califred December 21, 2016 Share December 21, 2016 Since the guy jumped title aren't the people he bought it from responsible for anything stupid he does? He was a piece of work. 2 Link to comment
SRTouch December 21, 2016 Share December 21, 2016 (edited) work for landlord flop: tenant claims she "improved" her rental with the understanding that uncle in law landlord would reimburse her. Hubby is off in Florida and apparently didn't want to sue his uncle. Now she's in court saying landlord owes over 4 grand. Course landlord says they never had any agreement, and in fact he let her live rent free since she's family. This is the crazy plaintiff who says she and hubby "allowed" the uncle to keep a room in the house when he let them move in and not pay rent... no lady, he was living in a house he owned and allowed you, hubby and your three dogs to live rent free in his house. Before moving in they were going to pay $1700 rent, but once they saw the work that needed to be done she says they renegotiated - no rent and they would make repairs. Uncle says no, the rent was $1700, they just didn't pay after moving in. He says after the first month he let them stay after settling for $1000 because nephew was unemployed, and he wasn't kicking kin to the curb - he says they never paid the $1000, but he didn't file for the back rent they owe because he doesn't sue family. Course, being family nobody was so crass as to put anything in writing. So, these folks lived there from August til February, paid $1700 when they moved in and nothing else. Plaintiff's position is there was no rent, their work was the rent. So, MM asks, why is she suing for the work? She explains the labor was the rent, she's suing for the materials they bought and put into the renovations. Oh, and the material is stuff they picked out without uncle's approval, as they were hoping to buy the house when the work was complete. Plaintiff has texts where uncle agreed to pay - she just can't find them today. Same with receipts for some expensive looking ceiling fans. She has the receipts, but the receipts don't have a price. Yep, she has a laundry list of things she claims he agreed to pay for, but has no evidence. So, they spent $4000 on the house but owe over 8 grand in rent. On top of not paying their own rent, they felt justified in telling his other tenants (also family members) to move as they planned to buy the house - and these other tenants actually paid rent so more money defendant lost. Part of plaintiff's suit is because she says she paid these other (rent paying) tenants their security when she told them to move - again, no evidence of any payments to the other tenants that I heard. MM lectures plaintiff about her unreasonable position and her suing hubby's uncle and dismisses the case. Any wonder uncle moved out of the house to avoid dealing with the pushy plaintiff? Oh, and hubby's in Florida. She's still arguing her case with Doug in hallterview, then objects even he says MM kicked her out of courtroom. the Dr Seuss online tea salesman: plaintiff says he loaned defendant money to buy product to sell online. According to him, he loaned the guy a grand under the condition that defendant would double his money in 3-4 weeks. Whoa, MM says, that's loanshark stuff and no court will order defendant to honor that deal. Defendant says, no, plaintiff invested in defendant's business, and once the product sells he'll have the money to pay back plaintiff and give him a cut of the profits. He agrees that plaintiff gave him a grand, and that he promised to pay back $1800+ when/if the product sells with no time limit specified. Ok, MM, points out his version is as dubious as plaintiff's is illegal. If you go with plaintiff it's loansharking, if you go with defendant and his no time limit he can take his own sweet time to repay - ah, another time a contract would have been nice. Defendant is just too honest... should have just gone with the "It's loansharking!" defense. Yep, plaintiff's own testimony and evidence works against his case, no way he's winning. Then, defendant has already paid back $950 of the original $1000. Problem now is that plaintiff complained to eBay, and for now defendant's business is shut down - really dude, defendant is paying you, even if not as fast as you want, and agreed to give you a ridiculous return and you shut down his account for the next 75 days. Plaintiff doesn't get it no matter how MM explains it, and Doug doesn't have any better luck in hallterview. I actually thought defendant might have gotten something had he filed a countersuit. Since the plaintiff's $1000 loan/investment is currently under review by the credit card company I really don't know if the whole thing wasn't filed too soon. Apparently, the $1000 the plaintiff gave defendant was on his credit card, and may end up being reversed which would be he never gave the defendant $1000 - but the defendant is paying plaintiff $1000, and has also bought the tea... I'm confused old vw van for daughter goes bad: daddy buys daughter a 68 vw for $3900, and it came with a rebuilt engine with a warranty from a third party. Problem is, when it broke down, defendant kept it for 5 months, never fixed it, and he can't get them to honor the warranty... enough is enough, he's given defendant enough time and he wants to take it elsewhere - but elsewhere they're saying he needs $4600 for a new engine. In case daddy doesn't look silly enough for buying daughter a classic car when she's too young to drive, he came to court suing over a warrenty, but didn't bring the warranty. Defendant's position (still according to plaintiff) is that the guy who sold plaintiff the van let his son burn up the engine, which voided the warranty, so he doesn't have to honor it, especially not to some third party. But, according to plaintiff, defendant agreed to do the work, couldn't fix it, and eventually agreed to replace the engine... until he found out just how much it cost to replace a 68 vw engine. Finally, defendant gets to talk. He says he does have the original warranty and doesn't know where plaintiff is getting his story. He says he told the plaintiff up front that the ordinal warranty was void, like plaintiff says he claimed, difference being plaintiff says he eventually agreed to honor it while defendant now says he never agreed to honor it. So, asks MM, why did you accept the vehicle and do work on it? He tries to say the people he originally rebuilt the engine for agreed the warranty was voided because they paid for a new clutch after the engine rebuild... but, as MM says, a bad clutch doesn't void an engine warranty. Probably needed suspension and brakes, but that doesn't effect the warranty either. He tries to pass off the clutch warranty off as the engine warranty, now the engine warranty was expired where before it was void because of son revving engine... Dude never does provide a warranty that MM accepts as valid. This slimy repair shop guy is just throwing any and everything at the wall to try to get something to stick. Now he's saying he was just working on the van because he's a good guy and plaintiff was homeless living in the van. Geez, slime ball may get away with it because silly plaintiff came to court over a warranty without the cotton picking warranty. Ah, but he does have text where slime agreed to work on it under warranty. Goody, MM commences to read slime ball the riot act and dude keeps inventing new dance steps. Course, plaintiff isn't going to get $4600 for a $3900 van, but MM does total it and order defendant to pay $3900. Plaintiff still plans to fix it and give it to daughter when she turns 16... Dude get her a good reliable car that's a couple years old, it will be a much better, and safer, driver than any classic vw built in 68. Edited December 22, 2016 by SRTouch Wording changed 3 Link to comment
AngelaHunter December 21, 2016 Share December 21, 2016 (edited) 52 minutes ago, SRTouch said: work for landlord flop: She was just as appalling the 2nd time around. This woman was so well-spoken and put together, but under that she's a batshit crazy psycho with more gall than anyone I can remember on this show. This squatter spent 4K on the house, owed 8K in rent, yet has the chutzpah to sue the uncle for the 4K - so she and her unemployed hubby can get everything free - and sees nothing wrong with that? Uncle seems to put a huge store in "family" no matter how devious they are and should have countersued for the money they owe him AND the hotel he had to stay in when they (or she) made his life so unbearable he had to leave his own home. 52 minutes ago, SRTouch said: old vw van for daughter goes bad: God, dad is such a dopey doofus. Who but a doofus would buy a 48 year old van for his inappropriately dressed 15 year old daughter? Well, so he said. We know HE wanted it to try and recapture a bygone era and pretend he's one of the Yardbirds or something. Sorry, daddy - not even your dye job can do that. Edited December 21, 2016 by AngelaHunter still groggy from nap 6 Link to comment
SRTouch December 22, 2016 Share December 22, 2016 (edited) Bad PR Man: aspiring musician finishes up a project and reaches out to a friend of a friend who knows as a stylist who works with music business folks. Turns out the stylist says he's now a publicist, has his own company, contracts and everything. For the low low price of $3000 he'll guarantee he can make music man a star. All kinds of red flags - name dropping, stalls, rescheduling, etc, but the plaintiff has a dream and he REALLY wants to believe in the stylist PR dude. Eventually he faces reality and sues PR man. Case is simple, defendant can't point to anything he did on plaintiff's behalf except a half-a$$ed photo shoot that wasn't even completed on time. Case is sort of interesting to watch, but only because everybody appears to be dressed better than average and I could understand them without turning on closed captioning. Defendant presented a humorous non-defense as he brought nothing, but has texts send emails in his phone if he could only find them. bad floor job: homeowner hires some joker she's known for years to redo her floors, then complains he didn't know what he was doing and did a the crappy job. Not only didn't he know how to do the work, he broke the legs off her cheap furniture when he moved it out of the way. Ah, soon as defendants walk in I remember these jokers, and the case isn't at all what the impression I got during the intro. Jokers in question are short little gum chewing ponytailed union carpenter and his helper who dresses like a pirate with a sash. Lady wanted seamless look, but bought the wrong stuff, so wasn't happy with her new floor. Apparently she's a hoverer, watching and commenting as they work, and I guess at one point shorty said something about how he knew his job which she didn't like. Hey, I'm both... I like to watch the work I'm paying for, but used to do landscaping and hated when a homeowner hung over my shoulder making helpful "suggestions." Some of what she's testifying to makes the defendant's sound like they didn't know what they were doing. Hey, lots of times a job that looks iffy in the middle turns out great when finished. Once defendant testifies I get what he's saying, and agree that her complaints were made prematurely. Her pictures show a couple things she was concerned with. First, there's a gap between the butt ends of a couple planks. Terrible if the floor was finished, but defendant says easily fixed and was just work in progress which she prevented from being completed. Second, she was upset with a gap along the wall. Even I know you leave a gap for expansion and contraction, and his explanation of planning to put a piece of quarter round along the baseboard makes sense. We just can't see if his gap will be covered or not by the molding she stopped him from putting down. She gets someone else who comes in and rips out the defendant's work and redowes everything - I can't tell the difference in her pics as the same material was used. Defendant does admit to accidently break the legs on the dresser. MM orders defendant to pay for new dresser legs and a little bit for the work they didn't complete after being fired. sex offender next door: plaintiffs wants money back after signing a lease for an apartment, changing their mind and never moving in. Seems they wanted to move, found a place and put down money, then ended up deciding to stay put. The story is, after signing the lease they went home and decided to