The People's Court - General Discussion

[SRTouch]

14 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

That's still Kurt, the former Hall-Clown, reading what I'm sure are scripts given him by Levin. They must be, because no one else on this show is old enough to use the terms, "Geeze Louise" or "the louse," or the tasteless, Vaudevillian-era  "________ 'er? He hardly KNEW 'ER!" Gotta be Levin.

I haven't heard any of that for ages. I mute and F/F.

Not only are the intros lame, but often filled with inaccuracies. There will be some claim the litigant supposedly made in the intro, then no mention of whatever it was during the case.

[AngelaHunter]

26 minutes ago, Brattinella said:

Harvey Levin needs to get boiled in oil.

Yeah, shove his mic down his throat, smash a pie in his face and then boil him in oil! I'd pay to watch. He must think he's a treat, the way he shoves his fugly face into the camera every chance he gets. Sorry, Levin - appetizing you are not.

[Jamoche]

20 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Not only are the intros lame, but often filled with inaccuracies. There will be some claim the litigant supposedly made in the intro, then no mention of whatever it was during the case.

And the smarmy tone of voice that's practically screaming "do you believe the shit this liar is trying to pull?" I want to shout "objection, lawyer voiceover guy is trying to bias the jury audience!"

[DoctorK]

Quote

often filled with inaccuracies

Not just inaccuracies but based on the litigant's facial responses when these are read, they never said any of the things that we are told were their presentation of their case.

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, DoctorK said:

Not just inaccuracies but based on the litigant's facial responses when these are read, they never said any of the things that we are told were their presentation of their case.

Yeah, I remember everyone's faces when that fool came out with, "... says the plaintiff is a lying sack of garbage."  I have no doubt that was not in the answer.

[SRTouch]

1. Silly car repair kerfuffle: Very simple case where plaintiff claims defendant's shop didn't do a good job replacing a gasket. In order to fill the time allotted to case, we get treated to all kinds of irrelevant crap, but litigants are sort of entertaining in a rude, loud, irritating sort of way. Plaintiff says hubby bought her a used Mercedes convertible as a surprise 50th birthday present. Defendant questions how could it have been a surprise when plaintiff came and saw the car before hubby... as if the guy has never heard of someone being surprised when something they saw while window shopping is presented as a gift. Plaintiff claims she smelled burning oil during test drive. Well, the car came with a third party, 18 month warranty, and she didn't bother to get the smell checked out until the warranty ran out, so just what does smelling oil during the test drive mean. When she finally bothers to get it checked, it turns out oil is leaking from a bad valve cover gasket, getting on the engine, and viola, smell of burning oil. When she gets the defendant (defendant not only sold the car, that's where she took the car to be checked out) to replace the gasket he may or may not have advised replacing both valve cover gaskets. Now she's in court wanting the money paid the defendant back, saying he should have replaced both sides, he says that was his recommendation and she wanted job done cheap, so he  did what she was willing to pay for. MM says yes maybe he should have replaced both gaskets, at the very least he should have written his recommendation, but the key point is she waited six months after his repair before complaining. Like I said, both sides are annoying, both want to tell their story and regardless of what they're asked they're going to tell it. At one point MM tells defendant to hold on because she waits to clarify a point, and he just keeps on talking. She actually turns to Douglas and asks Douglas what part of "Hold on" the defendant doesn't understand - "hold" or "on", and all the while defendant just keeps yapping. Ok, defendant does charge a lot more. He charged $30 for the gasket while the second place charged $18, and second place replaced both for about what he charged to do one... again nothing to do with case. Never did really explain his business, he sold cars and fixed them... I sort of wondered if he might not be a Mercedes dealer, and if so that would explain the high prices. She drove the car with the leaking gasket for two years, if his prices were to high she could have motored down and gotten two or three estimates before doing the work.
2. Tenant doesn't like the neighbors and wants money back: MM sums the case perfectly as she's dismissing the case. Plaintiff signs a lease because the apartment is centrally located, then breaks the lease because it's... well "too" centrally located. Turns out the combination commercial and residential building, with a train station across the street and bar downstairs under the bedroom window, is too noisy for tenant to sleep. Sooo, to break the lease she starts inventing reasons to get out of the lease in a way which will get her deposit back - problem is her evidence is lacking. She claims gaping holes in the brickwork is allowing rodents and freezing air into the apartment. She has pictures, but to me it looks like a brick wall in pretty good shape - not only no gaping holes but mortar in good shape. Her evidence of a rodent problem? Self serving daughter as a witness, no pix, not even a complaint about mice until after she is breaking lease. Her evidence of the freezing airflow - those same pictures and a gas bill that is supposed to show the cost to heat the apartment tripled the bill, but actually show one bill for $30 and another for $54, not exactly triple. Anyway, as MM tells plaintiff, breaking a lease may be the right decision for a tenant, but that doesn't mean the legally binding contract/lease is thrown out. Landlord got to keep the security to make up for the lost rent for the month until he had new tenant.
3. Homeowner wants the pool she paid for: Plaintiff bought a house with a neglected pool, defendant recommended as someone who could replace the bad liner, deposit made, old liner taken out, water pumped out of hole, new liner ordered, and.... nothing. Months go by with big hole in yard and no pool. After starting in May, homeowner gives up and decides to wait til next spring... unfortunately, with the liner torn out, the walls and bottom of the pool are damaged, and by the time new contractor comes in it's turned into a bigger job costing twice as much. I really question the defendant's ability to do job. It was never said just what he did for the guy who recommended him, but I wonder if he may have been a pool maintenance guy trying to branch out into installer. I just don't know why he would tear out the old liner and pump out the ground water before having a firm delivery date on the replacement liner - sounds like he pumped water at least twice without the new liner on hand. He has lots of excuses of why it took so long, but no evidence. Course homeowner was not without fault. She let guy slide way to easily after giving him a deposit with no firm completion date - I noticed no one seemed to have a contract. Turns out she lacks some crucial evidence as well when it comes to damages to the base caused when he left it exposed with no liner. Oops, there goes half her damages. Then we get to the counterclaim for $500+ for the work he did... not sure what he did except take out the liner, take measurements multiple times, and pump out water (again multiple time) - and did he want $500 in addition to the $1200 he was already paid? Anyway, plaintiff gets back the deposit but nothing else, says she's giving up and probably going to fill in the hole, and defendant looks silly.

