AngelaHunter January 24, 2018 Share January 24, 2018 3 minutes ago, teebax said: I can't even look at people whose mouths are all jacked up like that guy's mouth was. OH, god, me too! Rotten, broken and missing teeth make me nauseated, because I just imagine what the inside of their mouths look like, and yeah - smell like. Eww. These days there's really no excuse for it, especially with people who can afford all the crazy shit these people buy and are suing for. Before getting 1000$ worth of titty tats, paying some asshole's bail or buying a 50" tv I might consider a trip the frickin' dentist. 3 hours ago, AEMom said: Especially if the other weaselly guy with him is hoodwinking him. You just know he pocketed the 1200$ and has probably been stealing this way for a long time, considering how he started babbling nonsense when JM was questioning him. 1 Link to comment
babs j. January 24, 2018 Share January 24, 2018 I wonder how many cases there are of a GUY loaning a GIRL his car for a while and her not returning it, getting tickets, and not paying them so the car gets impounded. Probably a lot fewer than a girl letting a guy use her car. 1 Link to comment
Broderbits January 24, 2018 Share January 24, 2018 1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said: 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 The stupid was strong in that one! He did lots of research, but AFTER buying the board. He's lucky MM found in his favor, because I wouldn't have given him one red cent. 1 Link to comment
aemom January 25, 2018 Share January 25, 2018 (edited) 5 hours ago, teebax said: 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 agree with you Teebax, and in that case, I actually felt sorry for the guy, because if he is suffering from some sort of dementia, then it's very sad. I have been dealing with close relatives with dementia for many years and it's heartbreaking and exhausting. I actually think that Weasel is taking advantage of the situation to pocket money. I also agree with you 100% about the teeth. Edited January 25, 2018 by AEMom Typo 1 Link to comment
SRTouch January 25, 2018 Share January 25, 2018 (edited) custom shoes: not something I have any experience with, but sounds pricey - definitely not your normal TPC litigant. Intro just announced she paid $2600 for these shoes. Here plaintiff had defendant make her up custom shoes, and now she's complaining one doesn't fit correctly and appearance of the two doesn't match. Not sure about a full refund because appearance is off, but well, for that money they had better fit. Defendant says plaintiff is just a nitpicky whiner. Says she came back multiple times for adjustments, then demanded a new pair be made. He claims he's very experienced and is the shoe maker for the rich and famous... well I hope his customers are rich if they pay $2600 for a pair of shoes. Oh my, not sure about plaintiff... she starts her testimony with how she randomly wandered into defendant's shop - huh, randomly wandered in and plopped down $2600!? Then she implies she based her decision on getting defendant to make her the shoes because defendant claimed to be a fabulous custom shoes maker... hmmm maybe so, but does she spends that kind of money based on a shoe salesman's word without doing research and getting references. Oh, seems the shoes were ONLY $1600 - there was also a grand for making an impression of her feet - I guess the impression would be reusable until her feet change as she ages - or loses a toe to frostbite. Actually, I googled "custom made shoes" and see impressions advertised for 89-99 bucks. Oh well, guess these folks are in another world. I understand buying custom shoes for orthopedic or diabetic problems, but once you get beyond Red Wings you're out of my league (nope, never had a pair of Red Wings - but my Dad always had a pair for work.) Ok, now MM has the shoes... and is about to get out her magnifying glass to try to spot WTH plaintiff is complaining about the shoes not matching. Plaintiff really wants to come up and point out the problems, and actually makes a couple trips up to point to what she doesn't like in these 3 thousand dollar shoes. Ok, MM does see differences, but points out that defendant may well have made those differences to match her feet - cause nobody's feet are exactly the same. So, she crosses the aisle to hear from defendant - who has a bunch of fancy, shoe maker specific terms which she has to get him to explain. Actually, makes kind of sense. As I understand him, he says her heel tends to shift to side as she walks - which matches her complaint. So, he tells us that before the shoes were made