check out the new neighborhood for any type of bad stuff - because, don'cha know this girl "always" checks for sex offenders in the neighborhood before moving in. Hmmph, how many times has she checked for sex offenders before moving, and wouldn't that be something you do before you commit to a lease? And, just exactly what kind of place were they leasing where their suit would be $4000 - or is there a big chunk of "pain an suffering" involved? Ah, somehow they think they should get back double what they paid because somehow the landlord should have known about the sex offender and it's her fault they had to break the lease. Oh, and this is the couple that waited until just before the end of the month to find a new apartment to move into the next week, and somehow blame the landlord because they sold one of their dogs so they could move... she starts talking about being scared of the defendant's one eyed little pooch. Little Cyclops apparently barked at her kids and the one dog she was planning to bring to the new place which she brought to meet landlord and her two dogs who lived downstairs. Geez, anybody have any idea why she thought it terrible when she was given 5 keys after signing the lease? Anyway, she signs the lease, then goes home to read it and think about the house rules, and does that online search and finds a pedophile living "next door." Not that she decided against moving and was looking for a reason to back out - as she usually/always checks for sex offenders. FINALLY, MM stops with plaintiff wifey from yammering and lets hubby talk. He doesn't have much to say, so we go to defendant. She says plaintiff had a whole different story about the next door neighbor pedophile. When plaintiff called the next day and tried to back out of the lease, the sex offender was the dirty dog who attacked the plaintiff when she was little, and he wasn't next door but down the street. Ok, I would be more inclined to let them back out of the lease with that story... but then I'd probably let them out without the whole sex offender story within 24 hours, not because I had to, but I'm just a nice guy (oh, and I'd wonder if they weren't a couple flakes if they pay 2 grand 1 day and back out the next). I wouldn't have given plaintiffs anything anyway, but it sure makes it easy to dismiss their case when they can't even prove there IS a sex offender - yep says she has a screens hot but it's just flapping gums and no evidence. Their whole case is flapping gums, their only evidence is a picture of little Cyclops. MM is way more sympathetic than I would be when she dismisses the case. Guess the animal lover in me has a hard time with the idea they SOLD a member of the family because they waited until the last minute to look for a new apartment and the place they found only allowed one dog. To me that was the first commitment they broke, because I feel a pet is a lifetime commitment, not a disposable possession. Sure, there could be legitimate reasons you have to rehome a pet, but this couple were way to quick in selling their dog. Legally, they have no case. They broke the lease, and it took two months to find new tenants. Just an off topic note: I get Judge Mathis on after TPC. So, at the end of my recording of TPC, I see quite the pair come out as his first plaintiffs. Don't know what their case was, but got a laugh at their appearance. Edited December 22, 2016 by SRTouch Wording changed 5 Link to comment
BubblingKettle December 22, 2016 Share December 22, 2016 In the Bad PR case -- I must admit that I had to google Keke Palmer. I wondered if I was really living under a rock when it came to knowing her since the litigants and the judge spoke about her like she's a household name. It's not like we're talking about Taraji P. Henson or Alicia Keys or something. And how did Jayquan think he could go immediately from 'wardrobe styling' (clipping stray threads, putting things on hangers) to public relations? He probably could have scammed the plaintiff with something that was more on his level, like personal shopping or image consultant. I was so glad when Douglas questioned the plaintiff about his "talent" in the hallway, because I had been wondering what the hell he mumbled after JMM asked him what he did --"I sing and I mellonize" (?) Douglas so tactfully asked him for the definition of "melodize." Travis the Pirate. Yikes. 5 Link to comment
AngelaHunter December 22, 2016 Share December 22, 2016 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: Not only didn't he know how to do the work, he broke the legs off her cheap furniture when he moved it out of the way. I've laid down some vinyl tiles myself (and I'm certainly no expert) but I just removed the quarter round and not the baseboards (you're asking for trouble doing that especially if the baseboards and quarter round are old and stained to match), so I don't see what he did that was so wrong? That gap between floor and baseboard would have been covered by the quarter round. Long John Silver was a bonus. 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: sex offender next door: I'll never understand the mindset of people who think that signing a contract means nothing if they say, "Eh. I changed my mind." Maybe I was biased against plainiff, who said she "sold" her dog instead of finding it the best home possible. Ugh. To all litigants: The word is "Apartment" and not "Partment." Hey, I'm lazy too, but not that lazy. 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: Bad PR Man: It was the "Yes, I have evidence to prove everything I'm saying, but I just don't have it ON me at this moment!" day. Maybe they wanted JM to go home with them so they could show it to her? Jayquan (?), sweetheart - if you're going to be a scam/bullshit artist, you really need to have enough of a brain to cover your ass. Even so, I have to wonder at plaintiff absolutely believing that People Magazine would want to interview him, as he is an unknown with horrific grammar. 1 hour ago, CoolWhipLite said: Douglas so tactfully asked him for the definition of "melodize." "Melodize" is a new verb, as is "conversate." Douglas, even at 73, is leaps and bounds better than the former stupid NoNeckHallClown. Love the way he manages to politely ridicule silly litigants in such a way that they never catch on. 1 hour ago, CoolWhipLite said: I must admit that I had to google Keke Palmer. I have no idea who she is and can't be bothered Googling to find out. Just as well, since I would have spelled it "Kiki". 5 Link to comment
SRTouch December 22, 2016 Share December 22, 2016 (edited) 4 hours ago, CoolWhipLite said: In the Bad PR case -- I must admit that I had to google Keke Palmer. Hehe, I googled her last time. Hmmm, don't even remember what I found, only that she's pretty famous. Don't think I've heard her name since the last time this case was on. Edited December 23, 2016 by SRTouch Wording changed 3 Link to comment
shksabelle December 22, 2016 Share December 22, 2016 2 hours ago, CoolWhipLite said: how did Jayquan think he could go immediately from 'wardrobe styling' (clipping stray threads, putting things on hangers) to public relations In the words of my idol: "he's a hustlah!" 59 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said: I have to wonder at plaintiff absolutely believing that People Magazine would want to interview him I believe he said it was PeopleS Magazine... :-) 6 Link to comment
SRTouch December 23, 2016 Share December 23, 2016 juvenile delinquents all grown up: so, two rival groups of delinquents, with bad blood going back to high school, are all grown up but still acting out. One car load of idiots pulls up behind the other at a red light, yelling escalates to a passenger getting out to spit through an open window. Light turns green, lead car turns onto side street with trailing car on their bumper - yelling continues, with idiot in second car leaning out the window throwing stuff at first car. When first driver hears a can of tea hit the car, he pulls over and storms back to confront the joker throwing crap. Luckily no guns or knifes, but they do start wrestling over a tire iron. More idiots start getting out of respective cars, including a female passenger prepared to whoop up on little dude driving his mommy's car. Even have a third car full of cousin idiots stop to join in the fun. In another stroke of luck, an alert cop happens by, puts everybody on the ground and ends up arresting some of the idiots. They're in court today with mommy of first driver suing, claiming their can of iced tear dented her car that idiot son was driving - so both of the first two cars belong to respective Mommys. Defendant delinquent must model his behaivor after some cheap gang stereotypical hood, keeps trying to stare down plaintiff idiots and making incredulous faces while they testify. MM gives stern warning him to stop looking at them, and I have to think that a real bailiff would have moved over to stand between them - and maybe discretely call for backup to be on standby. Geez, when MM gives guy a chance to give his side he just reinforces the bad hoodlum impression, mouthing off while wearing his long sleeved shirt with extra buttons undone, white t-shirt and gold chain hanging down - Harv actually says something having to do with the case at commercial break when he comments that these idiots are "Beyond stupid." Really, defendants look like spoiled rich kids, or at least middle class, playing at being in a gang. Unfortunately, nobody appears to have learned anything from the incident, mouthy defendant having a grand old time mouthing off, laughing and talking smart to judge. MM has had enough talking to bad hoodlum kids, so she brings up mommy plaintiff so she can explain her damage claim. More smarting off from defendant - Douglas was over showing the pictures and I was hoping he'd reach over and backhand smart mouth. MM is looking at the damage and estimate and smarty decides to dispute the $1700 repair to a 2001 car. No dispute he threw can since he seems proud of it, only dispute is how much tea was in the can and the amount of damage. MM gives a little class on how he has to pay up to the book value, and once the book value is exceeded he would have to pay the value of the car. Sooo, book value is over 2 grand, he has to pay the estimated damage. He's not happy with the total bill, but that's the breaks when acting like a moron. Ah, next silly idiot in the case shows up when mommy tries to say her son, driver who stopped got out and went back to confront 2 carloads of other idiots, is completely blameless in the whole debacle. Oh, it's not $1700 in damages, she tacked on a couple hundred for missed work to come to court. So she only gets $1480 and change. Idiot defendant still having a grand time after the ruling, saying it doesn't matter and almost dancing out to talk to Doug - still wish Douglas had backhanded the smirk off his face, maybe he'll spank the punk when he goes to sign the papers. Almost married couple fighting over bills: plaintiff says after she got kicked out cable and utilities were still in her name, and she wants ex to pay the almost $2700 in bills. Couple twists, seems they have a child, and when she left the child remained, so at least part of those bills were to support her 5yo son. When they were together they split the bills and her contribution was cable and utilities. When she got a new bf (hope that isn't ex's name she has tattooed on her chest) and moved out, leaving behind her son and no longer providing any child support (turns out they have 50/50 custody), she says ex said he'd take the bills out of her name. (Oh, we know MM will be giving her some grief after leaving her son, 2-3yo at the time, to move in with new bf.) He didn't and nobody paid the bills. His story is he tried to switch the bills to his name, but couldn't. Makes no sense, because once the bill got sky high and service was cut off, suddenly he had no trouble putting it in his name. Ex bf is more than a little bitter she left him for her boss at a job he got her, admits he told her to move. Certainly sounds like he knew about the building total bill and let it build up out of spite instead of telling her she needed to get involved in switching the bills - geez, they were meeting regularly at least part of the time to exchange the child. He tries to say she left him hanging and it took 3 months to find a new roommate to share the bills, but she says she took her name off the lease as she was moving out and his father and father's gf were moving in as she moved out (guess all these folks are in the almost married group). He tries to dodge that, talking about this roommate he eventually found, but eventually admits that the roommate was his dad, and he moved in as plaintiff moved out. Apparently she didn't know the bills were still in her name until creditors started calling, and then she was denied when she went to buy a house and found her credit score tanked. Little rough justice where MM splits the bills, which leaves plaintiff with her hand up to complain, and defendant smiling. Guess she went with defendant's story that it was three months before his name started helping with the rent... maybe also to spank plaintiff for leaving don't when she moved in with new guy. Ah, Doug asks about the tattoo, and it's not a name. Instead, for send reason she has "it's crazy when a heart breaks, it never breaks even" umm, ok, nothing like making your body a billboard. hair fraud?: plaintiff thought she was buying real hair, but not claims defendant sold her fake - ah, not interested and I've gone on long enough. 3 Link to comment