[Broderbits]

Ha, case #2 sounds like those house hunters looking to move near bars and restaurants for the convenience. Nothing convenient about being woken up by drunks at 3am, not to mention people who can't wait to get home to relieve themselves. 

SRTouch, I'd like to thank you for summarizing these cases. I come here first to see if the show is worth watching, so you perform a valuable service!

[SRTouch]

25 minutes ago, Broderbits said:

Ha, case #2 sounds like those house hunters looking to move near bars and restaurants for the convenience. Nothing convenient about being woken up by drunks at 3am, not to mention people who can't wait to get home to relieve themselves. 

Or the reverse, people move to the country, than complain about the neighbors' livestock or the rural roads not being maintained. At one time I worked for a guy with a contract for mowing bar ditches along dirt roads out in the county. I actually had someone flag me down as I was driving the tractor along to complain about the dust... huh, lady you moved into a house miles down a gravel road and you're mad at me because the wind blew dust towards your house when I mowed!?! SW Oklahoma, dry summer, dirt road, windy... yeah a tractor pulling a brush hog makes a moving dust cloud and I don't get paid to wait until the wind isn't blowing towards your house.

Edited November 7, 2016 by SRTouch
Posted before finished

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

Or the reverse, people move to the country, than complain about the neighbors' livestock or the rural roads not being maintained.

I didn't get today's eps because my DVR decided to have convulsions, but this? Yeah. Like people who move in next to train tracks and then complain about the trains, or, as around here, move directly under the path of planes from an international airport then make petitions to stop the noise of planes taking off and landing. Duh.

[Brattinella]

Bar ditches. Not many people familiar with that term.  Love that, neighbor!

[BubblingKettle]

6 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said:

I didn't get today's eps because my DVR decided to have convulsions, but this? Yeah. Like people who move in next to train tracks and then complain about the trains, or, as around here, move directly under the path of planes from an international airport then make petitions to stop the noise of planes taking off and landing. Duh.

The woman really lacked common sense. Her chief complaint was the noise from the bar and its outdoor deck. Duh is right. She's the one who chose to live above the bar (and the bar's outdoor deck was one window over and one floor down). That living situation is meant for someone who wants to bend the elbow every night...or at least someone with a 'can't beat 'em, join 'em' mentality. 

[califred]

My husband is a Marine Corps pilot, the amount of people who buy new houses near airfields (that have been there for decades) and call to complain about helicopter/jet noise is unreal.  

 

I would love love to live in a city, a few blocks off the main drag. Cities are noisy lady.

 

 

It was like today was forget/ don't have your evidence day.

[DoctorK]

Quote

It was like today was forget/ don't have your evidence day.

