AngelaHunter January 13, 2018 Share January 13, 2018 9 hours ago, Silver Raven said: The male judge said he needed to give his mother a pass because she's his mother. Yeah, and did you SEE his mother? Corriero actually sounded demented and really doesn't belong there. The other two often ignore him and nearly always override him because he seems to be living in another century, or dimension. I'm glad he's not trying serious cases. He's the type to give rapists or murderers the benefit of the doubt if they were good to their mothers or somesuch nonsense. At least JM doesn't tell plaintiffs they should give a pass to someone who has behaved horribly just because they happen to be plaintiffs' mothers, sisters or faux-aunties. 2 Link to comment
SRTouch January 13, 2018 Share January 13, 2018 (edited) 3 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: Yeah, and did you SEE his mother? Corriero actually sounded demented and really doesn't belong there. The other two often ignore him and nearly always override him because he seems to be living in another century, or dimension. I'm glad he's not trying serious cases. He's the type to give rapists or murderers the benefit of the doubt if they were good to their mothers or somesuch nonsense. Almost seems that the judges sort of take turns acting as the liberal/conservative/hard nosed one. Well, except DiMango who, according to her bios, always had a reputation as a human lie detection who made quick, almost snap decisions when a sitting judge. I noticed when Bakman left Acker stopped being the letter of the law contracts judge, and seems to be go more with feelings and lashing out at litigants. I think she enjoys that part, but I don't find her harsh "YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF YOURSELF --- GET OUT OF MY COURT!!!" natural and/or believable. When Bakman was there he was the one was yelling get out of my court and often ruled on gut reaction. I see a lot of the liberal, gut reaction, type ruling from Corriero. Not sure how much of that is an act, and how much is from his time on the bench. If you read his bio, including this background article http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/15/nyregion/15experience.html he talks about his time on the bench and cases where he regretted having to follow the letter of the law. Now, on court tv, he can rule based on emotions and how he wishes things were... no appellate court and he can desent knowing the other two will overrule him. In this court TV setting he can let out his BIG BROTHER/SISTER background and sometimes rule on emotions. Oh, and I guess he actually is a big dog lover, as the article ends noting that he gave up sailing because his dog didn't like being on the boat. Edited January 13, 2018 by SRTouch 2 Link to comment
aemom January 13, 2018 Share January 13, 2018 (edited) Quote WTH is with that pink top with black bra straps - heaven knows she needs the support, but the black straps just scream "look at me!") Visible bra straps seems to have become a thing over the last 15 years and it drives me up a wall. Wear a damn bra that fits under your shirt! They come in so many configurations and some bras are even convertible. I see them everywhere, even at work and when people are dressed up to go out. I wish it would end. The loser with the pink haired mom, well, what can I say that I haven't said before. The charming guy who tried to shmooze MM about her beauty failed miserably. Dude, this ain't her first rodeo. She's onto tricks like yours. Edited January 14, 2018 by AEMom Typo 5 Link to comment
PrincessPurrsALot January 14, 2018 Share January 14, 2018 Jurists, Let's keep our discussion to the show, not each other, and consider our language choices in terms of current meanings of words. There are so any ways to describe the litigants - ignorant, ill-spoken, weasels, fools, jerks, trashy, con artists, janky, potential Darwin Award nominees, the list goes on. Feel free to make up your own terms; it's more fun that way. Let's be careful out there and, as always, happy posting! 4 Link to comment
AngelaHunter January 14, 2018 Share January 14, 2018 15 hours ago, AEMom said: Visible bra straps seems to have become a thing over the last 15 years and it drives me up a wall. We see that a lot on this show, and it's as though they choose really contrasting colours so their bras will stand out more. When did this become a fashion statement? It's called "UNDERwear" for a reason. I wonder if JM will ever comment. One of my fondest memories of this show: Janky-ass def waltzed in, her top exposing acres of sagging boobage and JM said (well - snarled, actually), "I'm not interested in your BREASTS, so put something on." Truly a special moment. 5 Link to comment
Broderbits January 14, 2018 Share January 14, 2018 1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said: We see that a lot on this show, and it's as though they choose really contrasting colours so their bras will stand out more. When did this become a fashion statement? It's called "UNDERwear" for a reason. Those of us commenting on the litigants' fashion sense seem to be missing the point of this show: it's not just an opportunity to settle pending court cases, it's an opportunity to become a STAR! Network execs and casting directors are looking to daytime reality tv for the next Mama June or Real Housewife. Now that I think about it, maybe watching PC is how they came up with the new show about people marrying convicts. Disclaimer: I only know about Mama June from myriad commercials during Law & Order reruns; my remote control skills aren't what they used to be. 2 Link to comment
AngelaHunter January 14, 2018 Share January 14, 2018 5 hours ago, Broderbits said: it's not just an opportunity to settle pending court cases, it's an opportunity to become a STAR! Network execs and casting directors are looking to daytime reality tv for the next Mama June or Real Housewife. I have not watched one second of Mama June and her pack, but that sort of thing does seem to be what much of the population wants. If all that's required these days to be a TeeVee "star" is that you be an illiterate, ignorant, inbred mutant, why shouldn't everyone take a crack at it? I'm thinking of the "little people" mother/daughter who appeared here and seemed to think that because they were "reality stars" (oxymoron?) that they were such major celebrities and so damned cute that JM should of course have judged that they were exempt from paying for damages they caused with their uninsured vee-hickle. Insurance? We don't need no stinkin' insurance. Don't you know who we ARE? "Idiocracy" - we are there. I weep. 5 Link to comment
SRTouch January 15, 2018 Share January 15, 2018 (edited) Reruns this week - supposed to be new cases again next week. Discussion for this one, originally aired 10/20, back on pg 85... you have to scroll down aways - there was quite the talk that day about previous day's case. Pig Pen booted by roomie landlord: plaintiff pays 3 months rent in advance when he moves in, defendant boots him after a couple weeks and won't return any of the $2400. Ultra obnoxious defendant dude who gets booted after royally pissing off MM - he replies yes when she asks if he thinks this is a joke. I remember this joker as soon as I see him and his buddy, his witness, have a choreographed move where they brush invisible lint off their shoulder. Later, after getting bum's rush, Doug asks what he thinks of getting the boot and he says it feels great. He is coming off so bad in hallterview buddy ends it and tries to escort him out... oh, and dude had his fly open since the intro. Mixer repair disaster: plaintiff runs a bakery out of her home, and has a commercial mixer she paid $3500 for a couple years ago. Mixer goes on the fritz, and retired defendant tries to fix it for a hundred bucks. Months go by, not only hasn't dude completed the repair, he took it apart and can't find all the pieces. Lady suing for 5 grand... not cause it will take 5 grand to repair/replace - she never even took it to an actual repair shop to see what they would charge - nah, she's mad and that's the max she can sue for. MM has to do rough justice because we have no idea what the actual damages are... mixer IS in worse shape than when defendant started his repair... hmmm, MM decides $250 has a nice ring, so plaintiff awarded $250. Ohhhh, and we get the often heard "wow" from plaintiff as she hears the decision. she bought a lemon: not your normal every day used car deal where buyer claims car was a lemon and wants the deal to be undone. Noooo, this buyer bought the car ('08 and 120,000 miles) from a dealer with a 7 day money back guarentee, and she paid for a 3rd party warranty, then had and drove the car for 4 years, and is now trying to get dealer to refund money she spent during those 4 years on repairs - oh, and complains Snidely Whiplash not only charged her too much according to KBB, but sold her a car that had been in a wreck - and that's not only wrong, but according to her, illegal. Oh well, after reading comments from last time I skipped the case this time around... oh, forget to mention - the 27yo, came to court with daddy, also plays the "I was new to buying a car - just had a baby - single mother - yada yada" sympathy card - or maybe she just needs a "STUPID" sign... oh, and car has been repo'ed 3 times over the years, she still has possession and doesn't want the deal unwound, no she wants to renegotiate the asking price and keep the car. Says it's running better than when she bought it. Edited January 15, 2018 by SRTouch 5 Link to comment
SRTouch January 16, 2018 Share January 16, 2018 (edited) today's rerun, aired Oct 17, also discussed back on pg 84. jewelry tag screwup: 2 looneys, but at least these two litigants brought something unique to court. What we have here is a contract case. Defendant designs and makes custom jewelry... also we find she has annoying voice and can't STFU - MM even tells her she doesn't need a cheerleader, so cut the running commentary. She hired plaintiff to make little "Made in USA" tags with a ribbon she can attach to her necklaces before she ships them off to be sold. Plaintiff is just dense. Instead of "Made in USA" tags he shipped "Made in China" - with the wrong color ribbons. He's here because she didn't pay for his botched merchandise. He's even arguing she specified CHINA.... uh, except that he provides texts messages where she specifies the color and USA. Yep, this is the guy who gives MM a folder full of texts, then when MM pulls a text out of his folder he tries to argue he never received the text. Sooooo, MM gives him back the folder so he can refresh his memory, and idiot tries to argue away the damning text by arguing the date.... hmmmm, MM says, maybe I have the date wrong - let me see the folder again... then dude REALLY screws up, gives Douglas SOME of the texts, but keeps the text in question. WTH dude, the judge just finished reading the text - are you hoping MM isn't going to notice!? Anyway, that's what sinks dude. He was PROBABLY going to get something - not full price, but something - because defendant did use his product after some modifications. Not anymore, he gets nada, and MM storms off the bench... heck, if there had been a countersuit defendant may have picked up some loose change for having