AngelaHunter December 23, 2016 Share December 23, 2016 SRTouch, you got different reruns than I did. I got low-life guttersnipes. Plaintiff gave her friend, the def, 2700$ to "hold" for her, since her boyfriend, the convicted thief, would spend it if he found it. Plaintiff "doesn't trust banks" = translation - she owes a bunch of money to the welfare office, IRS or whatever, so has to hide her cash. Def. agreed to hold the money in her locked dresser drawer, but wouldn't you know it? Some other thief (not her boyfriend thief or so he says) came in through her window, found the key in the next drawer, stole the money (but only 2K, leaving 700$) then considerately re-locked the drawer and left the way he/she came without stealing one single other thing. JM to def: "Isn't it stupid to leave the key next to the locked drawer?" Def: "Ezzackly." Then I had the plaintiff, wearing bizarre red goggles, suing the moving company for 5,000$ for her "Discount Bob's Particle Board Furniture." Not only was she trying to scam for the 5K (pain and suffering and all that stuff) but she obviously lied about the signature not being hers, and wanted def. to pay for a whole new bedroom set. Def. was a total jerk, an ex-Stud Mover who doesn't have the brains to have his clients sign off when their move is complete. He sees no need to do that, but did say, when Douglas in the Hall tactfully called him an idiot (just as JM did) that he might consider doing that in the future. We also had the worst entitled couple ever. Noteworthy that hubby was dressed in his best "Saturday Night Fever" outfit. They couldn't pay their rent or fix the disaster they created in plaintiff's property. They needed their money for their new house, so their landlord should just understand that and go pound sand. Sucks to be her. They also left their useless safe with no key for her to dispose of. I think JM would have awarded plaintiff more than 5K if she could have, just because defs were such selfish, idiotic assholes. 4 Link to comment
SRTouch December 26, 2016 Share December 26, 2016 Ah ha, back to back same episodes. I recapped today's Friday when I saw it the first time - or at least the first time this month Link to comment
AngelaHunter December 26, 2016 Share December 26, 2016 Hope everyone had a nice Christmas and didn't get drunk and set anyone's trailer on fire, challenge anyone to come outside and fight you, vandalize anything, or throw a lamp at anyone's head, cuz that might "rip the noyum." 2 Link to comment
AZChristian December 26, 2016 Share December 26, 2016 3 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said: Hope everyone had a nice Christmas and didn't get drunk and set anyone's trailer on fire, challenge anyone to come outside and fight you, vandalize anything, or throw a lamp at anyone's head, cuz that might "rip the noyum." We had a quiet Christmas. No distant relatives' live-in boyfriends got arrested, called us for bail, and promised to pay when they get their taxes. 4 Link to comment
AngelaHunter December 26, 2016 Share December 26, 2016 On 12/23/2016 at 2:28 PM, SRTouch said: juvenile delinquents all grown up: Got this today. The smirking, wise-ass/dumb-ass gangster wanna be, Mahmoud (with his carefully coiffed douchebag hairdo and facial hair): I bet anything he's going to lose that attitude once he's in prison. As for plaintiff - it's what we see so often - Mommy is there to defend her baby boy, even though she wasn't there and has no clue what happened. On 12/23/2016 at 2:28 PM, SRTouch said: Almost married couple fighting over bills: Another example of the stellar genes being passed on. Plaintiff had professional makeup job, the requisite long, stringy ringlets and chest tats of the true lady. Def can't make it on his own with the child he and plaintiff created without having Daddy move in and pay his bills. Having a kid might not have been the smartest thing to do. Quote hair fraud?: Hair? Peruvian hair, but it's not from Peru! We need fake hair! Plaintiff might have been better off getting some braces so she doesn't look like a lamprey with long, fake hair. 3 Link to comment
SRTouch December 28, 2016 Share December 28, 2016 bad tree service (crappy neighbor contender): homeowner hires dude because he did such a good job on the yard across the street - and, as it turns out, they went to school together. (Defendant must be half deaf, as he yells throughout the hearing.) She wants a big tree removed, and two others trimmed. He tells her it will take three days and cost $1600 - half up front. First day he fells one tree, cleans up some debris from customer's yard but leaves big limbs and trash in neighbor's front yard. Next day he and crew are no shows. Started job on the 3rd, finally returned on the 12th and did a little clean up, but still does nothing about trash in neighbor's yard. His story is he gave her such a great price that he couldn't pay his crew, so they quit on him. I remember this joker from last time. His "climbers" quit, but why couldn't he come back, even if he came alone, and clean up the debris. And, why oh why did homeowner pay her son and his friend to clean up her yard and leave piles of debris in neighbor's front yard? I suppose her neighborhood must be full of trash filled yards as, according to her, her neighbor hasn't complained. Oh well, that's the gist of it. Homeowner ends up paying someone else $2,000 to finish the remaining two jobs. Defendant has no defense except that he underbid the job. He was paid $800 of the $1600 total for trimming 2 trees and removing a third. He cut down one tree, left debris in two yards, and homeowner eventually paid to get the debris picked up and paid someone else 2 grand to finish the other two trees... so what, if anything, should defendant get for cutting down a tree? I say give him nothing - make him return the full $800 as punishment for not completing the job. MM disagrees, she let's him keep $500 and orders return of $300. Somehow, defendant seems to think he was being a good guy by underbidding, leaving a mess for weeks, and never finishing the job.... sas he's quitting the business because he's too nice. wedding venue disaster: ah, the case where the wedding planners/plaintiffs found a great venue on line, but turns out the owner/defendant is already on notice from the local code enforcement that it is illegal to rent out the property for these events. Defendant is running an unlicensed bed and breakfast, charging a thousand bucks a night, and getting around the "no event" rule by saying she's just renting the beds, and doesn't charge anything for the approximately 150 people who show for the wedding. Defendant is really something. Yes, she's admits she wasn't allowed to hold events on the property having been told a year before she rented the property to plaintiffs that she could not rent the venue for large events - but hey, she's held several events after receiving the notice, both before and after the plaintiffs. But, she tells them mums-the-word, hold the event, code enforcement won't be able to get an injunction in time to stop the wedding we can slip it by. Oh yeah, this is the litigant who, after MM rules against her, wants the judge to issue a gag order to prevent the plaintiffs from telling their story to the city/County attorneys who are trying to shut her down. Anyway, plaintiff already has 20 of the wedding party renting the beds, so they find somewhere else to hold the wedding without telling defendant and keep the beds. Since they couldn't legally hold the wedding at the defendant's place, they want her to pay for the replacement venue. Ah, now we get to see why plaintiff's lawyer told them NOT to tell defendant the wedding would be held somewhere else. She admits that had she been told, she would have returned their money, canceled the reservations made 9 months in advance, and re-rented the beds to someone else - because, don'cha know she re-rents the rooms ALL THE TIME. Yep, MM is getting excited now, getting louder as defendant tries to talk over her. MM rules for plaintiffs, but no pain and suffering. Ah, then we get the defendant's request for a gag order! Really, these people have no doubt already been deposed by the city attorneys, and a couple folks might have seen the show, and she asks for a gag order? MM's response to the request? "HELL NO!" Ah, this is one of my all time favorite TPC moments. "GET ON FACEBOOK, NOW! TELL YOUR STORY TO THE WORLD BEFORE I DO!" and defendant says "She like to get crazy!" As MM leaves the courtroom. didn't watch last case 7 Link to comment
SRTouch December 28, 2016 Share December 28, 2016 deadbeat almost marrieds fighting over old debt: Short little troll (looks like a troll doll with hair parted in middle) with violet lips suing ex, and father of child, over eviction charges and some promissory note signed years ago. I was cleaning critter cage, and didn't sound worth rewinding, so didn't watch the first half. What I gather is that plaintiff thinks they owe 4 grand over an eviction case from years ago. Neither of these two deadbeats bothered to make their housing court date, so all they come to court with is a letter from then landlord demanding outrageous amount. MM takes a recess and learns that instead of $4000+ these clueless idiots think is owed, the judgement was $320. So, for years these fools have had an outstanding $320 judgement ruining their credit without bothering to even learning what they actually owe. So, plaintiff wins half of the judgement, but defendant owes $160 not $2000. After we get that settled, MM deals with the rest of the suit, basically bills from when they lived together she wants him to pay. Nope, like JJ, MM isn't going to act as a divorce court for almost marrieds - she just takes a lot longer explaining it than JJ would. Troll girl does not want to hear that, continues to argue as MM rules and stands to walk away. Oops, in hallterview Doug reminds me that deadbeat defendant also got slammed as a deadbeat dad. Seems he hasn't done anything about demanding his right to visit the daughter, which of course made MM mad, then acted like he was really doing ex a favor when he watched the baby when they lived together. MM DID NOT like him saying he babysat his daughter while mommy was at work, saving her from paying daycare expenses. Then deadbeat daddy tells Doug he's a "great father." plumber screwup: plaintiff says when he needed a plumber to work on his new house he hired a friend who is a plumber. Problem was, the friend was not licensed in the town, so defendant, who is licensed, was hired to pull the permits and oversee the work and was to be paid $1000. At first things go ok, but as time went by defendant stopped responding when there were questions and/or inspections needed. Says one day defendant shows up unannounced, kerfuffle, cussing, defendant pulls out, taking the $750 worth of permits with him. Plaintiff has to find new licensed plumber, who has to get all new permits, to check the work unlicensed guy had done. And now he's suing for $1250 ($750 for wasted permits and $500 deposit). Of course defendant's story is different. He says he has text message on day of kerfuffle that shows visit was not unannounced. Also, he says John, the plumber friend, is not a plumber at all, just a maintenance worker... uh, that's not on plaintiff, if he had a problem with John doing the work why take