Too true, and really sad and pathetic.

[OhioSongbird]

When I was a kid in semi-rural Dayton we lived about a mile from a train switching yard.   24/7 we could hear bang-bang-bang when they recoupled the cars.  My family from KY would come up to visit and wonder how we could sleep with all the racket.  It's like living in NYC or next to a busy freeway.  You tune it out.  Hubby and I lived in a middle sized city for years after we married between 2 very busy streets.  Got used to it.  Lived in an old Victorian house that had good walls so the noise was buffered somewhat.  But we always wanted to move back to the country.  I'm from KY way up in them thar hills (Dad followed the jobs up here) and hubby is from rural OH.  So about 16 yrs ago we built a house on 4 acres about 4 miles from the small college town nearby.  Never going back to the city ever!  I wake up to birds and the occasional farm equipment depending on the time of year.  We're 300 yds off the road surrounded by woods.  I always said I wanted a place where I could walk out back naked and I can here.  But I don't want to scare off the deer.....;-)

okay....OT.  My question is--didn't the plaintiff look at the front or back of the building even once?  You should have seen the bar patio right away.  Her evidence was shaky at best.  And maybe I'll buy one mouse but I think an infestation was a bit exaggerated.

eta......got a JJ case confused with TPC.

My bad.....

Edited November 8, 2016 by OhioSongbird
....brain fart....

[SRTouch]

1. Over the top brats fight over party expenses: A couple over the top, ultra dramatic, artsy fartsy girls fighting over a party. They both try to pull their shenanigans in court and MM has to shut them down a few times. I think the best part was when defendant tries to tell Douglas what to do and MM let's her know that only the judge gets to tell a bailiff what to do. Lots of crosstalk, dramatic gestures, posing and interrupting going on, with plaintiff always acting like she wants to put on a show and defendant at one point telling plaintiff she can't talk to her. What I gather from the testimony is that plaintiff wanted to throw a birthday party for herself, and defendant wanted an opening party for her new venue, so they combined the two events. Then the day of the party birthday girl was out of control, had temper tantrum and was threatened to be kicked out of her party. Must have been some bad stuff mixed in with the weed both sides agree was being smoked. The weed was worth a chuckle when defendant tried to act offended that the plaintiff was smoking in her venue, but MM had already read in defendant's phone the text messages where they're discuss how much weed to bring to the party. Course nothing in writing about who was responsible for what, and in the end MM sends them on their way with nobody getting anything.
2. Defective rug case: This one is about a homeowner and her interior designer suing a rug store (which asks to remain nameless) about a faulty 5 grand hand made area rug. Pretty open and shut case, rug is pretty obviously damaged in the pictures, store refuses to give cash refund but gives store credit, but designer and homeowner have been back 12 times and can't find a suitable replacement. I have to wonder about the store's defense and whether or not the two people in court ever saw the pictures. First off, these two may run the store, but were not the people plaintiffs dealt with. Defendants insist the damage was from something being spilt or the traffic in the room, while MM is holding up a photo and repeatedly saying it looks like tire marks. In the end MM gives back the purchase price, agreeing that this was a fault in the rug and that plaintiffs have given the store enough of an opportunity to make it right. Have to say defendants should have handled the whole thing differently. I'd say after a customer has been in several times to look for a replacement it's time to consider making an exception to the no refund policy - especially when the end user is coming in with a designer who could potentially steer a lot of business to the store.
3. Abandoned wreck: Defendant wrecks his 1 week old used car and tries to walk away from it leaving the wreck at the tow company. The car was totaled, so this guy figures it's cheaper to walk away than pay the tow company for cleaning up the debris at the wreck site and hauling it away. Tow company actually offered him a pretty good deal, saying they'd accept $500 and the title. He figures why pay to give them the car, so turns down the offer - and of course the junker just keeps tacking on $35 a day in storage. Now plaintiff wants almost two grand, plus the title or defendant needs to get it off their lot. Turns out the statute in their jurisdiction caps the storage at $35 a day for 30 days, so plaintiff is overcharging a few hundred. Still, defendant ends up paying over double want the tow company offered to settle at.

[BubblingKettle]

I couldn't roll my eyes any harder while watching the "Over the top brats fight over party expenses" case. There was so much to take in....the flyer illustrated with various poses, "the performer," her protruding tongue, the dramatics, etc.  For the first few minutes, I thought the defendant was calling herself JLo. I really wish the video was better. They were both trash.

[AZChristian]

2 hours ago, CoolWhipLite said:

They were both trash.