to deal with the guy. Oh, and when he gets out of the court he whines about how MM is a meany and wouldn't listen, but "it is what it is!" And, once again we're left to ponder why a businessman would come in front of a national audience and demonstrate not only how his company screwed up, but then sued a customer when he should have been apologizing and offering to make it right. car repair disaster: ah, this is a classic - bringing up all the car buyer and car repair foolishness. Plaintiff buys the junker knowing it needs work. Instead of taking it to a mechanic he knows, he leaves it with someone (actually, a national franchise, so not just any random shop) across town from his house. Ah, but once they start taking stuff apart they find it worse than expected, so they contact dude for authorization to fix it - but he says put it back together, they want too much. He picks up clunker, it runs like crap, brakes bad, etc etc - soooo he bought the car knowing there were problems, took it to defendant, defendant agrees there are problrms, even more than were readily apparent once he starts work, buyer isn't happy with what he was told it would cost, and now is in court saying defendant must have sabotaged the car and made it worse to jack up the repair cost so defendant should pay for all the repairs. Yeah right - case dismissed. tenant vs landlord: extreme case of snowflakiness and gullible landlord. Defendant wanted to move away from home and into his first apartment with his honey. Gullible landlord takes the place off the market and let's kids move in before they pay anything. Ah, but the 20yo kiddies get homesick, and move back to respective parents. At least kid admits he owes a month's rent, so he writes a check.... ah, but wait, after second thought he reconsiders and stops payment. Trying to get out of paying, he even goes to housing authority and pays to find out if apartment is a legal apartment - yep, it is. Lotta of nonsense - kid owes the rent and all the bank fees that landlord had to pay when snowflake ran back to mommy. ? Ah, off topic a bit, but here's the car being auctioned I'm following right now. Hey, even if the engine is crap I could replace it with a new lawnmower engine ? only problem - it would cost more to ship it here than it's worth. http://www.govliquidation.com/auction/view?auctionId=12690001&convertTo=USD Edited January 16, 2018 by SRTouch 2 Link to comment
Guest January 16, 2018 Share January 16, 2018 Snazzy SRTouch. Very, very snazzy. I just watched the jewelry tag screwup with emphasis on Doug's interaction with dense plaintiff and while munching on my tuna fish sandwich (I bought it, I am eating it and I'm loving every bite of it and have no intention of balking to Lee-the-deli-owner that I want my money back) and have solid advice for those who lose the case...it's called Agree with Doug. No matter what - agree with Doug. Think the Judge gave you a shafting on the decision? It doesn't matter - agree with Doug. Feel that you should not have to pay for a fender-bender that clearly was the fault of the other driver? Don't reiterate your case in the hallway, accept it's over and -agree with Doug. Things go faster, look less awkward and certainly leave the viewer with a sense that you're a semi human being if you just agree with Doug. That's my advice to those thinking they can pull a fast one over on JM. Not going to happen. And her favorite gatekeeper Doug will defend her every single time. So for those attempting to make a point in the halterivew, or worse trash JM - don't even bother. It's not going to happen. And for those with heads like a cement block the phrase "it is what it is" means to loyal JM viewers that you're as guilty as sin so don't waste your breath with that overused stupid phrase. Now, back to tuna on whole wheat, a cup of tomato soup and club crackers. Link to comment
Brattinella January 16, 2018 Share January 16, 2018 Firstly, raging lust @ that 48 Lincoln with 45,000 miles on it! AAAHHHH! Secondly, tuna on whole wheat with tomato soup sounds perfect right now! Link to comment
AngelaHunter January 16, 2018 Share January 16, 2018 1 hour ago, PsychoKlown said: Don't reiterate your case in the hallway, accept it's over and -agree with Doug. Nice pointers and I really love that one because when some moron tries to whine, "She didn't even listen to me!" or re-tell his/her tale of woe, I love the way Doug basically says, "Yeah, yeah. We heard all that. The exit is that way." Bwahaha! Very cute car, SRTouch! I see it was an amusement park ride. What would you do with it? Just being nosy curious. 1 Link to comment
SRTouch January 16, 2018 Share January 16, 2018 1 minute ago, AngelaHunter said: Nice pointers and I really love that one because when some moron tries to whine, "She didn't even listen to me!" or re-tell his/her tale of woe, I love the way Doug basically says, "Yeah, yeah. We heard all that. The exit is that way." Bwahaha! Very cute car, SRTouch! I see it was an amusement park ride. What would you do with it? Just being nosy curious. Uh.... zoom around the trailer park and go pick up my mail.... nah, pretty impractical - especially as i don't have a garage and on days like today when the temp was single digits. Nah, I pop over to that site every so often and look at the classic cars and think about what I'd buy if I had JJ's piggy bank. Course if I ever buy one I'll probably end up on JJ - she'll look at me like I'm nuts and ask why I'd pay so much for an old car ? 2 Link to comment
Guest January 16, 2018 Share January 16, 2018 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: Nah, I pop over to that site every so often and look at the classic cars and think about what I'd buy if I had JJ's piggy bank. Course if I ever buy one I'll probably end up on JJ - she'll look at me like I'm nuts and ask why I'd pay so much for an old car ? Do it. If only for the pleasure of seeing the look of shock on Byrd's face when JJ tells him to 'get out the book and look up....' Link to comment
califred January 17, 2018 Share January 17, 2018 I missed you all. I was out of town for most of December and well after Saturday morning here in Hawaii I need something mindless to watch again! Wish it wasn’t reruns this week. the sweet 16 had to cost closer to 10k (3k was literally just the decorations/props) ... it’s their money but why not by the kid a good reliable used car if you are willing to spend 10k. 5 Link to comment
aemom January 17, 2018 Share January 17, 2018 On 12/01/2018 at 7:06 PM, AngelaHunter said: Thanks for clarifying the details of that transaction. Not only do I have a hard time remembering what I watched 10 minutes after I watched it but I think I was so befuddled/elated/transfixed at hearing not a single "had came" "ain't" "we was" or "Me and him went" that I just couldn't absorb it all. Actually I'm pretty sure that the 25 year old plaintiff "axed" at one point because it jarred me, but it was a minor transgression for the day :-) It's too bad that we didn't find out the business name for that case because they should be avoided like the plague with that business attitude. I hope they go bankrupt. I'm ok with people throwing themself a party if they are going to cover all the costs themselves. That painting guy is so incompetent. My husband would have had a coronary if work like that was done in our home, which is why my husband does all that stuff himself. For the Sweet 16, that seemed like an awful lot of money to rent (?) those items, never mind the hall rental, etc. My Sweet 16 was a sleep over at my house and my mom paid for movie and popcorn at the local theatre. We had a great time. I didn't even have a hall for my engagement party. That was in my backyard. Some serious parties some people have, but hey it's your money. She deserved some money back for their screw up. 5 Link to comment
AngelaHunter January 17, 2018 Share January 17, 2018 10 hours ago, califred said: the sweet 16 had to cost closer to 10k (3k was literally just the decorations/props) ... it’s their money but why not by the kid a good reliable used car if you are willing to spend 10k. Oh, I"m sure she'll get the car too. I was pondering this case the other day (Yeah, I know) and couldn't help wondering what kind of galas there will be when she graduates high school and college (assuming she will). Gets engaged and married? If you have this kind of huge, expensive do for a kid turning 16, how do you top it? They have to keep upping it, don't they? I mean, can't have a 16th b-day party outdo a wedding. Totally their business of course, but it puts a puzzled kind of awe in me. I don't even remember my 16th birthday so I guess it wasn't the spashiest affair of the decade. I think I may have gotten a cake and it was probably pretty nice. :D 4 Link to comment
califred January 17, 2018 Share January 17, 2018 @AngelaHunter my husband said the same thing. Even if we had that much spare money it wouldn’t be spent on a birthday party. 3 Link to comment
SRTouch January 17, 2018 Share January 17, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said: Oh, I"m sure she'll get the car too. I was pondering this case the other day (Yeah, I know) and couldn't help wondering what kind of galas there will be when she graduates high school and college (assuming she will). Gets engaged and married? If you have this kind of huge, expensive do for a kid turning 16, how do you top it? They have to keep upping it, don't they? I mean, can't have a 16th b-day party outdo a wedding. Totally their business of course, but it puts a puzzled kind of awe in me. I don't even remember my 16th birthday so I guess it wasn't the spashiest affair of the decade. I think I may have gotten a cake and it was probably pretty nice. :D Sort of boggles my mind. I can't remember a big bash - not surprising seeing as that's more a "girl becoming a woman" thing than something for boys. But, neither of my sister's had extravagant parties, either. Guess my parents were borderline cheap - had all 5 of us kids out working part time, doing chores (my brothers and I even had to learn to cook and do laundry!). Terrible terrible way to raise kids, I tell you. It's nothing short of a miracle we all became productive members of society - no arrests, no druggies or drunks, not even any restraining orders taken out on each other. Oh, and - gasp - spanking was definitely administered! Tragic that protective services never got involved! Added from @AEMom 's post: "For the Sweet 16, that seemed like an awful lot of money to rent (?) those items, never mind the hall rental, etc. My Sweet 16 was a sleep over at my house and my mom paid for movie and popcorn at the local theatre. We had a great time." Whoa, at today's prices that's a big junk of change! Edited January 17, 2018 by SRTouch Added comment and quoted earlier post from @aemom 3 Link to comment
Brattinella January 17, 2018 Share January 17, 2018 I can't imagine spending that much money on a party, particularly a sweet sixteen party. For my 16th, I slept over my best friend's house. Her mom made us (and 6 of our girlfriends from school) an elegant sit-down dinner. My big present was the newest Beatles album. After the party, my friend and I snuck out and got drunk on rum. A good time was had by all! 2 Link to comment