a grand and put his name and license on the line - oh and it turns out he had worked similar jobs with John in the past. Then, he disputes the fee, says it was $1500, not $1000. Ah, now's when MM asks for a contract - which of course was all verbal and among friends. Oh, and he has a countersuit, saying he's still owed money and wants money for slander. Countersuit is tossed. Since defendant did do some work during the good times MM doesn'the give plaintiff everything he wants, but orders defendant to pay $900. dry cleaners case: plaintiff wants dry cleaners to buy him a new leather jacket. Ah, this a funny. Hefty hefty dude testifies little bitty lady gave him his jacket and tried to whisk him out the door... really, this guy is at least three times her size and she tried to whisk him out. Dude, starting your story that way makes everything you say suspect. Then, when dry cleaning lady starts testifying she agrees the jacket was damaged. We get a little tutorial on different dry cleaning methods, and defendant questions whether or not the jacket is actually leather since the product care label in the jacket is unclear. Then we get a show and tell with some other jackets - seems dry cleaning lady grabbed some other customers garments off the rack as examples. Ah well, all this is good, but really everybody agrees his jacket was damaged while in defendant's care - no matter what spend she puts on it, he took his jacket to a professional cleaner who ruined it. When we get to the damage portion it sounds like dude is inflating the cost a bit. He has nothing showing what the jacket is worth - instead he shows what a new jacket costs, and says since heus was 3x it costs more. Yeah, but if a new regular size costs $230 it's really reaching asking for $450 for one over a year old. Ah, he wants pain and suffering plus his time to go buy a new one. MM gives him $122. Ah, defendant wanted to add something during the ruling, but MM didn't let her. I thought it was going to be the stanear tiny disclaimer where the cleaner limits liability. Nope, she has some statute where a cleaner is not responsible if the cleaning label is unclear. 4 Link to comment
AngelaHunter December 28, 2016 Share December 28, 2016 57 minutes ago, SRTouch said: Short little troll (looks like a troll doll with hair parted in middle) with violet lips suing ex, OMG, I was thinking the same thing - that a bridge is missing its troll. So sordid - eviction, back rent owed, damages done to the place, he loses his minimal job, her "going crazy" when she finds he has someone else. All that made it the optimal time to "find out" she was pregnant. But, sadly, they "wasn't makin' no common ground" (other than the child which ties them together forever even though he doesn't bother trying to see his daughter) so he split. Another woman really wanted him. It seems JM is also fed up with this "playing house" nonsense, so tells her tough luck for the money she now wants from years ago, since Romeo moved on to greener pastures. 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: dry cleaners case: plaintiff wants dry cleaners to buy him a new leather jacket. But he only wore it twice, which was changed to once. Thanks Hall Doug, for asking what we wanted to know: Why would someone take a garment to the cleaner when they wore it only once? It's not like he wears green every day, you know. Oh, well, his father smokes so the jacket smelled, or he wanted a big windfall for his "pain and suffering" at the stiffness of the jacket. Whatever. I've had clothes ruined - some I've ruined myself. I may have been irritated or regretful, but never did I feel as though I had pain or suffered over them. 3 Link to comment
BubblingKettle December 29, 2016 Share December 29, 2016 15 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: But he only wore it twice, which was changed to once. Thanks Hall Doug, for asking what we wanted to know: Why would someone take a garment to the cleaner when they wore it only once? It's not like he wears green every day, you know. Oh, well, his father smokes so the jacket smelled, or he wanted a big windfall for his "pain and suffering" at the stiffness of the jacket. Whatever. I've had clothes ruined - some I've ruined myself. I may have been irritated or regretful, but never did I feel as though I had pain or suffered over them. That man was beyond butthurt over that ugly jacket. He even thought it was appropriate to call the police to the scene of the dry cleaners! Imagining the officer taking the report...."So sir, you're saying that the jacket is now crunchy, and it has lost its sheen?" And I don't know how a very large jacket with real leather parts would only cost $230. That seems awfully low. So, that led me to wonder if the woman was lying about conferring with her leather specialist (wouldn't the specialist have been able to tell pleather/counterfeit right away?). The dry cleaner should have done a little industry research and built her defense about the prevalence of incorrect labeling. Legally, dry cleaners have to follow the instructions based on the label, so she may have been able to create some doubt by pointing the finger at the manufacturer. 2 Link to comment
SRTouch December 29, 2016 Share December 29, 2016 (edited) chameleon painting of NY: persnickety plaintiff wants his money back after purchasing an original painting from artist. At the onset this seems a slam dunk with plaintiff going home with painting and no money. What happened, he sees a 36x36 inch painting online, and decides it would look nice in his place. So, he negotiates, gets it at a 50% discount, and they meet up at a public parking lot to make the exchange. He checks it out, likes what he sees, and pays her $300. Then he gets buyer's remorse, decides the colors don't really match his dècor. Somehow, lighting or whatever, the picture "changed colors" on the way to his place. So he wants to rewind and undo the deal. Things get a little crazy from that point, as he starts chasing lady artist to get a refund. She met him in a public place because she doesn't want crazed nuts knowing her address, but he tracks her down and shows up at her home. He really wouldn't have a case... except it seems at one point she agreed to undo the sale. Not only that, they set a meet to exchange painting for the refund, and when he gets there she's a noshow. And, that's what loses her case, and sort of excuses his harrassment/stalking behavior. lost car keys: plaintiff is decked out in a sort of retro 50's sloppy look - don't know if that's an actual look or just something I made up. Anyway, he's got the combed back hair, white shirt and black coat and tie of an extra in a Frank Sinatra movie, but I've always thought the too-big collar and loose tie just looks sloppy. Anyway, Swifty took his year old Audi to a shop to get a dent repair. Thing has keyless start, so when he takes it to the carwash after picking it up after picking it up and can't find the key he decides it must have been lost at the shop. He figures the key must have been somewhere in the shop, but close enough to the car so that it started when he hopped in to drive away. Calls up the now closed shop, and owner turns around and, after calling wife to let her know he'll be late for supper, meets Swifty and lets Swifty look around for the missing key. Really has no case, just an unproven theory - or should that be a hypothesis. Shop owner defendant is also a typecast extra from casting - this time a foreign car shop owner, accent, sunglasses on top of head, jacket over crew neck shirt with chain necklace showing - came well prepared to debunk the theory. First off he has a video of a like model audi: Key inside car - it starts, held out the window - won't start, inside - car starts. We didn't hear it, but he evidently called the audi help line pretending to be an audi owner who couldn't find the key, and he was prepared to play a recording of the answer debunking plaintiff. (Well, maybe not the actual recording - he gave the court a copy of an online "chat".) Ok, plaintiff's case is toast, but MM asks why he thinks the shop owes for two keys instead of the one they allegedly lost - well, your honor, I've really always wanted two... yeah right, MM says, she's always wanted $10 million. tenants want back security: This time defendants (strange character who says he's a first time renter, implying everybody back home in Alabama own their homes or live in places owned by a relative) are arguing landlord knew they were smokers, so he should forgive the damage of nicotine stained walls/ceiling and old stinky cigarette smell. I could see that going either way. I think the idea that landlord should just write it off is nonsense. I used to do apartment maintenance. Two heavy smokers in an apartment for over a year, I guarantee walls needed painting, probably ceiling, too, and wouldn't be surprised to have to put on two coats. Ah, but landlord isn't just citing smoke damage. They left behind furniture, dirty blinds, broke something or other (mixing cookie dough so not sure what it was) gave no 30 day notice, missed a month rent, had a dog but never paid pet fee, etc etc - really, smoke damage is just the start. These plaintiffs are really fixated on the damage from cigarettes. They are quick to admit to the other stuff, but agrue no way should they be charged for smoking. Nah, nah, nah, that residue on the blinds is BBQ sauce and dirt not nicotine and smoke residue. Yeah, didn't give 30 day notice, left sofa that took two guys to get out of basement, broke the whatever, etc, but he knew we smoked. Oh, and the dog was a point of contention. Landlord says it was their dog and has letters from other tenants saying they claimed it, never leashed it, let it dig up the neighbor's flowers and crap all over - but tenants insist it wasn't their dog, but owned by a friend and frequent visitor. All well, neither side gets what they want. Plaintiffs not only don't get the $2200 they sued for, but end up paying landlord. Defendant appears very well prepared, brought the offending dirty blind and lots of pictures (mounted on trifold posters), but has some holes in his countersuit. Turns out he's asking for stuff that he doesn't have good receipts for. On top of that, MM tells him he's making some claims based on faulty understanding of the law. He ends up getting almost $500, plus the deposit he gets to keep, short of the over 2 grand he wanted. Strange hallterview interview with plaintiff. He says he's okay with the decision, he just wanted to expose the underhanded tactics of landlords. Hmmm, must have missed that part, seemed to me he didn't live up to common tenant responsibilities. Oh well, time to preheat the oven and bake them cookies. Edited December 29, 2016 by SRTouch Change what to want 4 Link to comment
BubblingKettle December 29, 2016 Share December 29, 2016 The Lost Car Keys kid was such an aloof dope, and I was pleasantly surprised that the gold-chain-wearing defendant created such a solid defense. He even doubled up his defense by providing a video and a chat session with Audi customer service! The plaintiffs in the third case were pinging my BS meter -- off the charts! The man was trying to be so "down home," with his baloney about 'people in Alabama always own their homes. No one rents. And parents give homes to their kids.' And I think he went back to the 80's to retrieve his best pair of Zubaz pants for court. The woman seemed like she had a bit of 'crackish ways' (to quote Judge Mathis) with her jitters and endless excuses. I appreciate JMM's willingness to read neighbors' letters (unlike Judge Judy), and I enjoyed hearing the neighbor's account of the plantiff bragging about her new pet pit bull and the dog trampling on her flowerbed and crapping on her lawn. "Nooo, it was the laaaadyyyy next doooor's dog." Ugh shut up. They annoyed me. I would have given the defendant the full amount he felt he was owed. Thankfully, I have never moved into an apt/house with smoke smells embedded in the walls/floors, but I can only imagine the pain in the butt it must be to eradicate the stench. 7 Link to comment
