case deserved to have animals, but the cat owner especially irked me. Declawed cat was "part of the family" but she allowed it to roam outside and the inevitable happened. If it hadn't been the dog, it would have been a car or something else. Plus it turns out letting pets roam is actually against the law in their city. No sympathy for stupid cat lady.

Glad I skipped the case. I hate irresponsible pet owners. I know some people disagree, but I view declawing as an cruel optional procedure done for the owner's convenience, often resulting in physical and behavioral problems. Then we have truly dimwitted idiots who declaw their cat, then let it out to roam the neighborhood. 

SOAPBOX TIME: most Americans consider declawing to be perfectly alright, little more than a manicure. In actuality, traditional declawing involves amputating the end of the toe at the last joint. This procedure can cause physical problems, including lameness, arthritis, and permanent pain. Behavioral problems often arise after declawing, including increased biting and avoiding the litter box... hey, it can hurt to dirt around in a litter box when the ends of your toes are cut off. Anyone thinking of getting a cat declawed should research the procedure, and the potential after effects, then think long and hard before going through with it... there are reasons why it is illegal in most of Europe, Australian, New Zealand and Israel.

[califred]

Once again I was taking to my mom but I called her and she called me. She lives in my house in coastal NC and got power back today! Thankfully our only damage was to our fence.  

 

I saw part part of the pet case, was the dog also loose?  Who won?  And I saw most of the roommate case they all looked crazy.

[momtoall]

I think most litigants feel that the words "pit bull", puts them in the right.  Both of these people were irresponsible pet owners.

[ElleMo]

16 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Glad I skipped the case. I hate irresponsible pet owners. I know some people disagree, but I view declawing as an cruel optional procedure done for the owner's convenience, often resulting in physical and behavioral problems. Then we have truly dimwitted idiots who declaw their cat, then let it out to roam the neighborhood. 

SOAPBOX TIME: most Americans consider declawing to be perfectly alright, little more than a manicure. In actuality, traditional declawing involves amputating the end of the toe at the last joint. This procedure can cause physical problems, including lameness, arthritis, and permanent pain. Behavioral problems often arise after declawing, including increased biting and avoiding the litter box... hey, it can hurt to dirt around in a litter box when the ends of your toes are cut off. Anyone thinking of getting a cat declawed should research the procedure, and the potential after effects, then think long and hard before going through with it... there are reasons why it is illegal in most of Europe, Australian, New Zealand and Israel.

I wish I had skipped it but was in the middle of doing my PT exercises and  left the remote on the other side of the room.  Rather than stop to change the channel (which for me would mean at least 10 minutes of channel surfing) I finished my exercises while listening to this cat "lover"  explain why she declawed the cat (Reason: it was an indoor AND outdoor pet.)  She seemed a little shell shocked at the end.  She was not expecting to have any blame laid on her and I think she was still processing what just happened. 

i am so infuriated with this cat "lover" who can pay to have her pet  mutilated but wouldn't pay for its medical expenses and instead euthanized the cat, who she claims is part of the family.

MY SOAPBOX TIME:  Even if it isn't against the law in your town, it is not ok to let your cat run free.  It is not good for the cat, who can get run over by a car or attacked by a wild animal or a dog (especially when they have no claws!!!) and it is not good for the bird population and possibly other small animals, depending on where you live and what is in the area.  (And yes, even well fed cats will stalk and kill prey. Ever notice that dogs come in all shapes and sizes but cats pretty much look the same except for slight differences?  That's because cats have not been domesticated as long as dogs and have more natural wild instincts that dogs.)  I am not a fan of trap, neuter, release, either but that is another post.

Edited October 11, 2016 by ElleMo

[AlleC17]

18 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Glad I skipped the case. I hate irresponsible pet owners. I know some people disagree, but I view declawing as an cruel optional procedure done for the owner's convenience, often resulting in physical and behavioral problems. Then we have truly dimwitted idiots who declaw their cat, then let it out to roam the neighborhood. 

SOAPBOX TIME: most Americans consider declawing to be perfectly alright, little more than a manicure. In actuality, traditional declawing involves amputating the end of the toe at the last joint. This procedure can cause physical problems, including lameness, arthritis, and permanent pain. Behavioral problems often arise after declawing, including increased biting and avoiding the litter box... hey, it can hurt to dirt around in a litter box when the ends of your toes are cut off. Anyone thinking of getting a cat declawed should research the procedure, and the potential after effects, then think long and hard before going through with it... there are reasons why it is illegal in most of Europe, Australian, New Zealand and Israel.