aemom January 17, 2018 Share January 17, 2018 45 minutes ago, SRTouch said: Added from @AEMom 's post: "For the Sweet 16, that seemed like an awful lot of money to rent (?) those items, never mind the hall rental, etc. My Sweet 16 was a sleep over at my house and my mom paid for movie and popcorn at the local theatre. We had a great time." Whoa, at today's prices that's a big junk of change! Not too bad. I think I had 6 friends over. Back then I think it would have been about $15 per person for the movie and a popcorn/drink combo. My mom cooked supper and the birthday cake - she normally baked mine, but this time she ordered the R2-D2 cake at the bakery. Nowhere near $3000 or even $300 for that matter. 3 Link to comment
SRTouch January 17, 2018 Share January 17, 2018 rerun originally aired 10/26 and discussed back on pg 86 - not exactly a stellar day for court tv, just standard fare. First and third cases show us litigants presenting evidence not expecting the judge to read what they present... like I said, normal court TV stuff. (Uh, full disclosure time - I wrote this mainly from memory and a few seconds of watching.) fuss about a short film: once again, we have a contracts case without a contract. This time plaintiff, was going to help defendant produce a short film. His case is all over the place - I get the feeling he just spouts whatever he thinks might help at the time - and he seems to contradict himself every other sentence. He also has pages and pages of printed texts, which he has thoughtfully gone through and highlighted where they support his contention that he was to receive $500 for all his work. Hmmm, claims he was to be paid $500, but is suing for $2500? Course his texts don't work as hoped - silly judge actually reads all the texts. He doesn't come off so well, especially when he threatens to hold the video hostage. Ah, just a short bit about dizzy defendant.... geez, last time I said she reminds me of Carol Channing. Yep, big mouth and goes through facial contortions as she does her auctioneer impression - after the first few seconds it's hard to listen/watch. Anyway, out of all those texts, MM finds a text where, after things fall apart, defendant says she'll pay $500 if dude will just give her the video. She later reconsidered and decided she didn't owe him anything. MM decides to enforce the offered deal, defendant gives dude $500 and he has to give her all the raw footage. Oh, and he whines that mean judge wouldn't let him present his case. handyman wants a new paint sprayer: plaintiff hired by landlord to paint defendant's apartment. Defendant says he and coworkers took long lunch, came back drunk, and then left the job unfinished for 3 days - leaving the sprayer behind. Plaintiff doesn't really argue that he left his junk behind - says it would take too much time lugging it around, easier to leave it in her apartment. Ah, but she has dogs, and puppies thought painter's tools were new chew toys. He tries to convince us defendant had a duty to protect his property, but can't even prove his coworker, who isn't here to testify, asked and was given permission to leave the tools. And... this is where I get a little mad at both sides. Dude says lady had a crate... uh, does that mean he thinks she should have kept her dog crated the whole time he left her tools in her apartment. And defendant.... I know our critters are always getting into stuff - but she really should have put the sprayer out of reach... not only to protect the sprayer, but to protect her dog from potentially toxic paint. Anyway, guy has no case. Fighting over loan/gift after the split: ah, the rent to own 50" smart tv case.... didn't watch the whole thing the first time and skipped the whole thing this time. As I was fast forwarding I paused as they were going to commercial around the 45 minute mark. Geez, dude talking about how plaintiff was chasing him for sex. Defendant really thinks he's god's gift - but when I look at him I can't get past the dreads and droopy eyes. Oh, and reason I paused was the audience reaction to what he was saying - almost tempted to watch a little to find where the clip was coming from, but nah, too much crap to wade through. Lots of times when I watch a rerun I'm more interested in the gallery than the litigants. This Plaintiff not only bought a fancy TV for dude, she bought it from a rent to own place where she'll end up paying way too much. Now that they're splitsville, she figures he should pay for it. Not sure how MM would have decided, as it seems dude has the TV and she's still paying for it... but doesn't matter when MM discovers plaintiff seems to be running a scam. Yet again, a litigant presents evidence hoping the judge can't/won't read it. Much better to look like an idiot who came to court unprepared than to enter into evidence paperwork which doesn't match your claim.... hey, but at least they got the free lunch. 2 Link to comment
KittyMom4 January 17, 2018 Share January 17, 2018 2 hours ago, SRTouch said: Oh, I"m sure she'll get the car too. I was pondering this case the other day (Yeah, I know) and couldn't help wondering what kind of galas there will be when she graduates high school and college (assuming she will). Gets engaged and married? If you have this kind of huge, expensive do for a kid turning 16, how do you top it? They have to keep upping it, don't they? I mean, can't have a 16th b-day party outdo a wedding. Totally their business of course, but it puts a puzzled kind of awe in me. One of my ex-sisters-in-law spent over $2,000 on a first birthday party for her son. They rented a pavilion at a park, a bounce house thing and had it catered for "friends" and family. They literally invited everyone they knew, down to the girl that cut the baby's hair. And every birthday after that and for his subsequent sibling was a BASH TO REMEMBER. The kid is college aged now, his parents had declare bankruptcy about a year ago, one of their vehicles had been repossessed and they were months behind in mortgage payments. My ex-brother-in-law was fined by the state of FL for not paying sales tax for his business and had to close it down. He now works for someone else at fraction of what he earned. They lived the high life for 18 some years and today they have nothing. I bet they wish they'd been a little more practical with where they spent their money..... 4 Link to comment
SRTouch January 18, 2018 Share January 18, 2018 Oct 16 rerun, with discussion back around pg 84... first case interesting - 2nd not so much - third typical used car idiot case my DVR still promising new episodes next week. Private road kerfuffle: one of those cases which, while interesting, would never have been filed if both litigants (mainly smug, arrogant, funny tie wearing a$$hole defendant) had acted like reasonable people. Problem arose when a developer subdivided some land. There was a house on the front of the property, and instead of negotiating and building a road through that lady's property a temporary road was put in to access the houses built behind her house. Nothing really wrong with the arrangement as long as everybody pays to maintain the private road. Of course, there's always one trouble maker, and here it is the defendant. Everybody else is fine with paying their share to maintain the common driveway/private road, but this guy (who actually lives farthest from the public road so has the longest drive along the private road) digs in his heels and refuses to contribute. His contends that when he bought his property the developer promised his own driveway, and instead he got this private road, which actually serves a couple other homes, and he feels he has no obligation to pay to maintain the private road. Dude, who do you think would be maintaining your private road you claim developer promised? Plaintiff got fed up with dude and actually parked cars across road to deny him access. Course, he went and got a temporary injunction which granted him an easement. He figures he's golden, and his good lawyer buddy tells him there's nothing further the plaintiff can do. Ah, but MM informs him the free advise from his buddy is flawed. Yes, the law will grant him a temporary easement to access his property - emphasis on temporary. His problem is that when he bought his property he also bought the right to have his own private road. Sooooo he has the ability to install that road, it'll just cost a bunch of money - way more than his portion of maintaining the shared private road. MM tells him that if plaintiff wants to force the issue, she would win a case denying him access to the current road after a reasonable time passes for him to install his own. Dog breeder contract case: (ok, only reason to watch this one is plaintiff brought the Rhondesian Ridgeback puppy to court - good looking pup, glad they could afford to save him when the problem came up) one of those cases where plaintiff bought a puppy which had a preexisting/genetic problem. Standard breeder contract is breeder will replace the puppy. As often happens, owners elect to keep puppy, and rack up vet bills correcting the problem. This case is a little different - both sides have problems. Plaintiff isn't satisfied with asking for his $1200 in out of pocket expenses, nah he wants potential future expenses covered and is seeking the $5000 max. Defendant, well he's a half assed dog breeder, can't answer simple questions without a lot of dancing around, and gives the impression he knew (or should have known, as he agrees all his puppies are vet checked before sale) of the problem when he sold the puppy... yep the kind of breeder that give all breeders a bad reputation. MM rules for plaintiff, really because breeder agrees he agreed to settle, wrote out the check, but the "cleaning lady" threw it out - dude, all those dogs, perfect chance to say the dog ate it and be believed - but plaintiff only gets $1200, not the hoped for 5 grand. used car: easy case to summarize... plaintiff bought a car with CHECK ENGINE light ablaze and over 160,000 miles, agrees there was no warranty, wants defendant to pay more in repairs than purchase price. Only unique thing here is that defendant is in auto repair business. Says when car was sold they thought it was good, but agreed transmission should not go out after a couple weeks, so they offered to do the repairs at big discount - but not for free. Buyer should have taken the offer, because they didn't have to discount anything. Instead, she takes it elsewhere and sues them for the bill. Oh, and she's in court arguing the law with the judge, citing a statute by number and quoting the law - nope, MM tells her, AS IS trumps her statute, especially as junker lasted 2 weeks - but even if she only drove 6 feet with no warranty she would have no case. Case (what little there is) dismissed. Hmmm, says she watches TPC all the time, so maybe this was just so she could meet the judge and talk to Doug. Certainly acts like she didn't think she had much chance of winning. 3 Link to comment