AngelaHunter December 29, 2016 Share December 29, 2016 Quote The Lost Car Keys kid was such an aloof dope, and I was pleasantly surprised that the gold-chain-wearing defendant created such a solid defense. I so enjoyed this rerun. Francesco is the Man! He not only brought iron-clad evidence and had a great accent, but in spite of English being a second language, spoke better than 95% of the litigants for whom English is a first language. It could be 99%, if we count the last "We had a greement on the partment" plaintiff. I'm not sure. 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: persnickety plaintiff wants his money back after purchasing an original painting from artist. I just never figured out why the artist agreed to refund that irritating, douche-bag-haired PIA, especially after he beat her down from 600$ to 300$. He saw the painting online and he saw it in person, and most people don't buy art because the colours match their furniture. He better stick to buying his artwork from Walmart. I'd pay the 600$ for that painting. I loved it. I bet the artist sold it immediately after this show aired - maybe even before she left the set. 59 minutes ago, CoolWhipLite said: The woman seemed like she had a bit of 'crackish ways' (to quote Judge Mathis) with her jitters and endless excuses. She made ME nervous, with her googly eyes and Jack-in-the-Box hopping around. 8 Link to comment
SRTouch December 29, 2016 Share December 29, 2016 (edited) 19 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: I just never figured out why the artist agreed to refund that irritating, douche-bag-haired PIA, especially after he beat her down from 600$ to 300$. He saw the painting online and he saw it in person, and most people don't buy art because the colours match their furniture. He better stick to buying his artwork from Walmart. I'd pay the 600$ for that painting. I loved it. I bet the artist sold it immediately after this show aired - maybe even before she left the set. Yep, too accommodating for her own good. She was well within her rights to just say "NO REFUNDS!" Then she was to quick to admit to offering a refund when he couldn't find the text on his phone. Heck, she needs to watch more courtroom drama on TV - say as little as possible, never volunteer information, and let the other side prove their own case. Edited December 30, 2016 by SRTouch Spelling 3 Link to comment
AZChristian December 29, 2016 Share December 29, 2016 1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said: I so enjoyed this rerun. Francesco is the Man! He not only brought iron-clad evidence and had a great accent, but in spite of English being a second language, spoke better than 95% of the litigants for whom English is a first language. It could be 99%, if we count the last "We had a greement on the partment" plaintiff. I'm not sure. Mr. AZC and I still can't figure out that case. If that kid didn't have the keys in the car (or in his POCKET), wouldn't the car have stopped about 6 feet from the auto repair shop? I think he found them in his pocket on the way back to the shop to meet up with Francesco, but was too embarrassed to admit it, and figured he would try to parlay it into a second (which would have been a third, actually) set of keys. Good job, Francesco! 2 Link to comment
SRTouch December 30, 2016 Share December 30, 2016 (edited) Cops/Roadhouse crossover: remember the old movie, Roadhouse, where Patrick Swayze and Sam Elliott are high priced bouncers brought in to wrest control of a bar back from rowdy drunks? Well, defendant in this case is part of the rowdy crowd who lives for the weekend when he can go out, get drunk, and have a good old barroom brawl. What happens in this case, plaintiff goes out with his friends to watch the rowdies, but parks WAY back in the corner away from where he figures the rowdies will be. Rowdy defendant and his crew get into it with some other bunch of drunks and their fight spills out into parking lot. Course they don't want to fight right in front of bar, so they take the brawl into the back where... you guessed it... plaintiff parked to keep his car safe... maybe that's why no one parked in that area of the lot. Somebody calls the cops - probably the bouncers - and when the cops pull up they put on a show worthy of the Cops show with drunks scattering everywhere, jumping fences running all over. Defendant gives up when he hears his drunk brother get nabbed. Nobody gets arrested, so it's one of those type of anything goes towns, but a report is written up. This is where defendant's night of fun goes wrong. Yeah, he has no problem admitting his idea of fun is going out, getting blasted, having a good fight, and running from the cops. Ok, best not to get caught, but no big thing, this town doesn't charge you for a little hell raising. Ah, but this time an innocent bystander, the plaintiff, parked in the fighting ring and a witness saw defendant get bounced off plaintiff's car - even worse, the witness knows the plaintiff and is willing to tell the cops what he saw. Poor fun loving defendant is on that proverbial slippery slope. He figures he's safe, because there's not enough evidence to prove his little skirmish caused the damage to the car. He even tells the judge there's not enough evidence, a witness isn't enough, he wants video. MM informs him a witness is enough, and proceeds to give a little lesson on why he can be held responsible - she missed the part about a civil preponderance of evidence versus criminal beyond reasonable doubt. She rules against party boy and gives a lesson on the dangers of his good time fights, but it's in one ear and out the other, as he tells Doug in hallterview that the lesson he's taking from this is to drink less - not to stop going out and getting in fights at the bar, just drink a little less and don't get caught. Plaintiff learned an even better lesson - don't park your nice car at the local rowdy bar. Heck, I knew that... remember Swayze bought an old junker to go to the bar in, leaving his nice car parked safely in storage... thinking of the scene where he comes out and finds a street sign through his windshield and slashed tires. feuding pastors fight over church space: silly case, hardly worth trying to recap. What happened was one pastor rents space in the other's building to hold services and bible studies. This is a multi-service building, and plaintiff only has the place part time - Sunday mornings, Tuesday for bible studies, 1 Saturday a month. The landlord pastor holds her services Sunday afternoons and has other stuff going at other times. They get into a turf war, with renting pastor unhappy that members of the other church are on the premises when she's doing her thing, then landlord pastor had the gall to rearrange the church, putting pulpit at the other end of the building without consulting her. As part of her attempt to get out of the lease, the black pastor renter plays the race card against oriental landlord pastor, saying landlord asked one of her little girl worshippers why she was lighter skinned than her sisters. Oh, and let's not forget, this is the pastor who feels put upon when the landlord pastor asks renter bible study group to pray with/for a mentally challenged child. Ok, don't know if that is true or not, each side denies other's charges, but seems lots of minorities exhibit a lot of prejudice. Anyway, I lost interest and zipped to Doug in the hallway and find that nobody wins. Both these pastors have trouble speaking English, but at least landlord has the excuse of English as a second language. In a lot of communities folks get by speaking their primary language. I get speaking a different language depending on the situation, but if English is your primary language I figure you should have some concept of grammar... talk however you want at home or with friends, but know enough to speak properly when you go to court. basement Web designer case: plaintiff hires Web designer off Craigslist then ends up suing when guy can't deliver as promised. Really big money case, Plaintiff wants $113 and defendant has $190 counterclaim - what nobody ever heard of pain and suffering? Only remotely funny part is when we hear the story of how defendant had to interrupt his session with his paying client, the plaintiff, when he gets called to dinner. Anyway, plaintiff had an established Web site advertising his DJ event business, but was losing his service provider. He hires ponytail basement dude (don't know if guy really works out of basement) to switch his site to a different provider. But ponytail dude can't get his system to recognize the saved info and transfer it. Ok, could be a bad drive or some proprietary issue with the original site switching over to the new. Problem arrises when dude can't deliver and not only wants to keep the money, but wants money for his time and being late to dinner, which pissed off the wife, who was giving him the stink eye for talking to a paying customer instead a eating... hmmm, maybe his home office isn't the basement, but at the kitchen table. Quick ruling, give the man back his $113, and forget ridiculous counterclaim. Hallterview has our basement nerd saying obviously judge doesn't understand technology and plaintiff is a big liar. Plaintiff says he was happy with second craigslist we designer, then sadly misses the opportunity to get a little free advertising by naming his site. Edited December 30, 2016 by SRTouch Wording changed 3 Link to comment
AngelaHunter December 30, 2016 Share December 30, 2016 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: remember the old movie, Roadhouse, where Patrick Swayze and Sam Elliott are high priced bouncers brought in to wrest control of a bar back from rowdy drunks? I just wish Sam Elliot had been there, to knock a few thick heads together. This is a case I wish had been on JJ. She wouldn't have wasted all that time on these morons - all so dumb they could hardly get out one coherent sentence - acted as though anything they did was funny, and would have screamed at plaintiff, "Stop saying PRETTY MUCH!" 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: feuding pastors fight over church space: silly case, hardly worth trying to recap. Really. These loving, forgiving religious people - who knew they were so petty and money-hungry? 2K for "aggravation?"I know nothing about this, but shouldn't a pastor, reverend, minister or whatever (who is there to offer guidance) have at least a modicum of education, or can just anyone declare him/herself as pastor, etc? "We was", "They wasn't", "We brung." Yikes. 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: basement Web designer case: Ah, yes - the bargain basement Penn Jillette wannabe. He needed his 113.50$ so badly he was willing to expose himself as a scammer before millions of people. Not his fault he couldn't deliver any of what the plaintiff paid him for. He was hungry! He was probably sitting there salivating for his dinner like one of Pavlov's dogs and his client should have understood that, buggered off and stopped bothering him. Chow time waits for no man (or UPload!). All his parables in the hall meant nothing, and Doug sent him on his way with a "You lost." Hee! 3 Link to comment
SRTouch January 2, 2017 Share January 2, 2017 bad roomer: as I get ready to start looking for a rental for my empty third bedroom, TPC shows just how bad a roomer can be. This time, older homeowner rents to younger guy on a short term basis, as guy is expecting some accident settlement. Turns out to be a bad fit, young guy something of a slob (in older guy's eyes, but he thinks he's neat). Four months into the short term rental, an argument over a ring around the bathtub ends in a fistfight, old guy arrested and banned from his property due to restraining order (says he camped out in his pickup truck). Really, cops pretty much had to arrest the dude, as the renter had a busted lip and old dude admits to first punch. After two weeks, owner allowed back into his house, only to find place a mess. Now, he wants three thousand for property damage, and renter wants 3 thousand because during the fight he got a busted lip - not just a busted lip, but he claims he's been disfigured as there's a tiny scar inside his mouth. Everybody has well rehearsed stories prepared, though defendant has to coach his gf a little after being sure to point out she's "the only witness." Now, we get to hear a little about the damages. Plaintiff brought along his buddy the contractor. He wants a grand for a hole in the wall (come on, dude, the picture shows all he needs is a drywall patch and touch up paint), another grand for peeling wallpaper that they claim was caused by defendant running air conditioner constantly while owner was locked out for 9 days, and finally, more moisture damage, a final thousand for damaged posters (but electric bill shows no excessive usage). Then we get the horribly disfigured defendant talking about his lip. He has a tale about his plastic surgeon visit, but no evidence to show. MM calls him up so she can get a close looks... hmmm, she thinks she can see a little bump. Then she explains the whole domestic violence-obvious injury scenario - if one side is bleeding, the other side goes to jail and can get a restraining order... sure, it sucks to be banned from your own house, but don't bop the tenant. Pretty much a wash. Both sides suing for their state's max of 3 grand, MM believes both sides were wrong says they're both pathetic, offsetting penalties, nobody gets anything. bad paint on used car: plaintiff buys a used car, a 2000 toyata Echo, and now says she was given a verbal lifetime warranty on the paint. Little old lady plaintiff has plenty of time on her hands, apparantly, as she's already been to the BBB, DA, the DMV, and now small claims. Silly case that shouldn't have made the cut, but than the first case ran long and they must have need a filler. Two and a half years after buying the car, the paint peels off the roof, so she wants $1400 to repaint it. Surprise, she gets nothing. nope, not watching a case about pit bull killing a neighbor's kitty. Frank, let's dress Silly cat in his harness and go out. (Frank is my senior boy kitty who sticks close, comes when called (most of the time) and goes out without a leash. 2 Link to comment