Amen to that.  Trash with delusions of grandeur.  Really?  You're having this HUGE party for yourself because you're so wonderful, but you get your decorations at WalMart?  (I shop there all the time, but I don't try to act like I'm all that and a bag of chips.)

[AlleC17]

On 11/7/2016 at 10:33 AM, Broderbits said:

Ha, case #2 sounds like those house hunters looking to move near bars and restaurants for the convenience. Nothing convenient about being woken up by drunks at 3am, not to mention people who can't wait to get home to relieve themselves. 

SRTouch, I'd like to thank you for summarizing these cases. I come here first to see if the show is worth watching, so you perform a valuable service!

I was going to mention that as well, lol  Then the plaintiff said something about a woman laughing, and it sounded like she was inebriated.  Ya think??? 

Edited November 8, 2016 by AlleC17

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, CoolWhipLite said:

There was so much to take in....the flyer illustrated with various poses, "the performer," her protruding tongue, the dramatics, etc. 

I didn't get today's ep either (election) and will be champing at the bit with impatience to see this tomorrow on YT. Sounds awesome.

[speac]

4 hours ago, SRTouch said:

1.  
2. Defective rug case: This one is about a homeowner and her interior designer suing a rug store (which asks to remain nameless) about a faulty 5 grand hand made area rug. Pretty open and shut case, rug is pretty obviously damaged in the pictures, store refuses to give cash refund but gives store credit, but designer and homeowner have been back 12 times and can't find a suitable replacement. I have to wonder about the store's defense and whether or not the two people in court ever saw the pictures. First off, these two may run the store, but were not the people plaintiffs dealt with. Defendants insist the damage was from something being spilt or the traffic in the room, while MM is holding up a photo and repeatedly saying it looks like tire marks. In the end MM gives back the purchase price, agreeing that this was a fault in the rug and that plaintiffs have given the store enough of an opportunity to make it right. Have to say defendants should have handled the whole thing differently. I'd say after a customer has been in several times to look for a replacement it's time to consider making an exception to the no refund policy - especially when the end user is coming in with a designer who could potentially steer a lot of business to the store.

Actually I looked up abrash rugs because I am a geek about new words and that is actually how they are supposed to look (except for the bit around the sofa, which I suspect was something spilled .   http://www.rugrag.com/post/Abrash.aspx

 I suspect the designer didn't explain the 'look' to her client.

[SRTouch]

14 minutes ago, speac said:

Actually I looked up abrash rugs because I am a geek about new words and that is actually how they are supposed to look (except for the bit around the sofa, which I suspect was something spilled .   http://www.rugrag.com/post/Abrash.aspx

 I suspect the designer didn't explain the 'look' to her client.

Interesting, had I just seen that picture from the site I would have thought the rug was damaged, and not what I would want... but then I would never pay 5 grand for an area rug to put in front of my couch. Sort of changes my thoughts on the case. Now I'd REALLY have liked those missing store employees to have been present, why did defendants show up without the people who worked with the customer is baffling, wouldn't it make sense to bring the people who sold the rug... and why didn't the two defendants who DID show up representing the store have some photographic example on hand instead of that talk of traffic and furniture placement. 

[BubblingKettle]

No one in my house understood this because I guess I was speaking PTV language.... As I switched the channel from ABC's election night coverage, I said, "Oh this channel has to go -- this is too much like Harvey Levin and his street trolls." Yep, I was annoyed because they were sending their "soft news" (aka no news) anchors outdoors to ask morons lined up outside who they voted for and why. For me, election night is about hearing a team of three or four intelligent journalists report the numbers and give the reasoning while they show the map. I guess I'm old school, still expecting Peter Jennings or David Brinkley levels and not adjusting well to the street troll era of news. 

I guess my friends are lucky to not know about Levin, his step-stool, and his clueless streetfolk. 

[OhioSongbird]

Amen sister!  We're watching Charlie Rose & CO.  Bob Scheiffer still rocks.  Dude has seen it all.

$5000 for a rug that looks like that?  I think not.  Too many people have more money than sense.

[speac]

3 hours ago, SRTouch said:

Interesting, had I just seen that picture from the site I would have thought the rug was damaged, and not what I would want... but then I would never pay 5 grand for an area rug to put in front of my couch. Sort of changes my thoughts on the case. Now I'd REALLY have liked those missing store employees to have been present, why did defendants show up without the people who worked with the customer is baffling, wouldn't it make sense to bring the people who sold the rug... and why didn't the two defendants who DID show up representing the store have some photographic example on hand instead of that talk of traffic and furniture placement. 