SRTouch January 19, 2018 Share January 19, 2018 (edited) Oct 19 rerun (discussion starts on page 85) .... so so cases - another day when I'm summarizing basee on earlier comments, then watching - but quite a discussion... at least part of the discussion comes when everyone is pretty much slamming first defendant and someone chimes in that we're seeing it all wrong - MM made a terrible decision yada yada. Ah, but @califred got suspicious and looked up the mystery poster - who joined just minutes before posting and hasn't come back since to discuss other cases. mom suing deadbeat son in law: truly unlikable defendant being sued by ex wife's mother. Deadbeat not only a deadbeat who owes thousands in back support, but also one of those irritating litigants who dances around trying not to answer direct questions, forcing MM to dig for answers. Dude really has no defense. Ex mother in law made it clear when she gave him a couple grand that this was a personal loan to HIM and he was to repay the money directly to HER. His only defense is that he gave the money to the ex wife - but no evidence he repaid the money to anyone. That, in essence is the case - but since that would make for extremely short case MM has all kinds of time to delve into the back story. First, reason for the loan - he was something like $14,000 behind in support payments... not that he just came out and sayes so - no he does his utmost to avoid admitting it and gives misleading answers when questioned. At first he'll only admit he is a "few thousand" behind, not sure of the amount. When pressed, he admits to 4 grand. Ah, but finally, after plaintiff pointing out he was in family court the previous week, so he DOES know the exact about... oh, and it's 4 grand only because he was forced to pay ten grand to be able to walk out of the family court. So, the two grand plaintiff loaned him was used to keep ex wife and his kids (plaintiff's daughter and grandkids) from being evicted from the family home. So, his argrument is that the loan was for the benefit of plaintiff's daughter and grandkids, not really a personal loan to him, at all. Uh, except the texts show it was a personal loan to him, and part of the terms of the loan was repayment to be made directly to plaintiff - NOT the ex wife.... uh, of course, why would plaintiff make it a joint loan to the defendant and his ex (her daughter) when she knows daughter has no money and is being evicted... yeah, yeah, she'd probably do it for her daughter and grandkids if she had to, but why when she can make him solely responsible for repayment. Anyway, really no case here, and 90% of allotted time belongs on Divorce Court or Dr Phil. Once again Doug sums it up perfectly. When deadbeat tries to whine, Doug tells him he would have never been taken to court if he had just paid the loan according to the agreed upon agreement. Same deal with dude's repeated family court appearances - either pay as per the divorce degree or apply to get the amount reviewed - don't just ignore the court orders, dipshlt! accountant case: this is a case where litigant has some trouble making his case understood. I suppose every occupation/specialty has their own language subset that is easily understood within that occupation, but has to be translated for the rest of us. I was lost as plaintiff made his case, which dealt with defendant not paying for work on taxes. Ah, but @teebax knows the lingo and said she enjoyed the case. nonrefundable deposit on car deal: special snowflake of a plaintiff feels he is entitled to a refund on his deposit for a car deal that never happened - even though receipt clearly says deposit is nonrefundable. Lots of folks feel they should get their money back when they change their minds. Uh, no, not when the person receiving the deposit performs some duty basked on buyer's stated intent to purchase (or move in an apartment). In this case, defendant accepted the deposit, arranged the financing, did dealer prep, etc and buyer changed his mind. Ah, and deposit made with credit card, so instead of contacting dealer he just doesn't show up to pick up the car and reverses the charges. Which meant dealer had to waste time playing phone tag trying to contact plaintiff, and finally just put the charge through a second time - which is why plaintiff is suing, as second time the charge stuck. Actually, car dealer in this case is pretty generous. He would be within his rights to just pocket the deposit now that plaintiff reneged on the deal. Instead, a year later he was willing to apply some of the deposit towards another vehicle. In effect giving the guy store credit, but keeping enough to cover expenses of getting the first vehicle ready and financed. Plaintiff wants full cash refund. Nope, ain't happening, in fact, now that he sued them the dealer decides to withdraw the offer, no more store credit. Edited January 19, 2018 by SRTouch Link to comment
teebax January 21, 2018 Share January 21, 2018 I did like that case, but I can understand why others didn't. When are we getting new episodes? Link to comment
SRTouch January 21, 2018 Share January 21, 2018 54 minutes ago, teebax said: When are we getting new episodes? According to Direct Tv program info, Monday we should get a stretch of new cases Link to comment
SRTouch January 22, 2018 Share January 22, 2018 (edited) handyman injured on job: ok, this one should be easy ... assuming dude brought evidence. Plaintiff's story is he and defendant were friends. She had plumbing problems in her kitchen - a leaky pipe, and called him. He goes over, fixes her pipe, but ends up slipping and falling down her steps on the way out. Says his rotator cuff was torn, and he's incurred major league medical bills, needed surgery to correct the problem - wants the max. Defendant in denial, says he staged the fall to scam money from her. Soooo, dude needs to prove a couple things... does he actually have the medical bills, and did he get injured falling down her steps (intro suggests she admits he fell, but argues it was staged and injury faked). Once testimony starts he starts out ok. Plausible story about the fall, etc, but "forgot" the medical records from his primary physician which would back up his story that he went to the doctor the following day. He could be telling the truth, but then again that's a pretty important piece of evidence to forget... makes me wonder if defendant might be right about him staging the fall to maybe get her homeowners insurance to pay for preexisting problem. Over to defendant, who also starts out great - and, BTW, is softspoken, sounds intelligent, and actually uses "embellished" correctly in a sentence rather than calling dude out for being a liar liar pants on fire scammer. Oh, and she describes relationship more as friendly business relationship - says they've known each other about ten years and she's hired him in the past as he's a contractor who does good quality work. She doesn't deny he fell, just argues the fall was staged, and not at all as he described in his testimony... part of his testimony was that the first words out of her mouth after the fall was that her elderly mother fell down those steps all the time which I found hard to believe as he said it. Oh, and she says he came back and did more work for her a couple days after the fall and didn't mention any medical problems arising from his tumble. Ah, what's this? Now MM says she's gone through the texts, and they suggest to her that there may have been more than friendly... both say no way - absolutely not more than friends. Anyway, her version may or may not be closer to the truth - her main thing seems to be that he continued to work and delayed getting treatment. Hmmm, maybe so, those missing medical records' importance may be increasing. She tries to make the 2 month delay before surgery an issue - hey, don't know about his medical coverage, but I'm retired Army and deal with TRICARE and the VA so 2 months doesn't sound all that bad. Times about up on this one, and now MM is asking plaintiff what it was that he thinks defendant did that was negligent... he went there to work on leaky pipe, even testified he asked for a towel to kneel on, so maybe he should have been more careful. Ah, but now tides are changing... and it starts with defendant claiming to have texts which she then admits she doesn't have when MM asks to see them. Oh, and what she does have seems to support plaintiff's claim that he was hurt and had been to see the doctor as he claimed, but didn't have records of. Oh, well, don't buy the scammer theory, I think he was hurt in a fall on her steps. Doesn't matter much, though, as MM still isn't buying his idea that she should foot his bills after he was hurt slipping on wet stairs when he was there to fix a leak. As he tells Doug, it was an accident - so an accident, and why should defendant pay? Oh well, he tells Doug, it is what it is, and Doug directs him how to get out. nonpayment for services: plaintiff says he was hired, did the work, and still waiting for payment two years later. (Hmmm, wearing miniature medals can't really make them out on my tv - looks to be a Combat Infantry Badge, maybe wings and 3 or more medals - he tells us 82nd Airborne in hallterview.) Ok, doesn't sound like defendant will have a defence. Intro says he hasn't paid because he didn't like the quality of the work.... yeah, like that defence always works. Anyway, plaintiff was hired to edit some security footage for defendant's trial (he was being charged with impersonating a cop and grabbing some guy through an open car window). Anyway, I gave up listening to plaintiff as he tried to explain things in legalese mixed up in photographer lingo - bunch of alleged this, so many frames per second, etc. Deal was that he was going to get $75 an hour, capped at $650. Simple, he did the work - but what he produced wasn't needed to get defendant off, so defendant didn't pay. Over to defendant for his take - don't care for him either.... don't you just hate when some yayhoo feels the need to point his finger and wave his hands as he tries to make his point... or, when the judge asks if he can prove what he's saying and instead of offering proof he says no, let other side prove what he said. Nope, can't stand either of these litigants... but at least the plaintiff didn't make me want to yell STFU at the tv. Thankfully, times up... plaintiff wins no good deed case: defendant tries to help neighbor lady with her sliding glass door, door breaks, lady wants 4 grand... Plaintiff really stretching here, as it seems the door frame had water damage and needed to be replaced, and somehow she thinks that's defendant's fault. Not sure how he'd be on the hook for the door as he was just a neighbor trying to help, not being paid to do the job... ah, but right out of the gate plaintiff tells us he was being paid. Sounds kind of iffy, though... MM asks how much she was going to pay, and plaintiff says maybe a hundred bucks, as that's what she has paid in the past when he did things for her. Hmmm, he sort of agrees, says in the past when she asked him to do things, when finished she'd ask him how much, he'd say not to worry, and she'd give him $30-40. Soooo... maybe not such a neighborly good deed - but still not ready to make him pay her anything. Turns out to be another not so handy handyman case like the recent case with neighborhood dude who tried to hang blinds. Dude came over because sliding door won't slide. He looks at it, sees frame is rotten out, and tries to do a temporary fix until she can afford a proper repair. Dude just opened the door to having to pay when he admits that the glass may have shattered when a screw he put in for the temporary fix may have chipped the safety glass. As if the glass shattering wasn't bad enough, he also let the dogs out. ? Yep, he admits the glass shattered because he goofed - but no way is she going to get 4 grand for a 10yo door with rotted frame. Hmmmm, now he's saying door was also bad, not just frame - possible I guess, but not sure I'm buying that. Rough justice.... whoa, MM orders dude to pay half the cost of the new doors (which plaintiff has already put in) - so he's on the hook for 2 grand. Not sure why, as that means he's paying half the price of new doors for a ten yo rotted door. Edited January 22, 2018 by SRTouch 1 1 Link to comment