SRTouch January 2, 2017 Share January 2, 2017 (edited) Guess it's crazy double pistol season again Edited January 2, 2017 by SRTouch Double posts Link to comment
Jamoche January 2, 2017 Share January 2, 2017 18 minutes ago, SRTouch said: bad roomer: as I get ready to start looking for a rental for my empty third bedroom I have friends in a college town and they've had the best luck renting to grad students. Especially foreign ones. 1 Link to comment
AZChristian January 2, 2017 Share January 2, 2017 As soon as I saw the wrinkled shirt the plaintiff was wearing, my thought was, "He's not as neat as he claims to be. A neat freak would not leave the house looking like that, especially if he was trying to make a good impression." 2 Link to comment
DoctorK January 3, 2017 Share January 3, 2017 (edited) Quote especially if he was trying to make a good impression." Well the defendant didn't show particularly well either, having his sleeves rolled up halfway to exhibit his oh so appropriate for court tats, and the gallon of motor oil he used to slick down his visibly thinning hair. If he ever washed that hair, I believe that he would clog the drain with petroleum residue. At least he didn't tear the sleeves off his shirt to look manly for JM. Edited January 3, 2017 by DoctorK defendant and plaintiff are not interchangeable 2 Link to comment
SRTouch January 3, 2017 Share January 3, 2017 grumpy old dude whacks pomeranian on head: ok, didn't watch the rerun, 'cause I hated them both first time around. Old dude is out walking his leashed dog, carrying his cane. Plaintiff is nicely dressed younger girl, just has no idea of proper court room attire. Old dude is known in neighborhood for walking around banging on fences where dogs bark at him as he's walking his dog, a border collie mix. So, little pomeranian charges old dude, yapping away, as he walks by. Pomeranian sneaks under the fence, and old dude whacks him a good one, causing pom to lose an eye. I hate arrogant old dude who thinks he has the right to bully his way around the 'hood... part of his defense is to say the AKC description of the pomeranian breed is "big dog in little body, known for attacking others by going for the throat," so it's a self defense case. Young plaintiff is neglectful dog owner whose poorly trained dog was out of control. Typical of many dog owners, she's ignored basic obedience training and never bothered to dog proof her yard. Like I said - I hate these litigants. Plaintiff loses because her dog was out of control, but I'd like someone to whack old dude a few times. expensive watch battery bungle: plaintiff has bulgari watch that needs a battery, so she takes it defendant's local shop. Series of "I Love Lucy" type goofs at the shop, they lose a screw, all the employees crawl around looking for it, customer leaves, they call her back 2 hours later saying they've found it, nope wrong screw, but if you leave it we'll make it right. Customer loses all confidence in shop and takes it (with the back taped together and in a plastic baggy to keepmore parts from getting lost) to authorized bulgari shop. The authorized shop bill is over $385, and she wants butterfinger shop owner to pay the bill. MM decides plaintiff was within her rights to not trust butterfingers, so she says defendant needs to foot the bill to make her whole and undo damage caused by his shops goof. Plaintiff gets $370, the bulgari bill minus the $15 for the battery change she needed anyway. tenant wants back deposit: JJ would have been yelling "JUST MOVE!" from the get go on this one. Dude lived for 4 years in a place he now claims was a dump that he couldn't get defendant landlord to maintain. Course, the only complaint he can show, the landlord sent maintenance to fix the problem. This is another of those cases where we see a difference in the local rent laws. Many time the judge's on court TV tell the landlord that losing a month rent between tenants to make it ready for their new tenant is just the cost of doing business. Here, though, the lease says landlord can start showing the apartment during the last month of a tenant's lease so when old tenant moves out they can quickly move in the new. According to the lease, the old tenant his to cooperate and keep it clean so the landlord can show the place. Today's landlord says this tenant was a slob, the place a stinky mess and kitchen covered in grease. So, place wasn't move in ready when he left, as per the lease, so she kept the deposit to give her time to clean up, show the place, and re-rent it. Sort of a wacky rental laws in my opinion, and I know in some places it wouldn't fly, but MM tells us where they are the landlord has the right to show the apartment, they just have to give the tenant notice. Ah, MM agrees pictures shows place dirty, but defendant has no receipts for the cleanup, paint and new carpet - and besides some of that would be normal wear. Plaintiff gets back half the deposit, $700, while defendant gets $700 for the cleanup up and the time it took to get it ready to rent. 2 Link to comment
SRTouch January 4, 2017 Share January 4, 2017 dueling exes: Breaking up after 5 years and 3yo son, almost marrieds sue looking for payback of money spent during the 5 years as well as damage to property during/after the kerfuffle. Just listening and watching these two I can easily see their fights turning to screaming, property slashing affairs. Defendant claims he went to court and got an order to get his property, but when he got there with a police escort everything was piled in a storage shed. She, otoh, has said promissory note he signed when she put his motorcycle repairs on her credit card - oh yeah, everything in her name - house, vehicles - so MM asks if he's hiding assets from somebody. MM agrees that the $800+ promissory note needs to be paid, but no way is she ordering him to pay over $300 in interest like she's asking. His property damage is harder. He's asking for over 2 grand. Some what he bought for the house while living there and MM's not dealing with divorce court type stuff. But some is for damage that she probably did cause after the breakup. Problem is, how can the court determine what she damaged and what value to put on it. Really, we saw two pictures of "damaged" property - a scratched 3yo's bike and broken "vintage" stereo speakers. Just how long will a 3yo have a bike before it gets scratched? And, I can look over and see my old 80's Marantz speakers that have been broken for years (someday maybe I'll get around to fixing them) that I keep in a corner acting as a towel-covered end table. MM says sorry, rude, she can't just give you want you want with zero evidence. I feel sorry as we watch the guy get the bad news, then cut over to plaintiff who is looking down and about to start jumping for joy - but don't see the judgement going any other way. busted sewing machine: plaintiff bought used sewing/embroidery machine for $230, found out it needs repair, and wants the seller to pay for the repairs (says she paid $250 in repairs). Defendant says, hold on, plaintiff comes and tested machine, tried it out, liked it, bought it, no warranty ever discussed. Not only no warranty, but turns out the defendant is actually just a neighbor of the actual seller. They live in a senior community and seller is an 80yo who doesn't do craigslist, so defendant volunteered to post and handle the sale, and ended up a co-defendant for her trouble. She says they checked online, and this model sells for between $250-750. Sounds to me like plaintiff still got a good deal even after paying for repairs. Ah well, seems plaintiff called defendant before authorizing the repair, and defendant said she'd talk to the seller. Of course, the seller didn't want to pay $250 in repairs on a machine she sold for $230. To be fair, plaintiff wasn't asking for the whole repair cost, but wanted to renegotiate the deal and get a hundred bucks back. Surprise, MM doesn't give her anything. flooding basement: defendant sold and installed a system to keep plaintiff's basement from flooding, now three years later it floods. Plaintiff claims there's a five year warranty on the sump pump and a lifetime warranty on the water proofing, but defendant isn't honoring the deal after the finished basement flooded. Defendant says no way, pump had a 1 year warranty and it lasted three years. He offered to install a new pump, but says plaintiff has to pay for it, and no way is he paying for damages to the finished basement. Ah ha, a contractor with an actual written contract! Actually, in a round about way, both sides are right. The contractor gave a 1 year warranty, but the pump manufacturer gives a 5 year warranty. So, contractor says plaintiff needs to go after the manufacturer, but plaintiff says his contract was with defendant, so it's up to defendant to make it right. Ah, both sides have written warranties and emails dating back to time of purchase. Sort of refreshing, even if there are differing interpretations of the contracts. Ah, plaintiff is playing word games. Says the manufacturer warranty is actually 3 years, the contractor's representative wrote on the contract the pump warranty was for 5 years, so now contractor has to pay. Whoa, and we find out the manufacturer supplied a replacement pump. Not, MM says it's clear that handwritten note on the contract was talking about the pump warranty from manufacturer, it doesn't matter since they supplied a new pump, and anyway, the pump is a limited warranty and wouldn't cover the thousands in damage to the drywall etc. Ok, at first I thought plaintiff had a good faith claim, but the more he argues with the judge the more he seems to just be trying to get over. Now MM goes into the advertising from the Web site, but really I just think about the "four corners of the contract" and JJ saying "puffing". She doesn't like the misleading Web site ads, but says it doesn't rise to the level of fraud, which it would need to be to have defendant fork over any money. Actually, defendant plays a few word games of his own - took him an awful lot of talking to say he installed a french drain and sump pump. Plaintiff's case is dismissed, even though MM isn't happy with the puffiness on the Web site. 1 Link to comment
DoctorK January 4, 2017 Share January 4, 2017 Quote three years later it floods Wasn't the plaintiff also trying to get paid by the defendant for all of the water damage from the system failure? I doubt that would be covered in any case without a finding of negligence in the installation, just repair or replacement of the failed parts. More fundamentally, I believe that all of the damage that the plaintiff wanted (except the pump which was replaced by the manufacturer) would have been covered by homeowners insurance or flood insurance (which is not just for hurricanes and tsunamis). 2 Link to comment