I suspect because they had nothing to lose by having the judge decide against them.  They already took the rug back and gave the buyer store credit-so having the show refund the money is a win-win.  They get back what is currently a very trendy rug they can resell, the don't have to deal with the designer and her client anymore and they didn't have to pay all the extra stuff the designer tried to charge them for.   They just have to refund the price of the rug.

[AngelaHunter]

9 hours ago, CoolWhipLite said:

I couldn't roll my eyes any harder while watching the "Over the top brats fight over party expenses" case. There was so much to take in....the flyer illustrated with various poses, "the performer," her protruding tongue, the dramatics, etc.

Wow, this is up already on YT. Those were some nasty, trashy bitches with major attitude. The protuding tongue was particularly disturbing. I couldn't figure it out at first. I thought she missing upper teeth then realized she just has a really oversized tongue. Nice Cleopatra headband though. Defending was so unable to STFU she had to be ordered to "Sit!" like a dog who won't stop jumping up. I thought JM was going to have to come down and  batter them with her gavel. "You acted like an animal." Hold on - my animals never acted like that!

 

5 hours ago, speac said:

Actually I looked up abrash rugs because I am a geek about new words and that is actually how they are supposed to look (except for the bit around the sofa, which I suspect was something spilled .   http://www.rugrag.com/post/Abrash.aspx

Fascinating. What I couldn't understand is how picky, neat-freak widow lady couldn't find one other rug she liked out of 5,000 of them. That big "tire track" on the one she sent back was horrible. Agree defs should have brought pics of that type of rug.

Towing case - Defendant can't drive his new hoopty one week without totalling it and thinks he shouldn't have to pay a dime - ever -  to have it towed and stored. This was a 26 year old man (chronologically) who acted and sounded like a big baby. Not that he's the only one. What the hell is going on?

edited because I can't spell without sleep.

Edited November 9, 2016 by AngelaHunter

[califred]

I figured he was 18 I was shocked when he said 26.  

 

The girls fighting over the party were a pain.  Who asks people to pay for your bday party???  

[AZChristian]

5 hours ago, califred said:

The girls fighting over the party were a pain.  Who asks people to pay for your bday party???  

The same class of people who throw themselves a 15th anniversary party and include a listing of the places they've registered for gifts.  Yes, I was invited.  I declined.

[OhioSongbird]

Get outta town!  Entitled much?  A wedding yes but a 15th anniversary.....no.

Only caught the last 5 min of the party girls.....damn.  Again....entitled much?

[AZChristian]

16 minutes ago, OhioSongbird said:

Get outta town!  Entitled much?  A wedding yes but a 15th anniversary.....no.

 

And the invitations consisted of an e-mail note to everyone in our department, regardless of any connection with them outside of work.  Yep.  Entitled.

I think they got a divorce about 3 years later.  Wonder who got the gifts in the settlement.

[WhitneyWhit]

I needed some comfort "food" this morning after last night (ugh) so I'm catching up on TPC and Lord that birthday party/whatever the hell the other party was. Two immature narcissists decide to join forces and we got to see the results. I about fell off my couch when the video of the plaintiff "performing" was shown, she looked a drunk chick doing karaoke, I was waiting for her to bust out "Stop, collaborate and listen".

[AZChristian]

Did you notice how disinterested the party guest was in having the birthday girl right in her face with a microphone?

[SRTouch]

1 hour ago, AZChristian said:

Did you notice how disinterested the party guest was in having the birthday girl right in her face with a microphone?

Yeah, there were thongs of eager fans screaming around the stage ?

[ItsHelloPattiagain]

Quote

Those were some nasty, trashy bitches with major attitude. The prortuding tongue was particularly disturbing. I couldn't figure it out at first. I thought she missing upper teeth then realized she just has a really oversized tongue. Nice Cleopatra headband though. Defending was so unable to STFU she had to be ordered to "Sit!" like a dog who won't stop jumping up. I thought JM was going to have to come down and  batter them with her gavel. 

Plaintiff actually had upper toofies? I thought she left her bridge in the hotel room. I kept feeling like she bought her outfit at TLC's yard sale (the girl group, not the network). The defendant was a little less. . . . toofless, but each lady was waiting for the "15 Minutes of Fame" bus to pull up to their venue. 