Katy M January 22, 2018 Share January 22, 2018 8 minutes ago, SRTouch said: part of his testimony was that the first words out of her mouth after the fall was that her elderly mother fell down those steps all the time which is found hard to believe as he said it. I would definitely find that hard to believe for 2 reasons. The first is that elderly people can't fall down a set of steps "all the time" because they just aren't going to heal up after a couple of times. I wouldn't think. But, OK, possible. But, only a monster would allow their elderly mother to keep walking down steps that she is continually falling down. 10 minutes ago, SRTouch said: no good deed case: defendant tries to help neighbor lady with her sliding glass door, door breaks, lady wants 4 grand... Plaintiff really stretching here, as it seems the door frame had water damage and needed to be replaced, and somehow she thinks that's defendant's fault. Not sure how he'd be on the hook for the door as he was just a neighbor trying to help, not being paid to do the job... ah, but right out of the gate plaintiff tells us he was being paid. Sounds kind of iffy, though... MM asks how much she was going to pay, and plaintiff says maybe a hundred bucks, as that's what she has paid in the past when he did things for her. Hmmm, he sort of agrees, says in the past when she asked him to do things, when finished she'd ask him how much, he'd say not to worry, and she'd give him $30-40. Soooo... maybe not such a neighborly good deed - but still not ready to make him pay her anything. Turns out to be another not so handy handyman case like the recent case with neighborhood dude who tried to hangs blinds. Dude came over because sliding door won't slide. He looks at it, sees frame is rotten out, and tries to do a temporary fix until she can afford a proper repair. Dude just opened the door to having to pay when he admits that the glass may have shattered when a screw he put in for the temporary fix may have chipped the safety glass. As if the glass shattering wasn't bad enough, he also let her dogs out. Yep, he admits the glass shattered because he goofed - but no way is she going to get 4 grand for a 10yo door with rotted frame. Hmmmm, now he's saying door was also bad, not just frame - possible I guess, but not sure I'm buying that. Rough justice.... whoa, MM orders dude to pay half the cost of the new doors (which plaintiff has already put in) - so he's on the hook for 2 grand. Not sure why, as that means he's paying half the price of new doors for a ten yo rotted door. Even if I'm paying a bit of money, I could never sue my neighbor for breaking something if he was just trying to help me out. The one exception might be if I was like "No, that's OK, I'll hire someone." "But, I totally know what I'm doing. I do this all the time." "Are you sure? This is a delicate job." "Trust me. I can do this." "Well, OK, if you're sure." Break. "What happened?" "I don't know. I've never really done this before." Yeah, that would probably be an exception if I couldn't afford whatever he broke. And a lesson to be firmer in the future. Link to comment
AngelaHunter January 22, 2018 Share January 22, 2018 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: handyman injured on job: I liked JM asking if they dated, and def. nearly screaming in horror, "No, NO!" Seriously, what would she want with him, on a personal level? Silly, moon-faced crybaby. His mommy can tell you, he was crying like a little girl! That's the only part of his story I believed. He was ridiculous - all that excruciating pain and tears but it never occured to him to go to an emergency room. Who knows what that idiot did to himself between the time he fell on def's stairs and did go to his "primary?" Someone who is a plumber, or fancies himself one, should be used to working in less than idyllic and wet conditions and be careful. Duh. Plumbing emergencies usually entail water on floors or other slippery messes and if he's not smart enough to know that, then tough. Yeah, I'm sure def lets her elderly mother fall down the stairs "all the time." Baby Huey better stay with his mommy. I just wish we could have seen the woman who wanted to breed with him. 2 hours ago, SRTouch said: nonpayment for services: That was kind of different and interesting, although plaintiff with his little medals and his "I object" and the big-mouthed def waving useless papers around wore thin very quickly. 2 hours ago, SRTouch said: no good deed case: Def doesn't look so good, but plaintiff always gets him to do handy stuff around her house because she doesn't want to pay for someone insured and licensed. IMO, you take a risk paying people under the table. Both parties benefit if all goes well - he gets extra income and she gets cheap work done - but if something goes wrong, then what? What if he had been injured working in her home? What if the rotten door had fallen on him? Would she have paid his medical bills? Somehow I doubt that. Anyway, I really didn't think it was fair that he has to fork over 2K to pay for brand new doors to replace her old rotten ones (and adding to value of her house by doing so) but this is why I'm not a judge and JM is. 1 Link to comment
Broderbits January 22, 2018 Share January 22, 2018 46 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said: Anyway, I really didn't think it was fair that he has to fork over 2K to pay for brand new doors to replace her old rotten ones (and adding to value of her house by doing so) but this is why I'm not a judge and JM is. I would have told him to pay $1000 because that's probably what the old rotting doors were actually worth. Also, Pella is a very well-respected company and dealing directly with them might have worked out better for the plaintiff providing she had original documentation for the doors. Then again, someone who takes such atrocious care of their home probably wouldn't keep paperwork. Defendant in the 2nd case was one obnoxious creep! 1 Link to comment
Florinaldo January 23, 2018 Share January 23, 2018 (edited) 4 hours ago, SRTouch said: nonpayment for services: Plaintiff was annoying with his showing of medals to impress but lucky for him the facts and the law were on is side; it did not hurt that the defendant could not get out a direct answer to any question as far as I could make out. 4 hours ago, SRTouch said: handyman injured on job: no good deed case: These two decisions made me wonder it perhaps MM had taken some of JJ's crazy pills on that day. I thought that the smug defendant, very dimissive regarding the plumber's injuries, should have been held liable at least in part for his medical expenses; after all, the accident occured on her premises and that is the usual standard as far as a homeowner's responsibility I believe (with possible variations depending on the jurisdiction, as usual. Of course, the plaintiff lacked some documentation that would have been useful for his case, but this is civil court where a preponderance of evidence is necessary, not beyond a reasonable doubt as in a criminal case. Even worse was the verdict regarding the rotten doors. Even half of what she awarded would have been too much; because of her personal choices in hiring an unlicensed neighbour to do the work, the plaintiff should have borne more of the cost, if not all of it. This was not "rough justice" as MM likes to say, but rather gross justice. Edited January 23, 2018 by Florinaldo 1 Link to comment
patty1h January 23, 2018 Share January 23, 2018 When the girl and guy suing over the laptop walked into the court, my first thought was "acting class experiment" - two people deciding to do a performance art exercise as Asperger sufferers; they really dressed for the roles with their glasses and silly tie. Then they spoke about their two-year old child being put up for adoption and thought they really thought this out - a backstory and everything. I am not convinced that they are for real. 2 Link to comment
SRTouch January 23, 2018 Share January 23, 2018 new cases - just a little heads up - enjoy entrance of plaintiff in second case ? Botched storm damage repair: plaintiff hired defendant's company to come in and do major electrical repairs after Hurricane Sandy did its thing on his house - estimate was $4300. Says when job was "finished" he had to pay someone else 5 grand to come and do the job right. Defendant story is that he did want he was hired to do. First impression - plaintiff went with low bid, which happened to be someone who is NOT a craftsman who takes pride in his work. Doesn't matter what the job, there's always someone who will show up and do the minimal amount to get paid - guess that's why you want licensed and bonded contractors with references. That said, in the wake of every disaster we find fly by night "contractors" ripping folks off, and some otherwise regular contractors who get overwhelmed by the amount of work and cut a few corners or hire less than stellar workers. Now, I'm not electrician, but I wouldn't be surprised if plaintiff didn't need all new wiring - including a new panel... oh, and pretty much all new electronics if his place experienced flooding - especially if we're talking salt water. Even without flooding, his electronics may have suffered numerous power surges during the storm. Course, it's hard to tell just what happened from plaintiff's opening, what does he mean his home was "impacted" by Sandy? Must be talking flooding, as he talks of "elevating" the house - but I guess it'll be up to MM to find out if we're talking about couple inches of run off or salt water up to the eaves. Hmmm, if I'm understanding dude right, he hired defendant to pull permits, unhook existing power connections and then plug things back into the grid once the other contractors raised the house. I was thinking full re-wire, but not what he just described... ah, well, he just passed up a written contract. Interesting, when dude talked about elevating his house he was talking raising his waterfront house up ten feet, redoing foundations and footings, than lowering house onto the new foundation, which means house ends up 5' higher than before the storm. I wonder if he had a general contractor, as this seems the job would require multiple subs - not just the electrician - and I would expect the GC to manage the subs, which doesn't seem to be what happened here. Oh, and cost of raising the house ran over 200 grand, with FEMA paying half - not to worry, Byrd can afford it. Ah, at least part of the problem arose when electrician wanted an additional grand to reconnect power to out buildings and dude's dock as well as putting in new cables to the basement that is now 5 more feet away. Oh, and relocating the panel... which