I was coming here to climb onto that same soapbox.  I am very, very disappointed that JM...a self proclaimed cat lover...didn't touch upon this issue.  She only said it was bad because the declawed cat was allowed outside.  An indoors only cat doesn't deserve to undergo an amputation either.  Declawing really needs to be made illegal in this country.

The cat owner in this case did seem to accept her share of responsibility in this case, but not the dog owner.  In the hallterview he didn't think he had to pay a dime.  Asshole. 

[SRTouch]

1. bump and run car case: plaintiff is very expressive and animated storyteller. He says defendant bumped the car plaintiff had purchased less than a week before. Can't be much of a bump, damage less than $500. Says they were in stop and go city traffic, defendant was behind him and bumped him when plaintiff stopped for traffic. Defendant gets out and talks to plaintiff, then goes back to his car. Plaintiff thought he was going to get license and insurance info, but defendant gets in and drives away. Slow speed chase ensues, until they reach expressway, at which time plaintiff uses his phone to get a picture of the defendant's license plate. Switch to defendant, and he doesn't deny hitting the plaintiff's car from behind, but he tries to explain it away. He's another in a long line who was on the way to get his insurance when he got in an accident. So, of course, he ran instead of fussing up to no insurance. Nothing he says helps his case, and his own witness really torpedoes him. His pregnant gf testifies that she and her daughter were in the car, and she says she was telling him to stop as he's driving away. (Camera cuts over to to show plaintiff laughing as defendant is getting chastised by the judge.)  Plaintiff says he might have just written it off if defendant had confessed he didn't have insurance, but once he ran plaintiff wants every penny he's due. Not me! One look at the picture and I wonder why the repair was so cheap. Although he was only charged $475 to get it fixed, that's because it was brand new and the dealer gave him a deal on the repair. He says actual damage was more like $1200, totally believable from the pictures. No surprise, defendant loses and gets a stern lecture on accepting responsibilities and setting a good example for the child in the car.
2. realty deal fiasco Plaintiff tried some property deal to raise money to pay back taxes. Deal fell through. Now he wants back the $2500 deposit he paid the realty company, plus what he had to pay in tax penalties. Wow, turns out plaintiff owed big bucks in back taxes for multiple years on half a dozen properties. (Well, big bucks to me, over a couple hundred thousand, but this guy doesn't seem to think was all that much.) Whole deal fell through when defendant's lawyer insisted the property plaintiff was using for loan collateral be free of any tax lien. Makes sense to me, why invest in property that the government is after for back taxes - but what do I know about the numbers this guy is throwing around. More wheeler dealer back and forth about finances that are beyond me, let's just say deal fell through and plaintiff expects defendant to pay. Defendant really doesn't say much, let's the contract speak for him (but a real arrogant a$$ during hallterview). Kind of funny to watch MM reading the evidence while litigants argue across the aisle. Then as she's ruling plaintiff still shaking his head wanting to argue. 
3. landlord going after tenant for breaking lease plaintiff suing for $3k because ex-roommate moved out leaving him and other roommate hanging. Yet another case where strangers getting an apartment together blows up in their faces. Oh, and another case was defendant wants us to believe her flapping gums because she lost her evidence when she got a new phone. Right in the middle of giving defendant a hard time for stiffing her roommates for the rent, MM catches the girl yawning and asks how much weed she smoked before coming into court. I missed that until she pointed it out, my first hint is usually the smell, but after that question I see the signs. Defendant's story is she took allergy mess before coming. MM is not impressed. Plaintiff has pictures of the mess defendant left behind, and damages which defendant claims were not there when she lived there. Plaintiff gets about half of what he wanted. Actually, he got more than I thought. He got awarded for 2 full and a partial months rent, plus late fees, but it was a month to month lease... like I said, MM did not appear to be impressed with the girl. Defendant really seemed stoned in hallterview, BTW.

[Guest]

6 hours ago, SRTouch said:

1. Defendant really seemed stoned in hallterview, BTW.

She's a psych major but you could actually hear the wind blowing between her ears when JM called her a narcissist.

She did have more than her fair share of weaved hair.  She was swimming in it.  And yes, good ol' "allergy medicine".   Uh huh. 