SRTouch January 5, 2017 Share January 5, 2017 Imported from JJ where I first posted this cell-phone case: Yet another entitled brat sticking someone with a big bill after ditching a cell plan. This time woody woodpecker hair shows up with dreadlock bf and sees nothing wrong with sticking it to cousin who thought he was being said good guy while saving both a little money by putting her on his plan. Story is plaintiff works at Best Buy, so he got a 25% discount and they could get a buy 1 get 1 deal. Well, as we've already learned, many (maybe all) of these deals are contingent on a contract which locks you in to a service deal. If you quit early, that free stuff bites you and you end up paying big time. That's what happens again with this case. Defendant gets the free phone, but it's only free if used in connection with plaintiff's 2 year plan. She takes the phone elsewhere, leaving him to pay for it because it's no longer free, and of course his big savings are gone and he has early termination of a line, etc She sees nothing wrong with stabbing couz in the back, hey, she got hers, no skin off her nose, and besides, she told him he doesn't even have the phone anymore, she sold it when she switched plans. Totally dislikable selfish girl, when MM asks if she feels bad she stuck couz with the bill, she looks down and smirks, looks up and smiles and murmurs no, then when pressed she says really it doesn't bother her. Hey, couz even got her a job where he worked - course that shouldn't count for anything because she ditched the job too. Ah, I've heard enough, this girl is terrible. Last thought, though I didn't watch long enough to see, as i remember couz is the guy whose family turned against him cause he's gay, so he can't get any help from family to force deadbeat selfish girl to do right. tenant/landlord dispute: this is the wackydoodle who says, yes she signed a lease, but then she "rejected" it so she figures she doesn't need to abide by any legally biding contracts. So, even though there's a lease which she hasn't lived up to, now she's in court fighting for what she thinks is right. Just to be a little farther out there, the defendant landlord took her to court and got her evicted, so she figures that should be worth a little something. Unfortunately, landlord was pulling a few fast steps of her own, renting a condo that wasn't ready for occupancy in exchange for reduced rent and the adult son, a contractor, of wacky doing some reno work. Landlord actually had both a lease and a contract with contractor son, but like many renovations the work dragged on and on, and finally she got tired of the monthly reduced rent and thousands of dollars paid for materials and his labor. So, after the six month lease, she says enough, and presents plaintiff with new lease at regular rent, no discount. This is where plaintiff signs, then 4 days later later decides her signature doesn't mean she has to abide by the lease. So, when MM tries to ask plaintiff about this condo, plaintiff tries the old talking over method of saying what she wants, and trying to ignore what the lady in the black dress is asking. Part of her explanation of why she shouldn't be held to that pesky paper is that she signed without reading it. So, we get treated to MM yelling "Press the off button!" as she goes on and on ticking up the terrible contents of the lease on her fingers. Eventually, probably because she couldn't take the loud wackydoodle, MM goes back and reads plaintiff's filing paper aloud. MM is ready to rule on wackydoodle, but defendant's counterclaim still has some questions - mainly that old "not ready for occupancy" issue. Ah, can she keep the deposit and charge back rent on a condo without that important little Certificate of Occupancy? Now we have the housing court and her iffy lawyer doing stuff I don't understand. There's a signed lease saying rent is $1200, yet her lawyer put that the rent was $600 in the court papers. So, the court doesn't know what the rent is. Three more months after the eviction was filed at half rent, then no rent at all. Hey, now we learn there was a settlement - so why are they on TV, trying for another bite of that proverbial apple. MM is about done with both these fools. She tells us flat out, the countersuit for back rent is gone... no Certificate no rent collection. Only question is the deposit. It can't be used for rent, but was there any damage done which tenant has to pay for. Landlord says yes, the new appliances were damaged, either during installation by fumble fingered son, or the tenant, lost custom blinds. Ah, no pictures or any of those pesky receipt. Plaintiff admits to some damage, but says it was no big deal denting the new appliances and covering chips in the finish with magic marker is just fine, after all they weren't expensive new appliances. We pause a moment in the damage claim portion while MM goes over the settlement to decide whether now's the time to talk about the lawyer fees from the settlement case. I kind of think the judge was stretching to let defendant keep the full deposit. She ended up going back to the original lease to award the lawyer fee, because, to my mind anyway, the settlement agreement decided the second contested lease. Don't know, on the one hand, technically plaintiff paid a bunch of rent that she shouldn't have had to, but then no where near what she signed agreeing to. Final thought - wackydoodle is a nurse who "loved the apartment"... yeah a freshly renovated $1200 a month condo with new appliances for only $600 Professional government scammer wants his money: not from the government, though, this guy helps others file papers, and when one of his former clients dumps him he still wants money. Really, this quasi legal aide dude, a paralegal, thinks he can get pain and suffering because someone he filed papers for didn't pay him. Ah, then as part of his evidence as proof he did work, he presents evidence of forgery and fraud. Uh, is there any need to watch after that preview before going to commercial.. well not if you watch to see the merits of a case - but promising if you watch to see people make fools of themselves. Here the paralegal dude explains how his written agreement was that he would file these papers to get government money for defendant's son, and when the money came he was to be paid $1000. Immediate first question, did she get the money? No, she didn't. So, he should be paid - why? Ah, but judge, he did work, just look here at this letter he sent in - yep the fraudulent claim he wrote that she never saw where he pretends to be mom writing on her son's behalf. Uh dude, that doesn't help you. Bye bye, nonsense case dismissed. 3 Link to comment
Jamoche January 5, 2017 Share January 5, 2017 33 minutes ago, SRTouch said: Ah, I've heard enough, this girl is terrible. Last thought, though I didn't watch long enough to see, as i remember couz is the guy whose family turned against him cause he's gay, so he can't get any help from family to force deadbeat selfish girl to do right. Yep, JM, very sympathetically and tactfully, "Is it because of your orientation?", and he's all "yeah, probably, I haven't seen them in years" like he wants to give them more benefit of the doubt than I would. 2 Link to comment
AngelaHunter January 5, 2017 Share January 5, 2017 Quote Yet another entitled brat sticking someone with a big bill after ditching a cell plan. These cases always seem to involve people with minimal jobs (or no jobs) who can't afford to live on their own or pay their own bills, yet need and have the latest phone. Of course they always think the phone is free with a certain plan, which it isn't. It's like the "Rent to Own" thing, where people end up paying three times the value of the item, but are so short-thinking it's just "OMG, it's only 12$ a month!) Anyway, entitled def with her badly straightened, Ronald McDonald locks and her silly boyfriend who agrees that his squeeze shouldn't pay for her own damned phone, need a reality check. People - stop putting expensive cellphones/plans in your name for other people! Don't do that! It's stupid. 50 minutes ago, SRTouch said: this is the wackydoodle who says, yes she signed a lease, but then she "rejected" it so she figures she doesn't need to abide by any legally biding contracts. Paraphrased: "I'll be honest witcha, yer honor. I couldn't be bothered reading the contract I signed." I'd like to know under what theory she thinks she can sign a contract and then decide "I reject that" at a later date. Her loud, nasally, monotone voice (which she used to constantly talk over JM) made my ears bleed. Aside from that, I've had my fridge for about 15 years, and somehow managed to avoid putting huge dents in it, and also avoided smashing chunks out of my stovetop. I guess when it's someone else's property, who gives a shit if you wreck it? She can take her loser son - the licensed contractor who is so successful he has to move in with Mommy - and live someplace else. 55 minutes ago, SRTouch said: Professional government scammer wants his money: I probably shouldn't laugh because it's not really funny, but I had to chuckle when JM was reading, verbatim, the scamming letter from the "paralegal" (who was dressed like The Nutty Professor) out loud. It was semi-illiterate, as was his speech. How do you get to be a paralegal, anyway? Surely a basic command of the language is a requirement? No 15K lottery, sucked from the taxpayers' pockets, is being handed out today, or probably any day. Actually, I was a little surprised. The claim must have been outrageous since we've seen disability payments being dispensed for much, much less. ("I tripped and fell five years ago so I have PTSD and angoraphobia which prevents me from working but didn't stop me from flying across the country to appear on national television.") 4 Link to comment
Jamoche January 6, 2017 Share January 6, 2017 The "paralegal" reminded me of "Sovereign Citizens" - people who have a cargo-cult-like belief that if they just use the big words that lawyers use, they will magically become lawyers themselves. I don't believe he knew what half the words he used actually meant. 4 Link to comment
Guest January 6, 2017 Share January 6, 2017 And to add one more facet of the cellphone deadbeat...who the hell are these people talking to? I have a husband, sister and a group of friends. That being said, I am not on the phone with them all day (maybe too, because I have a job) but even so....I wouldn't be yakking to them all day and that goes for my husband too. What do these deadbeat idiots possibly say to one another throughout the day? I just got up? I just went to the bathroom? What? I am baffled as to people wrecking cars, falling in fountains, walking out in front of traffic and having neck/spine issues all in the name of 'conversating' with their peeps. Put the phone down and if you can't at least pay your own damn bill. Cellphones - the downfall of civilization. Link to comment
SRTouch January 6, 2017 Share January 6, 2017 16 minutes ago, PsychoKlown said: And to add one more facet of the cellphone deadbeat...who the hell are these people talking to? I have a husband, sister and a group of friends. That being said, I am not on the phone with them all day (maybe too, because I have a job) but even so....I wouldn't be yakking to them all day and that goes for my husband too. What do these deadbeat idiots possibly say to one another throughout the day? I just got up? I just went to the bathroom? What? I am baffled as to people wrecking cars, falling in fountains, walking out in front of traffic and having neck/spine issues all in the name of 'conversating' with their peeps. Put the phone down and if you can't at least pay your own damn bill. Cellphones - the downfall of civilization. As long as we're on bad cell etiquette, one of my pet peeves are people who either continue yakking away, or answer the phone when a real live person is standing in front of them waiting for them to acknowledge them. If you're on the phone in a line and get to the head of the line, tell whoever you're talking to you'll call back or hang on a minute while you take care of something - DO NOT continue your phone conversation and treat the person in front of you like an ATM. 5 Link to comment
AngelaHunter January 6, 2017 Share January 6, 2017 1 hour ago, PsychoKlown said: What do these deadbeat idiots possibly say to one another throughout the day? I just got up? I just went to the bathroom? What? Don't forget, "Here's a picture of what I had for lunch," and probably all dreary garbage they post about all day long on FB. I was at the dollar store and a mature woman was walking around the aisles, loudly chatting on her phone about the things she was buying and was thinking of buying - at a dollar store! That information just could not wait. It's an illness. 1 hour ago, PsychoKlown said: Cellphones - the downfall of civilization. Yeah, because rabid political correctness hasn't quite done it yet. 5 Link to comment