[SRTouch]

ah well, the recap appears to have been eaten, so here's the condensed version

1. custom prom dress kerfuffle: Mommy wants $2700 because the custom dressmaker screwed up darling snowflake's $500 dress. As I've said before, I know nothing about fancy dresses, but even I can tell the only thing the dress this dude made has in common with the picture he was supposed to work from was the color. The special snowflake sounds like a real spoiled brat. When she goes in for a final fitting she refuses to wear it, saying she just won't go to the dance. Dressmaker is from the Islands, insulted that the customers questioned his artistic vision, and feels the only reason he lost was because this judge was unfair. Oh, and why did Mommy sue for 5 times what she paid? Well, big bucks for snowflake's pain and suffering, a refund of what she paid, cost of new dress, all the gas, tolls and time shopping for the new dress, etc
2. bad breakup lawsuit: this couple are over the hill, not kids, just fools who haven't grown up. Seems after living together for over a year, splitting the rent and bills, she loses her job and is waiting for disability to kick in. She admits no one was paying her share of the rent. He says he didn't know her share wasn't being paid until landlord called him and threatened eviction proceedings. A deal is working out where he starts paying the full rent and she's supposed to repay her back rent when she gets back disability. They end up breaking up, but she doesn't leave, just stays living rent free. When the lease comes up for renewal, he drops her off the lease, waits til she goes away over Mother's Day and changes the locks. He admits pretty much everything except the TV and cat belong to her. She suing for everything except the cat, plus the security deposit. He's countersuing for back rent. He gets the back rent and the cat, she gets everything, including the TV, but not the security. Silliness continues in hallterview. She still loves him and has hopes they'll patch things go up, he admits he has feelings for her, but making up is WAY down his list of priorities.
3. car repair kerfuffle. dude is unhappy after paying $1300 to repair the exhaust leak in his $1000, 1997 ford explorer. Takes plaintiff a month to come up with the money, and when he does he's not happy. Seems shop parked his car on the street and the side mirror was knocked off, then replaced with cheap aftermarket mirror which shakes when he drives down the road. Not only that, after the mirror is knocked off the shop owner decides to take the car home, so when he shows up to pick up the car he has to go to the owner's house. He claims the car is full of broken glass and smells from all the cigarette butts. To top it off, turns out the exhaust is not fixed, and he's given a $530 estimate for the replacement of the wrong catalytic converter which the shop put on. Dude definitely deserves some or all his money back, but he's looking for a payday and suing for $5000. That 5 grand bites him in the end, MM decides on a round $600. I might have given back the entire $1300, plus something for the mirror and trip to owner's house - sort of depends on what work was done. If whole exhaust system was replaced and just the catalytic converters were bad, than sure just $530 but extra for mirror etc. But for all we know the "repair" may have only been replacing the catalytic converter, and replacement didn't fit. In that case, I say refund the whole $1300 and add something for the mirror and trip home with the owner.

[AZChristian]

44 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

. . . catalytic converters . . . 

Don't you mean "Cadillac converters"?  That's what most of our litigants seem to call them.

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

custom prom dress kerfuffle:

I guess the world has changed more than I'd realized as I huddle in my little corner of the world. Teenaged girl should have anything - absolutely anything she wants - for the astonishing feat of managing to graduate high school. What did I get when I did same? Gee, that would be nothing, but that was the Dark Ages when we were just expected to graduate. I really need to start keeping up with the times (yeah, I keep saying that but never do it) where a high school prom calls for a custom-made, 500$ dress. JM's observation, that if the girl was emotionally devastated over a dress she didn't like that she has a hard life ahead, is one I've often made.  It took me awhile to realize that hysterical, histrionic mamma (whose baby should and does get anything, yes, - absolutely ANYTHING she wants) was wearing a very long wig. At first I thought she had a jacket trimmed with goat hair. I can't believe JM let defendant ramble on as long as he did, considering he was very rude to her.

Quote

bad breakup lawsuit: this couple are over the hill, not kids, just fools who haven't grown up.

Good gracious! This wintry-looking Romeo and Juliet were utterly ridiculous. Middleaged people, acting like high school kids. He didn't trust her? Did he think she had a string of beaux waiting in the wings? Love truly is blind, I guess. I really think both of them should be so grateful to find anyone who would put up with them that they should kiss and make up.

Twenty-year old Ford is "brung" to shop. Cadillac converter, blah blah. Plaintiff's witness looked sharp with her prominent titty tat. Failure to fix Cadillac converter (or something like that. I lost interest) on the two-decades old Ford results in a lottery win for "heartache and pain"? "Not here. Not today," to quote Levin's old Hall Puppet, who has thankfully been relegated to merely a bad memory.