Edited October 12, 2016 by PsychoKlown
Because she isn't a greek god

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

bump and run car case: plaintiff is very expressive and animated storyteller.

I can't believe JM put up with his clownish and rehearsed histrionics. I had to mute the sound lest the screeching bust my windows. And wouldn't you know - hit-and-run def's insurance "collapsed" and that very day he was on his way to pay it - darn! -  in cash I assume. His goony girlfriend has one kid and another on the way, by god knows who.

I quite enjoyed the real estate case. Plaintiff seems to be a bit of shyster, who buys a ton of properties when he can't even afford the taxes on them. I don't pretend to understand all the legalities here, but I think def. deserved to win this case.

Quote

She did have more than her fair share of weaved hair.

When she said she had a headache, I thought, "Of course you do. That massive wig must weigh a ton." Hey, she couldn't pay her rent. She has better things to spend her money on. Landlord should just suck it up, because she's so special and stuff. So very special (even though she lives like a pig in someone else's home) that she was bored stiff by these proceedings.

[califred]

It's sad that a psych major doesn't know what a narcissist is.  She looked like she was stumbling as she walked in to me.

 

I love the "I didn't purposely hit him with my car."  No kidding that's why it's an accident.

 

Loan case was weird.  I was actually hoping the govt had seized sons of his property for non payment.

[NYCFree]

I thought MM completely pegged defendant renter as a narcissist.  The girl had no idea at all why the world shouldn't revolve around her.  At one point she thought she was proving her case that she tried to remove her possessions from the apartment with email telling the landlord to disassemble and move the bed to the basement, and the landlord had the nerve to tell her to do it.  It showed something was really wrong with her that she thought his not solving her problems meant she was in the clear.  Also, she left a ton if clothes behind that she had collected for charity.  MM didn't even follow up on that one.  Defendant asks people to donate clothes, and then instead of bringing these donations to the appropriate charity, she abandons them in the apartment.

The plaintiff in the tax deficit case had me puzzled.  Of course a lender wouldn't lend on a property that was in tax default.  The lender is behind the government in terms of repayment.  Even with our mortgage, my bank keeps money in escrow to pay our taxes (and insurance) just so that we don't even have the possibility of falling behind.  The thing that puzzled me though, was the amount of properties he had.  I don't understand his logic of not selling one property in order to pay the taxes on all the rest. He said he wanted to sell the properties anyway, for his retirement.

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

Defendant asks people to donate clothes, and then instead of bringing these donations to the appropriate charity, she abandons them in the apartment

Is that what she did? I have no doubt she took all the best stuff for herself (and people often donate really nice clothes) and just left the rest behind. Somehow I can't see her toiling to do charitable work.

[SRTouch]

4 minutes ago, NYCFree said:

The plaintiff in the tax deficit case had me puzzled.  Of course a lender wouldn't lend on a property that was in tax default.  The lender is behind the government in terms of repayment.  Even with our mortgage, my bank keeps money in escrow to pay our taxes (and insurance) just so that we don't even have the possibility of falling behind.  The thing that puzzled me though, was the amount of properties he had.  I don't understand his logic of not selling one property in order to pay the taxes on all the rest. He said he wanted to sell the properties anyway, for his retirement.

Just a thought I had, but maybe big wheeler dealer "been in the business since '61" has his properties over valued so he appears to have more on paper than he really does. He's been burning the candle on both ends and has lost tract of what he owes on what. Sounds like his name and reputation were enough to get $75,000 from defendant. It wasn't until it turned out that wasn't enough to pay off the taxes that the defendant actually got off his butt and checked the properties. We heard that what he thought was a 250 grand house turned out to be little more than a shack (according to him, he probably undervalued it as much as plaintiff overvalued it). Makes me wonder about that shopping center plaintiff threw into the pot to get the loan up to 99 grand. Didn't he say a couple of the businesses had or were leaving as their leases expired? That million dollar shopping center is probably a three or four business strip mall, and won't be worth much with half the store fronts empty.

[momtoall]

The station the carries PC in Charlotte, NC televised the debate between the candidates running for governor so I missed this episode.  Sounds like I missed some interesting cases. I would have rather seen PC.  It's not the I'm not interested in the state election but since I just move here I don't have enough info on either on the candidates to make an informed decision. 