he tried to get her to choose a style with more support to keep her heel in place. But, she ignored his advice and went with a different style. Ok, he has all this notes from their meeting - anything goes to back that up or is this an excuse he came up with later to explain away the problem. He tells us he's fine with making adjustments, just not returning money or starting from scratch. Course, could be a whole different story when they're out of court - could be he's not nearly so accommodating when she comes in for her adjustments... the scene in Pretty Woman the first time Julia Roberts goes in the shop, comes to mind. Hmmm, things swing when we get to her complaint about the front of the shoe. I could buy his story about the back and her not going with his style recommendation... but that doesn't hold up with the front. Seems she felt the top of the front was too tight, and it cut into her foot. She complained, evidently he attempted to fix it and didn't, so she put on the shoes and walked four blocks to his store and showed him the red marks where it was too tight... oh, and took pictures of her foot which she now shows us. That pretty much does it for me. For this amount of money those babies should FIT, not rub her feet raw after walking a few blocks. She went back multiple times and he didn't fix the problem, so why give him more chances. Still not willing to give her a full refund - even if the shoes are tossed, those $1000 molds of her feet can still be used... MM gives her a chance to walk back and forth to show us her foot slipping, but is that her natural walk or us she trying to make her foot slip? Aw well, MM tells them to go back and try one more time to make more adjustments, cause she thinks both seem like reasonable people. Huh? Dude just proposed changing the heel and at first plaintiff says she's willing to try, but then quickly adds "but only if it fits the style of the shoe." I don't see these folks ever working out their differences. Anyway, she tells gives defendant 30 days to make one last ditch effort to adjust the shoes - if plaintiff isn't happy, MM is going to give up on fixing the shoes and award somebody money. Ah, problem with the decision to give them 30 days to solve the problem us that Harvey gets to tell us that.... yes, defendant was able to make the customer happy with this additional adjustments. skipped - dog fight made worse since defendant's dog didn't have its shots. tenant case: ah, been missing the old "rented a room" case, but here we go. Wow, I hit pause to type this as plaintiff walks in... must have lots of evidence in that bag - and, I know I'm old fashioned and don't get fashion, but I'll never understand people and their hair styles/colors. Apparently plaintiff moved into a terrible rental, cops called and she was removed, but left her stuff behind. She wants prorated rent back, suing for $160. Defendant says she was a friend of a friend in need, let her move into the house but gave her two simple rules (no men, and respect others in house) she refused to follow. Says she brought drunk men home in the wee hours, and was horrible to live around. Hmmm question may be whether she was a tenant. If she was, even as a month to month, why did cops make her leave when she had paid rent (must have paid if she's looking for $160 back - unless that's a deposit). Ok, have to wonder if plaintiff always slurs her words - makes me think she's a bit tipsy. She denies the whole "drunk man" story - says the kerfuffle was over somebody taking her bottle of ice water out the fridge - seems she really likes water in the middle of the night and the dastardly landlady/roommates kept taking her water out of the fridge. Defendant says plaintiff came in slamming doors, and yelling about her AWOL water bottle. Daughter landlady gets up and they're yelling, which wakes up mommy landlady - mommy sends everybody to bed- we'll talk in the morning. Couple hours later mommy gets up to use the toilet, and finds defendant's 3 page manifesto of how she wants to live, what she's going to pay, etc. Sad how it seems she may have been pretty sharp, but the booze is eating away her ability to function. Oh, yeah, mommy brought the manifesto in, and MM reads portions of it to us. Hmmm, not sure where some of this came from, as she's ranting about elder abuse and how they'll end up in prison for 5 years if they touch her... huh, where'd that come from. Oh, and plaintiff saying she is only going to pay half the agreed upon rent (oh, and we learn this wasn't really a month to month, but a three month verbal lease which was supposed to give plaintiff a chance to get on her