Brattinella January 6, 2017 Share January 6, 2017 55 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said: Don't forget, "Here's a picture of what I had for lunch," and probably all dreary garbage they post about all day long on FB. I was at the dollar store and a mature woman was walking around the aisles, loudly chatting on her phone about the things she was buying and was thinking of buying - at a dollar store! That information just could not wait. It's an illness. Yeah, because rabid political correctness hasn't quite done it yet. It truly is an illness. I feel quite lucky, actually, that I am an old fart and will never be hooked on these things. 6 Link to comment
Jamoche January 6, 2017 Share January 6, 2017 Whaaaat... first the guy needs a $75K loan to cover back taxes, but then that's not enough so he needs an extra $90K - at what point do you look at him and go "not throwing good money after bad, thanks!" I have no idea what's going on - not for the usual reason of the litigants being incoherent, but the opposite - they're tossing around legal and financial terms like crazy. 2 Link to comment
DoctorK January 7, 2017 Share January 7, 2017 Quote so he needs an extra $90K I was a little confused, I thought that he needed 90K total which would have been the original 75K plus another 15K. I may well have this wrong, I was so distracted by the shape of the defendant's head - I have seen square, oval, heart shaped, but this is the first time I have seen egg shaped with the big side down. Even his ears slanted outward. (Not that I have a lot of room to talk, the kindest view would be that I am rolly-polly, and I am not jolly in spite of the white beard.) 2 Link to comment
BubblingKettle January 7, 2017 Share January 7, 2017 23 hours ago, PsychoKlown said: And to add one more facet of the cellphone deadbeat...who the hell are these people talking to? I wonder what their talk-selfie ratio is. I'm thinking that a lot of these litigants use their pricey phones to take A LOT of selfies. And don't forget about the data that is used while posting misspelled and grammarless trash-talk on people's FB walls. 1 Link to comment
Jamoche January 7, 2017 Share January 7, 2017 38 minutes ago, DoctorK said: I was a little confused, I thought that he needed 90K total which would have been the original 75K plus another 15K. I may well have this wrong, I was so distracted by the shape of the defendant's head - I have seen square, oval, heart shaped, but this is the first time I have seen egg shaped with the big side down. Even his ears slanted outward. (Not that I have a lot of room to talk, the kindest view would be that I am rolly-polly, and I am not jolly in spite of the white beard.) You could be right; it took JM a while to get the story out of him and I got lost in all the back-and-forth. I have seen heads that shape - in stories about Zika babies! 1 Link to comment
SRTouch January 7, 2017 Share January 7, 2017 1 hour ago, Jamoche said: Whaaaat... first the guy needs a $75K loan to cover back taxes, but then that's not enough so he needs an extra $90K - at what point do you look at him and go "not throwing good money after bad, thanks!" I have no idea what's going on - not for the usual reason of the litigants being incoherent, but the opposite - they're tossing around legal and financial terms like crazy. Have to admit I didn't watch today. I had it recorded, but when I started watching I ended up fast forwarding through the whole thing. 1 Link to comment
momtoall January 7, 2017 Share January 7, 2017 54 minutes ago, SRTouch said: I had it recorded, but when I started watching I ended up fast forwarding through the whole thing. Me too!! Link to comment
SRTouch January 9, 2017 Share January 9, 2017 Pleasantly surprised to find new episode today... if only we had new and unusual cases. cell phone bill: MM is a little grumpy today over finding yet another plaintiff suing her ex bf after he takes the fancy new phone and leaves her with the bills to go back to his baby momma. Nothing new or unusual here - but at least they were both understandable - not intelligent, but I understood them. Bf has lousy credit and can't get a new phone. Plaintiff buys him a new phone and puts him on her plan when he leaves his baby momma to move in with her. When asked, she tells us of course there was no plan for a potential breakup, she figured they'd be together forever. Course, what happened was she found out he was still messing around with baby momma, kerfuffle, he moves back to baby momma's bed, and plaintiff is on the hook for hundreds. MM wasn't happy with plaintiff, and definitely wasn't happy with defendant's little dance trying to justify skipping out on the bill, denying it was his phone even though it was in his pocket, the whole "it was a gift, I didn't need it, I had a couple other phones already etc. What really did it though was when he waffles between it was lost/stolen/sold - all while the girl still owed $500 on the thing. repair shop did $2725 of damage to plaintiff's 93 car: plaintiff says he left his car with the defendant, and the mechanics ran it into a fence, messing up his new bumper and screwed up the controls of his heater, window messed up - ah, but this isn't just any old car, this is a customized Toyota kit car made to look like a ferrari (it does look nice in the one quick picture we see - but this guy in a walker could never get in and out of it). Hmmm, maybe that's a little different than the normal silly "clunker worth thousands" case. Plaintiff is a long time customer, always satisfied in the past, but this time they had problems spanning 8 months or so with check engine light coming on after a clutch replacement. Then, the biggy, mechanic hits a fence. So now, it's the check engine light, a messed up bumper, and WTH, a piece of the heater control is broken off the dash and on the floor, oh yeah, the messed up window. Course he has no evidence they did anything, but he figures they MUST have done it. Defendant tells us he's hearing some of these complaints for the first time. He agrees they replaced the clutch, but says way back then customer mentioned the problem with the heater. He says plaintiff bought a different car, and tried to say since they owe for stuff they broke on the old imitation ferrari, just fix the new car free - oh, and he kept upping the amount of claimed damage on the old car to get more done on the new car. Defendant says since they were long time friends, dads were friends when they were kids, and to try to give good customer relations, they were willing to fix some things, like the heater, but the plaintiff was being unreasonable so finally they gave up and came to court. Well, sounds like he was willing to fix stuff plaintiff can't even prove the shop messed up. So, MM orders defendant to pay - not the $2700 plaintiff wants, but the $650 heater control he had offered to fix before the relationship blew up. tenant suing for deposit: once again, best of friends while plaintiff was a tenant but then once she moved out they fight over the deposit - not only the amount withheld, plaintiff wants double. Not a long time tenancy, only 18 monyhs, but as they're getting ready to move lots of texts with tenants offering to fix little things and landlord all friendly, but once they're out all of a sudden those little things that he was saying not to worry about appear as reasonshe to withhold deposit. Oh, wow, never heard such penny ante nonsense. $7 for hooks that used to be in closet?!? $21 for a knob from the deadbolt knob, $1.68 for a hook in the shower (as MM is questioning landlord we hear plaintiff comment about the nickel and dime tactics), broken door stop, cracked plate on electric cover - geez, I'm not hearing any big ticket items, just little normal wear, but plaintiff gets the phone not just for dirty picture speech. I have to remember, he only withheld $440 out of the $2200 deposit, plaintiff is the one tacking double and interest, wanting $1041 when less than $450 was withheld. Ok, more and more I'm swinging over to the landlord side. Yes, he was nickel and diming, but really, taking out $100 worth of shelving and then brining it to court and saying here it is, don'the charge me. Crap in the crawl space that she tries to say was the landlord's, but MM has the text from hubby saying they're leaving stuff in the crawl space. Now I'm feeling landlord felt taken advantage of and put stuff on the list because they pushed him to far - and again he didn't ask for anything he couldn't show, he's got his very detailed list and all kinds of pictures - forget the double money claim, you only get that if money is held without justification. Plaintiff wins a couple minor points, and takes home a little over a hundred bucks. In hallterview landlord dude says if they had returned the stuff they took, and she admits to taking, he would have returned the whole deposit. I was already turning against plaintiff, but in hallterview when she says all the landlord had to do was ask and she would have returned the items I was ready to yell. I mean he sent her a letter telling her he was withholding money because she took the freaking items, and instead of picking up the phone and offering to return them she filed a lawsuit and now she's acting like he should have called or texted. Really think hubby, who conveniently couldn't come to court, was the reasonable one and wife is sort of nuts. 4 Link to comment
AngelaHunter January 9, 2017 Share January 9, 2017 3 hours ago, SRTouch said: cell phone bill: I skipped halfway through this because I too am sick to death of seeing women showering losers with phones, money, car loans, etc. It's so pitiful. Yeah, defendant - pink carnation notwithstanding - is a POS, but really - why not? He can be a big loser and still get multiple women, as can all the losers we see here. As far as we know, he's got one who thought he was a such a catch she wanted to breed with him without the benefit of marriage, and this one today who couldn't wait to buy him an expensive phone that he lost/gave away/sold. Hey, it's being offered - of course he'll take anything he can get. There's no need for him to change and his attitude shows he clearly has no plans to do that. I get it. 3 hours ago, SRTouch said: repair shop did $2725 of damage to plaintiff's 93 car: Best part of this: The plaintiff, an unattractive older man who uses a walker to get around, bragging about how "the women he dates" are younger than his car. Worst part: I believe him, given how desperate women are these days that they would even settle for this. 3 hours ago, SRTouch said: tenant suing for deposit: Couldn't stand either of them. She absolves herself of responsibility for every single thing because "I have a one-year old!" Nobody else on the planet has to do a single thing if they have a baby, I guess. She seems to be a little older for her first child and I hope the poor kid isn't subjected to the Smother Mother thing. The landlord needs to pull the stick out of his rear and learn that 1$ and 1.19$ really isn't worth a bunch of aggravation. Of course, he did get into the big numbers - 7$! 4 Link to comment
AlleC17 January 9, 2017 Share January 9, 2017 13 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said: I skipped halfway through this because I too am sick to death of seeing women showering losers with phones, money, car loans, etc. It's so pitiful. Yeah, defendant - pink carnation notwithstanding - is a POS, but really - why not? He can be a big loser and still get multiple women, as can all the losers we see here. As far as we know, he's got one who thought he was a such a catch she wanted to breed with him without the benefit of marriage, and this one today who couldn't wait to buy him an expensive phone that he lost/gave away/sold. Hey, it's being offered - of course he'll take anything he can get. There's no need for him to change and his attitude shows he clearly has no plans to do that. I get it. . ^ This times a million... Its SO damn depressing to see so many women fall for the same crap behavior. *sigh* I guess I won't be so excited to watch when I get home, even though they are new episodes. 4 Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.