[EtheltoTillie]

Angela Hunter, you have a lot of good points, but I love me a good custom sewing episode, and this one did not disappoint. Drama Queen purchaser, and delusional artiste? Check. Fugly garment construction that wouldn't have passed muster in my seventh grade home ec class (yes we still had them back then)? Check. How on earth do these awful neighborhood couturiers get any business?  

[AngelaHunter]

4 hours ago, GussieK said:

Angela Hunter, you have a lot of good points, but I love me a good custom sewing episode, and this one did not disappoint. Drama Queen purchaser, and delusional artiste?

Oh, I like them too. Drama Queen was a little bit much ("My daughter wants to be a lawyer!") but at least she didn't charge over to the def's home and start busting up his stuff and physically assaulting like some we've seen on "couture" cases. Yes, that dress was weird looking.

 I like custom sewing whole heaps better than  women who are fistfighting and throwing bricks through windshields over some some loser who is usually in jail.

[AZChristian]

Wouldn't be surprised to see custom couture dressmaker on a future season of Project Runway.  Lots of those folks are delusional about their ability, too.

[SRTouch]

1. bad skateboard park rental: Actually got to give it to twenty something plaintiff and his buds. Would think better of him if he was using his time and brains to get out and get a job, though. Basically, what the case is about is that the local skateboarders wanted someplace to do their skateboarding out of the weather. They rent space in defendant's warehouse, build a ramp and think they have it made at first. Then landlord decides to force them out - don't really know why because I don't believe anything the guy says. A couple of his arguments are valid, no insurance, non permitted additions, etc, but as long as they kept paying the rent each time he increased it he was willing to take their money. So, as mentioned, he raises the rent, then cuts the space they can use, took away bathroom privileges, made them build a wall to keep them out of the rest of the warehouse. (I actually see the reasoning behind the wall. Apparently part of the open space was rented to some tradesman who probably wasn't thrilled with having the kids having access to his van, tools etc.) Anyway, the boarders eventually give up and move, and we get to the meat of the case. (I suppose I could watch again, but I suspect part of the reason the skateboarders moved out was winter was over and they could skate outside.) Defendant decides to keep the deposit. He's comes up with various reasons, none of which pass muster with MM. She decides he wrongfully withheld the deposit, they're in one of those jurisdictions where tenant gets double back if wrongfully withheld, so that's what plaintiff gets.
2. bad auto repair: plaintiff takes her ten year old car in because it has an intermittant high pitched humming noise. Defendant misdiagnosed the cause and puts on new motor mounts. There's some dispute as to whether or not they had the go ahead to do the work. I'm no mechanic, but I don't see motor mounts causing a humming noise. Anyway, they do the work, she pays the $500 when she picks up the car, and before she reaches the corner hears the noise. She immediately goes back, and they tell her she needs to take it to a dealer, as it may be a transmission problem under warranty. Dealer correctly identifies problem and fixes it for a couple hundred bucks. MM has something of a quandary. Defendant did do work, which was worth something, and plaintiff has nothing from the dealer saying the motor mount work was not needed. Her "rough justice" solution is to have defendant pay the cost of the dealer repair. (Shorty has a clown in full makeup out on the street, so I listened as he asks his onlookers if they think women are taken advantage of when they take a car to a mechanic. General consensus is that dishonest repairmen take advantage when they find someone they think they can cheat. As I said, I'm not a mechanic. My strategy is to go in and act clueless, let them make an estimate, then tell them I'll want to see any major part they replace. At the first hint I'm being lied to, I'm out of there.)
3. Shady ladies: ok, I stole that from the intro. Case is about a homeowner who wants back the $1400 deposit she put down on custom window shades/curtains because she had second thoughts and found them cheaper somewhere else. Seems she found them for $1600 where defendant was charging $2500, negotiated down to $2100. That isn't the whole story, just the first chapter, because turns out there are several more rooms she wanted done, and defendant was substantially higher across the board. Defendant is trying to portray herself as a longtime designer, but is really winging it, not writing a contract, doing the consult without letting customer know she charges $250 while her competitor does free consults. When plaintiff finally decides to go with the other guy she tries to get back the deposit and defendant agrees to return the "remaining" deposit. Out of the $1650 ($1400 deposit and $250 consult fee) homeowner paid, defendant only returns $62. Another bit of rough justice coming. MM agrees that had the been a contract the defendant could keep the deposit,  but says without a contract there can't be a nonrefundable deposit. OTOH defendant did do work, came multiple times and spent hours working with the homeowner, which has to be worth something (although I keep going back to the competitor who did NOT charge a consulting fee.) MM splits the deposit, each side gets half. I don't really agree. I would have said the time defendant spent with homeowner was paid for with the $250 consulting fee, and homeowner should get back the $1400. At most I'd give the defendant a second consulting fee since she came back a second the.