[SRTouch]

According to my channel guide, I'm supposed to have some new episode dealing with battling exes. Nope, what I have is the rerun with the guy suing his cousin over a cell phone. Ah well. 

OFF TOPIC Anyway, reminds me of when I was stationed in Alaska. This was back in the dark ages in the mid 70s. Only one channel in Fairbanks, and programming ended at midnight. Course this was back in the days before satellites and the evenings shows were shipped up from the lower 48 on the commercial flight. Getting to the point of the story, whenever the tapes of the evening's programming missed the flight we were treated to back to back episodes of original Star Trek. Ah, the good old days, not only pre-satellite, but VHS tapes weren't even out yet. Heck, computers weren't around, people actually read books!

Edited October 12, 2016 by SRTouch
Wording changed

[AngelaHunter]

Another couple playing house. Def can't put anything in his name (probably owes all kinds of child support, taxes or whatever) so everything is in plaintiff's name. These people have a kid together and he does all kinds of work on her house and of course it's HER house since he has to remain invisible. Def expects equitable distribution for everything he put into the house, but hey - you're not married, you're out of luck. He's countersuing because there are scratches on the bike of a 13-year old kid. Don't think so. Plaintiff took special care to get a Billy Idol hairdo for her big TEEVEE appearance. What was with her orange palms?

I really don't know why the sewing machine case even made it here. Yes, I'm sure the 88-year old owner knew all about the problem with the internal workings of the machine and deliberately defrauded the plaintiff. "As is" does mean something. Pay your own repairs, plaintiff.

The waterproofing case was a little more interesting. JM explained to plaintiff over and over why he didn't have a case against def., when his own signed contract outlined the obligations of the company. The wording may be a little ambiguous, but the contract was pretty clear. In the hall, he was still indignant that he had to abide by what he himself read, agreed with and signed.  

[Jamoche]

1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

The waterproofing case was a little more interesting. JM explained to plaintiff over and over why he didn't have a case against def., when his own signed contract outlined the obligations of the company. The wording may be a little ambiguous, but the contract was pretty clear. In the hall, he was still indignant that he had to abide by what he himself read, agreed with and signed.  

The def's advertising copy went a bit overboard, but the contract seemed pretty clear - they had their warranty, and they installed a pump that came with its own warranty. I don't think plaintiff understood that "Wayne" was the maker of the pump, not some other person; he kept saying that "Wayne" wasn't there and it wasn't fair that they tried to include "Wayne" in the contract. Well, duh. I don't expect Mr Sears to show up when I get a Kenmore dryer installed, either. 

[AngelaHunter]

Quote

Well, duh. I don't expect Mr Sears to show up when I get a Kenmore dryer installed, either. 

Exactly. I got a new dishwasher from Bosch, but if something goes wrong with it, I don't expect "Mr. Bosch" to show up in person to fix it. So many thick litigants.

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

Exactly. I got a new dishwasher from Bosch, but if something goes wrong with it, I don't expect "Mr. Bosch" to show up in person to fix it. So many thick litigants.

This reminds me of a story years ago when I was in college.  A friend had this old hoopty and I'm not sure of the make of the car but the model was called Star Chief.  It said so right on the glove box.

Anyway, my friends grandmom - who was only in the country a few years and spoke broken English (but perfect Italian) was riding with Carol and they had a minor fender bender.  Carol told me that when the adjuster showed up her grandmother wanted it clear that only Star Chief parts would do and did he have the phone number for the Star Chief factory. 

Similar, but Carol's nana was elderly and English definitely was a second language.

She and I still laugh about the Star Chief.  Once the muffler fell off it and she made me get out on Pennsylvania Avenue to pick it up.  Note:  mufflers are very hot and should not be touched with bare hands.

Edited October 12, 2016 by PsychoKlown

[Brattinella]

I would give my left boobie for THIS Star Chief!

 

 

[DoctorK]

Quote

Note:  mufflers are very hot and should not be touched with bare hands.

I also learned this the hard way. This was way back in the olddays when 14 - 20 year old kids did all kinds of car repairs.

Edited October 13, 2016 by DoctorK

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Brattinella said:

I would give my left boobie for THIS Star Chief!

 

 

Hells bells, it didn't look like that. 

It was bluish green and no shine to be found anywhere.   It was pretty dependable though and without the Star Chief not sure we could have gone anywhere.  My car was always in the shop.

And Brattinella, in your research did you happen to find the home of the Star Chief factory?