he screwed up and is part of what second electrician had to redo to pass inspection. Hang on, says MM, shouldn't that have been included in the original bid. Dude getting paid over 4 grand to disconnect and then reconnect everything after the house is raised, so WTH does that mean if not hooking up those outlying structures. Hmmmm, guess there was a GC, as electrician us now blaming part of the problems on him... seems like the general contractor ought to be here. Also, MM figures out this sub contractor has some contract problems. All through the case, defendant has to keep turning to his witness for answers. Now she asks for the amended contract where this additional work was going to cost $1200 additional money... ah nothing in writing. Hmmm, thought these two jokers just made lame excuses of why they needed a change order costing additional $1200, now they're acting like that never happened... Later they reverse field again, and admit to the additional payment. Guess these are more idiots who just expect opposing side not to have evidence - or maybe that MM can't do simple math. Heck, when plaintiff gives her the receipts of what he paid she doesn't even break out a calculator. Dude paid a total of $5500, contract was for $4300... WTH is up with the other $1200. If we believe the evidence and the defendant, his witness/employee pocketed $1200... employee still trying to argue away the $1200 even though MM has seen the proof (and apparently check made out to him rather than the company). MM even comes down and carries the contract over to defendant and makes him read it... then tells him he needs to be more involved in supervising his business. Ah, seems after the additional $1200, which apparently never made it into the company coffers, employee came back asking for even more money - which is when plaintiff kicked him off the site and hired someone else. Seems way back when I started writing this is talked about some "contractors" who rip off victims of disasters - sure sounds like this is what happened. Still, could also be a case of law bid turning expensive. ... bid started at $4300, eventually $5500 is paid, and then additional $4200 to someone else to complete work. Geez, hard to keep track of defendant's stories... witness is an employee not a subcontractor - oh but he gets a 1099, but we have written contractor, but none of the change orders are written, on and on. Plaintiff isn't much better... big part of his case is the written contract, but he admits to verbal add-ons and change orders. When MM looks at what he paid second electrician she finds a bunch of stuff not on the original contract - dude says changes were verbal, not written. JJ would toss it then - 4 corners rule - but MM tries to come up with reasonable value for work done. Ah, she tells both sides she wouldn't trust them with notarized tongues, then rough justice time.... $2000 for plaintiff. Oh, and still don't know if place flooded.... now I'm thinking he had to raise the house to get FEMA money. Exes fighting over big $250 case: hoboy, not only fun with plaintiff's entrance, but defendant is a hoot as he comes in with guitar tie and shirt several times to big. Apparently, when they were a couple defendant damaged plaintiff's laptop. At the time, no biggy. Now, two years later, they're no longer a couple and she wants him to pay for the cracked screen. Ah, well, couple of nerds got togrther, made a baby, but now in court fussing over a broken computer. Plaintiff - not a public speaker! Defendant - also not a public speaker. Not sure why they're here. Dude admits he borrowed her laptop, tripped over it when he left it on the floor, and damaged it. I suppose JJ might say she forgave him when they made a baby 6 months later. But MM says you admit accidently breaking it, why should she get stuck with the cost when it is totally your fault? Ah well, turns out she lost the charger a year ago, so thing has been a paperweight for a year. Oh, yeah, part of that is because her Mom had just recently bought it for her at some big back to school sale, paying $250, and she never really used it - dude broke it when it was new. Soooo, we don't know if it works since she hasn't even tried to use it for the last year. MM tells him to pay the lady $250. Ah, little time left to discuss irrelevant stuff. No, no longer dating. No, not co-parenting, baby put up for adoption. Sort of shuts that line of questioning down, MM says that's gotta be tough, but maybe the best parenting decision. Yep, not sure any of these folks would make the best parents.... course, what do I know? Used car kerfuffle (not the run of the mill nonsense): before intro began I thought to myself probably a car deal gone wrong or a tenant case... yep, plaintiff bought a '06 Charger, says engine needs to be replaced and defendant should pay the nearly 4 grand. Hmmm, but maybe a little different - judging from intro there was a warranty. Defendant's intro says when plaintiff called complaining car was overheating defendant told him to bring it back and defendant would take care of it - but plaintiff didn't bring it in, then called again 10 days later complaining engine block had cracked. Uh, yeah, if you keep driving a car that is overheating you just cause more damage. Sooo, can defendant establish his timeline, and does he have to pay if plaintiff caused further damage? Ah, but once again the intro isn't backed up by the testimony. Nope, turns out when car first overheated, dude called dealer and dealer sent a tow truck and had car towed to an auto shop. Time for some nonsense over shop's name, as plaintiff testifies it was Prestige Motors, dealer argues no such place exists, but plaintiff says here's the tow slip, and that's what tow driver wrote down. Not sure what that exchange shows - well, except the shop may be one of those businesses that change their names every so often because of too many low reviews on yelp. Anywho, dealer approved shop keeps car a couple days, then announces they found nothing wrong, come get the car. So, he goes and picks up his new old car. Couple days later it's overheating again. This time he takes it to his regular mechanic who tells it's a cracked head. Hmph, defendant is one of those know it all slimey used car dealers who just can't keep his mouth shut. Dude just has to butt in as plaintiff looks for a picture or something. Hmmmm, really deserved a spanking for talking out of turn, but then quickly inserts foot in mouth so maybe he deserves a pass for the interruption. Maybe when he practiced his testimony in front of his mirror it sounded better than it did in the courtroom, but when he says he paid to tow the car to the shop "just to accommodate the gentleman." MM is quick to point out that plaintiff had paid $1500 extra for a third party warranty. Dude skates around, pointing out that the third party warranty doesn't really mean he has to do anything, yeah he sold the warranty, but it is actually between buyer and the warranty company. Hmmmm, is plaintiff suing the wrong defendant? Maybe so, as now he asks "isn't there a lemon law?" Nope, not for used cars (although, as we've heard, some jurisdictions DO have stronger consumer protection laws than others.) Now, time for plaintiff to shout out... he does get a slap down, but he does his shout out while MM is talking. Not sure how this case will last another 10 minutes... oh, that's right - commercial breaks. Ok, say plaintiff is 100% right and engine needs to be replaced, if defendant is right he's not the party that has to pay. I say time to check the warranty, but MM is looking at pictures of the damaged engine - maybe she already knows what the warranty says. More dancing around by dealer dude as he again denies having any responsibility for a warranty. MM checks the warranty both sides present, then asks for the purchase contract. Dealer repeatedly claimed he has nothing to do with the warranty. Now it comes out that's not really true... based on the mileage he is obligated for first 30 days or thousand miles in his jurisdiction. All that nonsense about the third party warranty was.... nonsense. Car still under the mandated dealer warranty when buyer is informed that he needs an engine. Now know it all dealer is trying to teach the judge the law, as he argues that the 3rd party warranty supercedes the dealer warranty... yeah right, so why is that in the purchase contract. As I said earlier, dude just can't control himself. MM has buyer get his mechanic on the phone, and dealer interrupts with "how do we even know this guy is the mechanic?" MM gives him another try to convince her the engine isn't covered under the 30 day dealer warranty mandated by NY State, but when he starts in rehashing the same arguments she's already decided against she cuts him off. Like I said, not the usual everyday used car case... this time buyer gets his $3900 new engine. 1 Link to comment
AngelaHunter January 23, 2018 Share January 23, 2018 22 minutes ago, SRTouch said: Botched storm damage repair: That was fun. I love shady contractors, and Quasimodo and his "partner" the dollar-store Dominic West didn't disappoint. Sadly, turns out that plaintiff - who was doing so well - wanted to get a few extras out of this. I have no idea about such things, but it seems elevating the house 5" might not protect it from surges during hurricanes? I also know little about FEMA, but it was my understanding that they help folks in dire straits, who are left homeless after natural disasters. I guess someone who has a waterfront property and can afford the other 100$+ to raise his house and get new lights on his private pier/wall light fixtures, etc is eligible for public assistance. No matter. I quite enjoyed this case, with its lack of cell phone dilemmas, incarcerated baby daddies and physical altercations. 29 minutes ago, SRTouch said: Exes fighting over big $250 case: What a letdown this was. OMG, really, I cheered when I heard these two uber-misfits, whose combined IQs are probably in the single digits, had bred. What a boon to the gene pool. Momma, instead of worrying about your daughter's cheap computer, sit her down and explain to her the wonderful world of birth control. Def. and his dorky witness seemed to be straight out of some silly teenaged comedy movie. Actually, I was kind of in awe that def, who says he's 23 but appeared to be a particularly underdeveloped and awkward 13, could make a baby! Wow. At least someone had the sense to adopt the unfortunate child out to what I hope will be reasonable, normal parents. 34 minutes ago, SRTouch said: Used car kerfuffle (not the run of the mill nonsense): Little plaintiff, with girlfriend/secretary in tow, buys an 11 year old Dodge Charger. Who would imagine it's less than perfect? I wouldn't want a new Dodge Charger but hey, it's his money. But he also pays 1500$ for a warranty (really, with all the money spent on this "hot" yet elderly car couldn't he have purchased a newer model car like a nice, reliable Toyota Corolla or something? Not sexy enough I guess) and slippery def, in spite of being such a nice guy, denies he can do anything about it. Def. is the poster child for why used car dealers have such a bad rep, although I do know there are reputable dealers out there. 41 minutes ago, SRTouch said: Maybe so, as now he asks "isn't there a lemon law?" All these litigants invoking this law need to read past the first line when they Google it and see that the "Lemon Law" does't apply to old cars with hard-ridden 100K miles on them. Link to comment