feet.) until she's ready to leave, and she's ready to leave right then. Well, fine then, landlady says after reading the letter, if you're ready to leave, leave. Heck, landlady gave her until the next month to look for a place, and provided her with names of people/places that might be able to help - oh, and was willing to forgive money still owed in back rent ($100). Hmmm, now things are getting dicey for defendant. Seems plaintiff called the cops - not sure why. Defendant no longer willing to wait til the first, and cops tell her only why to get her out immediately is a restraining order, and the manifesto is enough for a TRO. Ok, says MM, then you DID force her out early even though she had paid rent, so why shouldn't she get back the prorated amount. Part of the tricky thing here is that even by plaintiff's testimony she owes money for the first month - but there is no countersuit so there wouldn't be any offset. MM gets frustrated with defendant, who keeps saying it's not about the money, and she has always been willing to return the $160 but was never asked. Huh? MM says, how clear does it have to be that she wants the money back - she took you to court! Quick ruling, as MM is fed up with these idiots, bangs her gavel and leaves.... hey, they just wanted to meet Douglas. Anyway, must of been some confusion after MM left, because winning plaintiff comes out first, and Douglas let defendant bring good her papers into the hallway. Ah, in hallterview defendant says she was willing to return the money if asked nicely, but instead all she received were threats and demands... she's fine with the ruling and wishes the plaintiff the best. Edited January 26, 2018 by SRTouch 4 Link to comment
Florinaldo January 25, 2018 Share January 25, 2018 40 minutes ago, SRTouch said: custom shoes: I understand the need to be choosy when buying a comfortable pair of shoes; I have one foot that is wider than the other and I must make sure that any new pair of shoes or sneakers fits that one first. I look for manufacturer or brands that provide 2 or 3 differents widths for the same size (not that many do). However I would never plunk down 1600$ for a pair of shoes, even "stylish" ones (then again, I am a man). Doesn't pain and discomfort come with the territory if you choose to wear that kind of shoes; "the best shoes hurt the most" as I heard on TV some months ago, an oxymoron if there ever was one. I have never understood why many women insist on wearing heels and all kinds of flimsy designs and then complain about it; they made the choice, they should live with the pain. MM kept saying the shoes cost 2600$; no, the forms accounted for 1000$ of the total and no reimbursement should be considered for those since she can keep them. Plaintiff seemed a little finnicky and not willing to accept the consequencee of her own "fashion" choice, but at least the defendant was able to adjust the shoes in the end. Perhaps her court appearance and what MM told her sobered her up a bit and brought her expectations down to a more realistic level. 49 minutes ago, SRTouch said: tenant case: One look at the plaintiff and I would have run like hell from the prospect of renting a room to her; she gave a definite "difficult ol' lady" vibe (and alcohol may also be a factor as SRTouch wrote). Defendants foolishly entered into a landlord-tenant relationship, without care to what liabilities and obligations it put onto them. They got the verdict they deserved. I did not watch the dog case because the defendant instantly fet like an insufferable tool. 1 Link to comment
Katy M January 25, 2018 Share January 25, 2018 12 minutes ago, Florinaldo said: However I would never plunk down 1600$ for a pair of shoes, even "stylish" ones (then again, I am a man). Doesn't pain and discomfort come with the territory if you choose to wear that kind of shoes; "the best shoes hurt the most" as I heard on TV some months ago, an oxymoron if there ever was one. I have never understood why many women insist on wearing heels and all kinds of flimsy designs and then complain about it; they made the choice, they should live with the pain. I had a boyfriend once ask me why I didn't wear high heels. I told him they're uncomfortable. He said he thought I should wear them because they're sexy. I told him to wear them. That conversation didn't go well. I recently read a story online about a waitress that either got fired or was suing (I don't remember it wasn't something I was paying close attention to) because she was required to wear high heels. A waitress. Required to wear high heels. That's insane. And, I also read on an advice thing about what to wear and not wear on interviews. It said "Don't wear flats. You'll look like a child." So, I don't know that it's always a choice that women make because they particularly want to, but feel somewhat forced into. 8 Link to comment