[marny]

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

bad skateboard park rental: Actually got to give it to twenty something plaintiff and his buds. Would think better of him if he was using his time and brains to get out and get a job, though.

What makes you think he doesn't have a job? He was somehow able to pay rent for the space so he's getting that money from somewhere.  He and his friends are allowed to have a hobby.  In fact, I think he also tried to get "lost wages" which presumably mean he has wages.

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

Actually got to give it to twenty something plaintiff and his buds. Would think better of him if he was using his time and brains to get out and get a job, though.

Maybe I'm just too old, but all these guys (men?) in their twenties these days look and sound like little babies to me. Anyway, what they think is really fun is to go back and forth and back and forth on a ramp in a little room, but that's their perogative. Defendant was a sleazy liar who deserved the big spanking he got.

Another, even bigger, sleazy liar was the mechanic in the second case. You don't need to know anything about cars to know he was totally full of shit. I've gone to dealers with my cars before with problems. The mechanic is not going to ask me anything? I say, "Something's wrong," and he doesn't ask if the problem is with the headlight, the trunk lock, brakes,  the engine or... ? And I don't tell him. Sure. What a shameless slimeball. I really wish JM could have awarded the plaintiff more, just for the def. being such a POS.

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

(Shorty has a clown in full makeup out on the street

Did the clown interview the clown? I need to be quicker with my FF. I heard part of, "Generator? He hardly..." Someone needs to shove something big down his throat until he suffocates. Slowly. I wonder if he's still standing on a box?

Last case of "Contracts? We don't have no stinkin' contracts. We don't NEED no stinkin' contracts." Defendant didn't think she'd ever need one.  As JM always says, we call these people "litigants."

[SRTouch]

4 minutes ago, marny said:

What makes you think he doesn't have a job? He was somehow able to pay rent for the space so he's getting that money from somewhere.  He and his friends are allowed to have a hobby.  In fact, I think he also tried to get "lost wages" which presumably mean he has wages.

Hmmm, I missed the "lost wages" portion of the claim, and may well have jumped to the conclusion that he was living off his parents. To be fair, he and his friends could all be gainfully employed, each kicking get in a portion of the rent for their joint club house.

[AZChristian]

As she was ruling, Judge Cougar said that "he who could not disappoint her if he tried" wasn't entitled to lost wages, but he sure got the double deposit.

[AngelaHunter]

1 hour ago, AZChristian said:

As she was ruling, Judge Cougar said that "he who could not disappoint her if he tried"

I think she thought he was a cute little boy, and he did have his evidence in order. Not only is JM not a cougar but she (like me) cannot fathom those who are:

[Broderbits]

I thought the kid in the 1st case was terrific: well-prepared, well-spoken, and a sense of humor. Smarmy defendant actually thought he could get away with passing off pictures of another tenant's mess as the plaintiff's.I took MM's delight in the kid as more of a motherly pride thing. 

[AZChristian]

Yeah, I know.  But I've NEVER seen her like that before.  It was adorbs.

[AngelaHunter]

1 minute ago, AZChristian said:

But I've NEVER seen her like that before.  It was adorbs.

It was. I think, like us, she finds it thrilling to actually see someone really young who can speak properly and present a coherent case, instead of acting as though as they're chillin' with their friends, or using text-speak and thinking they don't need evidence because they're spoiled rotten by Mommy and Daddy and are entitled to whatever they want.

[teebax]

The ruling in the shady mechanic case had me scratching my head. He did work she didn't need and didn't fix the problem, but she still has to pay for it? I get the unjust enrichment thing, but she didn't need new motor mounts. Since he still has the old ones, he could put those back in and she'd be in the same position she was before the wrong. I didn't like that verdict at all. He was rewarded for being a lying thief. 

Also, her car was only a 2009 Nissan. It's not like some of the people we see on here suing about a 20 year old hoopty. It's only 2 years out of its original warranty!

Edited November 11, 2016 by teebax

[OhioSongbird]

The young man in the skateboard case was a cutie!  I'd be all over that if I were 40 yrs younger.....;-)

And I was also impressed at how prepared he was.  Landlord was a POS.

Haven't seen the couture prom dress case yet.  I always like those being in the rag trade myself (vintage).