DoctorK January 23, 2018 Share January 23, 2018 (edited) Quote it seems elevating the house 5" might not protect it from surges during hurricanes Five feet (which is what was involved, five inches might help but not much LOL) can really make a big difference. I live on a barrier island and my first hurricane (Opal in 95) put the whole island underwater, the worst storm surge since anyone lived on the island. My house had 11 inches of water throughout, an extra five feet would have saved me from the flooding (which included seawater, dead fish, seaweed, and other nasty stuff), but would not have kept the roof on the house. However, water damage from above (rain) is a lot less damaging than salty seawater Edited January 23, 2018 by DoctorK Link to comment
AngelaHunter January 23, 2018 Share January 23, 2018 (edited) 3 minutes ago, DoctorK said: Five feet (which is what was involved, five inches might help but not much LOL) Durr! Right. Maybe I need to limit my alcohol consumption while watching this. :D I meant 5', not 5". Edited January 23, 2018 by AngelaHunter Link to comment
SRTouch January 23, 2018 Share January 23, 2018 1 minute ago, AngelaHunter said: Durr! Right. Maybe I need to limit my alcohol consumption while watching this. :D Nah, what's the fun in that ? Link to comment
aemom January 24, 2018 Share January 24, 2018 I was shocked several times watching the Jan 22 and 23 shows. I was shocked that MM made the neighbour pay for half of the doors. Court is about making you whole and there is no way those rotting doors were still worth $2K. I figured she might get $250-500. I was also shocked that someone suing about the 2nd hand car they bought actually won their case. My husband wandered in during that case and I told him - they never win - and then I told him that he witnessed history when he did! Again shocked that the misfit kids were doing the right thing and having their baby adopted because they clearly can't care for a laptop (left on floor, lost charger) never mind a human being. That kid was drowning in that shirt, but at least he made an effort to come to court not looking like a bum. I was also a little bit shocked that the crybaby handyman didn't get a little something because I was under the impression that if someone gets injured on your property that you are liable through your home insurance and that's why we have those high liabilities on them. But I was glad to see that if someone is hurt by accident, then you're not responsible. Link to comment
AngelaHunter January 24, 2018 Share January 24, 2018 11 hours ago, AEMom said: I was under the impression that if someone gets injured on your property that you are liable I'm not sure, but I think the reason he got nothing could be because he didn't bring the really important proof that he sought medical care earlier than a month or so after the fall? And that def said he came and did more work for her days later. He just didn't have enough evidence that the fall in her home was the direct cause for his later surgery. That's just how it seemed to me. Link to comment
Katy M January 24, 2018 Share January 24, 2018 13 hours ago, AEMom said: I was under the impression that if someone gets injured on your property that you are liable I think you have to be at least somewhat at fault. If I go to your house, don't tie my shoelaces and trip over them and fall down the stairs, why should you be liable? That's not the case in this case, but I'm just saying that just because someone happens to hurt themselves on your property doesn't make you automatically liable. Link to comment
AZChristian January 24, 2018 Share January 24, 2018 (edited) I feel concerned for the family that adopts the child of the two people in the second case. Are they warned about the apparent low mental abilities of the birth parents? I think chances are pretty good that this child might fall into a "special needs" category. Edited January 24, 2018 by AZChristian 1 Link to comment
KittyMom4 January 24, 2018 Share January 24, 2018 18 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: I love shady contractors, and Quasimodo and his "partner" the dollar-store Dominic West didn't disappoint Quasimodo grossed me out, it looked like he was chewing his cud and the microphone picked up every disgusting sound! Link to comment
AngelaHunter January 24, 2018 Share January 24, 2018 1 hour ago, AZChristian said: I think chances are pretty good that this child might fall into a "special needs" category. I think "Dad" is special needs. Not being a wise-ass, but he seems to have problems - mental or physical or both. 2 hours ago, Katy M said: If I go to your house, don't tie my shoelaces and trip over them and fall down the stairs, why should you be liable? I remember a case Judge Wapner tried. Guy was suing a restaurant because he took a bite of his shishkabob which contained a piece of wood from the skewer and he broke a tooth. The restaurant owner tried to argue that it's like eating cherry pie that contains a pit and not his fault. No, the judge told him. The pit is an natural part of a cherry and might be expected to be there, but wood isn't part of a chicken, so the def. was liable for the plaintiff's dental bills, since plaintiff couldn't anticipate wood in his meal. To me, wet floors come with plumbing jobs and are to be expected. If a plumber slipped on ice in my driveway because I neglected to put down salt, then I'd be liable. All JMO. 1 Link to comment
SRTouch January 24, 2018 Share January 24, 2018 4 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said: I remember a case Judge Wapner tried. Guy was suing a restaurant because he took a bite of his shishkabob which contained a piece of wood from the skewer and he broke a tooth. The restaurant owner tried to argue that it's like eating cherry pie that contains a pit and not his fault. No, the judge told him. The pit is an natural part of a cherry and might be expected to be there, but wood isn't part of a chicken, so the def. was liable for the plaintiff's dental bills, since plaintiff couldn't anticipate wood in his meal. To me, wet floors come with plumbing jobs and are to be expected. If a plumber slipped on ice in my driveway because I neglected to put down salt, then I'd be liable. All JMO. Makes sense, and falls in line with MM repeatedly asking plumber dude what he thought defendant did wrong that contributed to his fall. Best he could come up with is that the steps should have had some type of non-slip runner installed - especially as 73yo granny fell down those steps all the time. Anybody else think his granny falling several times embellishment really hurt his case? Link to comment
AngelaHunter January 24, 2018 Share January 24, 2018 22 minutes ago, GoodieGirl said: Quasimodo grossed me out, it looked like he was chewing his cud and the microphone picked up every disgusting sound! I know, and the resemblance was a little unsettling: 1 Link to comment
aemom January 24, 2018 Share January 24, 2018 1 hour ago, GoodieGirl said: Quasimodo grossed me out, it looked like he was chewing his cud and the microphone picked up every disgusting sound! He also didn't strike me as being all there. He seemed confused a lot of the time as to what was going on. If he's the owner, I have my doubts about how long the business will last. Especially if the other weaselly guy with him is hoodwinking him. 1 Link to comment
SRTouch January 24, 2018 Share January 24, 2018 (edited) ah, now we know why TPC schedule a rerun for Friday - it was just to make sure the scheduled maintenance on this site is completed and everything is back up.... no, seriously, I see that there is service maintenance schedule here tomorrow (Thursday) evening... it may go smooth, or we may face a couple days of getting things to run correctly as has happened a time or two in the past. Used lawnmower sale: Does AS IS count with self propelled mowers? What we have here is plaintiff buying a used mower that won't mow when he gets it home. When he tries to get his money back, major kerfuffle that gets physical and ends up with cops being called when seller threatens to go get his gun. He wants back the $120 he says he paid. Defendant's story a tad bit different. He says when plaintiff came to buy the mower he started it up and actually mowed half of seller's yard testing it before the purchase. A month later buyer came back foaming at the mouth and banging on his door. Defendant admits he pushed the plaintiff when he wouldn't get out of his garage. Hmmm, not sure how plaintiff can win. Doesn't sound like he's seeking anything for the kerfuffle turning physical and defendant shoving him out of the garage, just looking to undo the mower purchase. Unless he can show seller scammed him somehow, he bought himself a mower.... off topic a bit, but true... a few years ago I heard a neighbor yanking and yanking on the pull cord on a new mower he had just brought home. After 15 or so minutes, I wandered across the street to see what was going on - by that time it was yank, yank, cuss, kick the freeking thing, going to take this piece of crap back! And repeat. Anyway, I still get a laugh. He knew to put in the spark plug that came with the mower, but had neglected to put the wire on the plug. Put on the wire, drink some coffee to give mower a rest as it was flooded, then started right up... anyway, back to case. Plaintiff buying a 7 yo mower for $120. Agrees it ran fine when he bought it. He takes it home, where it sits for awhile in his garage. When he goes to use it starts but won't self propel. Sorry, not hearing a case here - closest we have is his craigslist ad where seller says it runs and is in excellent condition - is that a warranty or puffing? Apparently he never got the seller's number, so he loads up the mower and goes to the guy's house. And we get the kerfuffle. Guess they met outside the garage, defendant told him sale was final, and headed into his garage. Plaintiff acts like it was just the defendant getting agitated, but must have been both of them as he starts to follow on seller's heels into the garage. Says defendant spun around and punched him with both hands on his chest. No, says MM, that's a push not a punch. And I'm thinking only way he was close enough to BE pushed was to have been following defendant as he walked away. Plaintiff admits they were both yelling, and says as defendant is lowering his garage door he says he has a gun... So, plaintiff pulls the mower out of the trunk of his car and leaves it running while he goes to make a police report. Hmmm, why leave the mower running in the guy's driveway, and why go to the police - sorry, I'm not apt to resort to violence and don't own a handgun, but I see nothing wrong with pushing someone away who is shouting at me and following me into my attached garage. Haven't heard anything to suggest seller brandished or threatened buyer with a gun - just go away, I have a gun. Very little of what this guy is saying makes sense to me, and I still haven't heard anything to make me think he should get his money back. Over to defendant for his side of the story. Hmmm, much better speaker... and very plausible