Florinaldo January 25, 2018 Share January 25, 2018 (edited) 26 minutes ago, Katy M said: So, I don't know that it's always a choice that women make because they particularly want to, but feel somewhat forced into. Yes, I have read about cases where employers make such unreasonable requests. In which case labour and human rights laws in effect in their juridiction might be an avenue for recourse. 26 minutes ago, Katy M said: And, I also read on an advice thing about what to wear and not wear on interviews. It said "Don't wear flats. You'll look like a child." Silly advice. I have never looked at what kind of shoes a prospective employee (male or female) is wearing before deciding on their suitability for the job (it might be a different story if they were tracking mud all over the place). A job seeker might consider if it is worth the bother to seek employment with a business that puts shoes so high on its list of required skills. Moreover, women wear heels in many other circumstances than the workplace, including social events and even at home, where no one forces them to. Edited January 25, 2018 by Florinaldo 1 Link to comment
Zahdii January 26, 2018 Share January 26, 2018 I won't wear heels, and I'd walk so awkwardly in them you wouldn't want to see me in them, anyway. Got a relative who is a cocktail waitress in a casino. She was surprised because she thought she'd have to wear at least 2 inch heels, but the dress code is very strict. Everything, down to the undergarments have to be purchased from the casino, although they'll pay for one full uniform a year if you make it through the training and probationary period. Anyway, the shoes are a cross between athletic shoes and work shoes. Fairly nice looking for what they are, and leather or suede. Very comfortable. The employer says good waitresses are valued, and putting them in heels reduces their 'work life' and increases their health care costs. And it's sad, but my relative says that in today's world, she's grateful she has something to wear she can run in if violence ever breaks out on the floor. 10 Link to comment
AngelaHunter January 26, 2018 Share January 26, 2018 18 hours ago, SRTouch said: custom shoes: not something I have any experience with, but sounds pricey - definitely not your normal TPC litigant. That's for sure. No mangled English, yelling, cursing, fistfights or vandalizing of property. I would never dream of paying 2600$ for shoes (which is more than double/triple what most litigants pay for their cars - when they do pay for them, that is) but it's her money, not Byrd's and the shoes were darling and looked comfortable. Def. made shoes for James Gandolfini, so in my eyes he can do no wrong. I actually listened to the Shyster Outside and was glad to hear they settled the problem. But yeah, there are women who are willing to cripple themselves, ruin their backs and their feet to look stylish as they teeter around on super high heels. I"ve never been one of those. 6 Link to comment
Florinaldo January 26, 2018 Share January 26, 2018 (edited) 5 hours ago, Zahdii said: Anyway, the shoes are a cross between athletic shoes and work shoes. Fairly nice looking for what they are, and leather or suede. Very comfortable. You relative is very lucky to have an intelligent employer who promotes employer wellness and does not enforce an idiotic and dangerous footwear code, contrary to what many do in the restaurant industry. Edited January 26, 2018 by Florinaldo 4 Link to comment
ElleMo January 26, 2018 Share January 26, 2018 On 1/24/2018 at 4:28 PM, SRTouch said: 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. I loved the resolution in this case! 3 Link to comment
califred January 27, 2018 Share January 27, 2018 I still can’t fathom paying $1600 for that pair of shoes. I’m just astonished and also doing it seemingly “on a whim” 7 Link to comment
teebax January 28, 2018 Share January 28, 2018 (edited) 17 hours ago, califred said: I still can’t fathom paying $1600 for that pair of shoes. I’m just astonished and also doing it seemingly “on a whim” If I were to buy custom shoes, I'd select a more practical style and color, probably something I'd wear more frequently than those red shoes she chose. I loved that MM called her on purposely trying to walk badly in the shoes. After that, I didn't care if she won or lost. It's a good thing I'm not a judge. If I caught someone lying I wouldn't award them jack. I really hate liars. Edited January 28, 2018 by teebax 7 Link to comment