story... in fact basically the same story... he does answer the question of how plaintiff left the mower running - wrapped a cord around the safety shut off handle. Anyway, says he stayed in his house for 20 minutes after the guy left, then went out, turned off the mower and moved it off the driveway into the garage. Says a couple hours later he thought it was plaintiff when someone knocked on his door - but turned out to be cops. Seems plaintiff went and made a police report seeking battery charges. Course, that went nowhere... as MM points out, Florida is a "Stand your ground" state, which basically says you can use force, up to and including deadly force, to protect yourself or others from a perceived threat. So, defendant was within his rights to shove plaintiff - in fact in most Florida jurisdiction could have pulled his gun and shot the guy if he persisted in following him into the garage - actually, with the "line in the sand" defense, defendant didn't have to retreat indoors at all - but then use of force has to be appropriate force, so plaintiff yelling would not justify shooting him, whereas following defendant indoors ups the threat level, and since we're talking perceived threat here - so if he says he felt his life was threatened he can argue a shooting was justified. So, battery charge went nowhere, and plaintiff abandoned the lawnmower when he left it running in guy's driveway and never returned for it. Defendant had a friend look at the mower, self propel handle bent, friend fixed it for free, guy resold it for original asking price of $125. Ah, that could be the only sticking point... was defendant unjustly enriched when he sold the abandoned mower a second time.... nope, MM says, mower abandoned, defendant keeps the money from both sales. don't loan friends your car: another good deed backfiring. Plaintiff says she loaned defendant her car, he got tickets resulting in car being impounded, she couldn't afford to spring it from impound, it was auctioned off, she wants $4500 from defendant. Ah, when defendant walks in I recognize him from the previews... he's the spoiled brat MM gets onto and he does the eye roll thing - dude, she raised three teenagers, mothers can HEAR you doing the eyeroll. Not sure why, but dude reminds me of Sheldon on the Big Bang with a blond man bun. Ok, plaintiff isn't much better than the brat. She had two cars, one a '99 Mustang, and let him drive the Mustang rather than ride the bus - with no insurance. Dude racks up over a grand in parking tickets - as MM points out, could have been worse, could have been in an accident with personal injuries in HER uninsured vehicle. Dude doesn't deny getting the tickets, and tells us how grateful he was that his friend let him drive her car. - he "owns it" just doesn't think he owes money. Oh yes, another entitled adult child who feels no responsibility for his actions and feels no remorse sticking it to his friend. No question dude is liable - question is, is plaintiff partly responsible for letting ungrateful punk drive around without insurance, and how much of her $4500 claim could she have mitigated if she hadn't left the car in impound and let it eventually go to auction? Wow, not sure how long it can listen to defendant. He's - like - everything was - like - done unprofessionally. Like - yeah, he should - like - pay the tickets... not only doesn't he have a defense, he's about to make me pull out the little but of hair is have. Over to plaintiff - not quite as bad with the "LIKE," but her position makes about as much sense. Seems she loaned him the car for a month, he returns it three and a half months later. She knew about the tickets, but left it parked where it could be towed away to impound. So, did nothing to mitigate her damages, and all the impound fees happened after he returned car - but car impounded because of tickets he was responsible for. Hate to admit it, but punk defendant may have a point saying he shouldn't have to pay for everything. Another case where MM is earning her money having to listen to these two. If it wasn't almost over I'd fast forward to the end. Another case where there are two unlikable/foolish/irresponsible litigants, but one is head and shoulders less likeable - I could almost hear JJ dismissing the case, saying plaintiff had dirty hands because she loaned her car without insurance. I would have understood had MM decided plaintiff shared a bigger portion of liability, but she sticks "like" dude with the bills that he "owns" but doesn't think he needs to pay. Plaintiff doesn't get what she's seeking - seems on top of everything else she wants to retroactively charge rental fees - still, she walks out with almost 3 grand. Hoboy, once Doug talks to them we learn plaintiff loaned her car to dude knowing he was heavy into street pharmaceuticals and booze - yep, lucky he didn't kill somebody while driving her car under the influence. bad snowboard: 'nother high dollar case - plaintiff bought snowboard from defendant for 200 bucks - decided it's crap and unsafe to use - wants to undo the deal. Today must be AS-IS day for non-vehicles. Oops, bought for $150, but tacked on $50 just because. Ok, 'nother craigslist buy - seller isn't a snowboarder but picked up the board to resell. Not sure WTH plaintiff is whining about. He bought a used item for a fraction of the original purchase price - great if you know what you're looking at and/or you luck out, but otherwise you may find you bought a pig in the poke. This buyer admits he has very little snowboarding experience, but felt he could trust the stranger who wanted to get rid of it. Yeah, what could possibly go wrong? Not sure how this one made it to air, looks to be a 30 second case - unless defendant made some warranty or representation in the ad that plaintiff can point to and say it's a fraud. Nope, best he can come up with is email from manufacturer that says board is messed up (lamination coming off). Defendant admits he knows nothing about snowboards, he bought it for 50 bucks from a neighbor, who he didn't know, after asking a roommate if it was a good deal. Course he doesn't have any evidence, but I believe him and don't see anything that indicates a fraud. Case going nowhere, but MM has time to fill, so she asks if anyone in the courtroom has any snowboarding experience... ah ha, camera dude gets some air time (not sure why, even if he announces thing not worth a dime I wouldn't undo the deal). Yep, camera dude says board messed up - but really has no idea of what it would cost to make right or even if it can be fixed. Ah, a switch-a-roo, MM says ad was misleading when defendant called the piece that is separating from the board a protective cover when it is actually a piece that should be laminated onto the board. Hmmm, not sure I agree with her on this one. She says that even she didn't believe the "protective cover" line in the ad... hey, the buyer professed to have some knowledge, not a lot but some, and he bought it, then got buyer's remorse and sued to undo the deal without even taking it to a repair shop to see what it would cost to fix. Hmmmm, wonder if she knew defendant ducked the plaintiff's calls when he started having questions? We didn't find out about that until hallterview - maybe that could be taken as defendant knew board wasn't as ad claimed... I still wouldn't have refunded the money, though. Edited January 25, 2018 by SRTouch 2 Link to comment
AngelaHunter January 24, 2018 Share January 24, 2018 (edited) 50 minutes ago, SRTouch said: Used lawnmower sale: Does AS IS count with self propelled mowers? Today we saw that stupidity has no age/sex barriers. Idiots all around! The Lawn Mower Man sees mower, checks it out, tries it and buys it. End of transaction. He leaves it sitting in his garage where it goes through a hurricane. He takes it apart, tries it out and goes storming to sellers house, screaming like a lunatic and trespassing because it now doesn't work. "AS IS" counts for everything, unless otherwise stated. I did sell a portable a/c on CL and made sure I wrote out a paper, in duplicate, "As is" and made the buyer sign it. Unlike most of the litigants we see here, I do watch this show. These geezers really annoy me. Instead of being grateful and happy that he's still gadding around, waking up every morning and is not 6 feet under, he chooses to engage in this kind of petty stupidity over 120$. He could have taken the thing and got the bent handle fixed (probably bent by him) instead of going through all this nonsense. 50 minutes ago, SRTouch said: don't loan friends your car: Both litigants, 20 years old, are so stupid they can barely speak in comprehensible sentences. Plaintif "basely" feels so sorry for def. He had to take a bus! Awww! That's like, so, I mean, you know, beneath him. (I took a damned bus to work for 20 years and a train for another ten, but I'm just not that special I guess.) Of course defendant can't pay for the tickets he racked up or the car he wrecked. Do you know how much he has to spend on his hair, his eyebrows, his manicure and his botox, to achieve that look of a fucked-up Kabuki mask? "I, like, I mean, y'know, owned up to it, y'know." Owned up to it, but wouldn't pay for it. I mean, you know - just look at him! Who would be so mean as to demand he pay for shit he does? What does he care about parking tickets? JM to Plaintiff (who also puts more on the outside of her head than on the inside) "No, you're not generous. You're STUPID." That was pretty plain, but I doubt plaintiff has the necessary gray matter to learn from her STUPID mistakes. I was sorry JM missed that repugnant def. rolling his eyes at her. I think that's the only facial expression he can still achieve. 50 minutes ago, SRTouch said: bad snowboard: And then we had the 39-year old idiot. He wants to go snowboarding (yeah, good luck with that. He didn't appear to be the athletic type) so buys a snowboard when he knows nothing about them. He certainly deserved nothing back, and but for the wording on def's ad, he would have gotten precisely that. But we did get tech guy from the show to testify, so that was fun. He was good, too! Edited January 24, 2018 by AngelaHunter 2 Link to comment
teebax January 24, 2018 Share January 24, 2018 3 hours ago, AEMom said: He also didn't strike me as being all there. He seemed confused a lot of the time as to what was going on. If he's the owner, I have my doubts about how long the business will last. Especially if the other weaselly guy with him is hoodwinking him. You will not see me pick on someone for weight, mental deficiency (which is hard considering some litigants), bad weaves/haircuts, etc. It's not because I'm above that, I just don't enjoy picking on people for things that may be out of their control. I have no such rules for bad teeth. I can't even look at people whose mouths are all jacked up like that guy's mouth was. A third eye would have been less distracting for me. Then they throw it to the outside asshole, and he's interviewing a British woman who fell into the stereotype about British people's teeth. Seriously, her teeth were freaking yellow. Just nasty. (Obviously I know not all Brits have terrible teeth, but it's a stereotype for a reason.) Let's just say it was not a good teeth day on TPC, y'all. 1 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.