aemom January 29, 2018 Share January 29, 2018 It's not enough anymore to have As Is car cases on TPC, but now we have to add lawn mowers and snowboard cases. The dingbat who loaned her car to her loser friend, as I watched, I knew that AngelaHunter would have a very colorful description of the defendant, and she did not disappoint. He was an ungrateful ass and I hope she learned her lesson. The custom shoe case was interesting, because I have bought countless pairs of heels strictly for going out to the occasional party and have been disappointed many times. The idea of a custom built shoe is tempting. I finally got lucky and found a pair with a very modest heel, and I just wear those a couple of times a year. I feel guilty spending $100 on shoes, I can't imagine spending what she did. But that case probably ranks top 5 for most well spoken plaintiff and defendant. 5 Link to comment
Jamoche January 29, 2018 Share January 29, 2018 I got semi-custom figure skates from a place in San Francisco that also does full-custom ones. Semi-custom is when they use standard sizing but will do custom combinations; mine were wide in the front half but medium in the heels. Full custom is what it sounds like this lady got - they measure your foot exactly. I just checked the prices - full-custom starts around $800, and that includes measuring. They did fit much better than any off the shelf shoes I'd ever bought, which is what you need for something where you're going to jump and land on metal blades. If I had to wear dressy shoes all the time I'd be tempted to get them semi-custom too. 3 Link to comment
SRTouch January 29, 2018 Share January 29, 2018 (edited) cat attack: well, this is different - plaintiff suing after his cat is beat up by defendant's cat. Whoa, and we're talking over $1600 in vet bills? Back in the day I used to help look over a feral cat colony, and there'd be the occasional fight and abcess wound, but that must have been quite the fight - or, plaintiff let the infection go way too long before treatment - or, just as likely, he wants pain and suffering. Ok, defendant's intro says these two owners moved in together, and their respective cats didn't get along. Sooo, she says they kept the cats locked away in separate rooms. Says plaintiff had a hairless cat, and when it developed an abcess, plaintiff decided there must have been a fight even though no one witnessed anything. Hmmm, how long after the fight before dude noticed the abcess? My understanding is that hairless cats are actually pretty high maintenance, requiring baths at least weekly. Anyway, sounds like these two never properly introduced their cats.... and what's with defendant's smirk as plaintiff's cat's injury is described during the intro. Ok, on to case... ah, not just vet bills, dude is tacking on $500 in lost wages and transportation costs to take his cat to the vet - yeah, like that's going to happen. Well, these litigants were never bf/gf, they each rented a bedroom in a 3 br apartment and the third roommate was defendant's coworker, which is how she came to rent a room. According to plaintiff, when defendant and her cat moved in they agreed to keep the cats separate for a month to let them get used to each other. Not unreasonable, as long as they were going to go through supervised interactions, etc, like Jackson Galaxy does on his Cat from Hell series. Way way back, when my Spotty (she'll be 17 this year) was first rescued, I had a screen door dividing my apartment to keep her and my other cats separated. Ah, but he's not talking about trading spaces and letting both cats out at different times, he says deal was she was to keep her cat in her bedroom 24/7 for that first month while his cat had access to roam the rest of the apartment... nope, IMHO, not best way to do it. He says he came home one day and she had locked his cat in his bedroom and let hers out into the rest of the apartment. Not only that, but he says his cat had been clawed and still had a claw sticking out of the wound. His story is that defendant told him she let the cats interact, wasn't paying attention, and she told him they got into it. Says he just thought it was a scratch, so no trip to the vet. Couple days later, he comes home and again his cat is locked into his room. Now, some nonsense about how bad it was for defendant to lock his cat in his br, cause all the rooms get really hot.... yet he has no problem wanting her to lock her cat into her br... ah, ok, he has a point, because she locked his cat up without access to water on a hot day. Says at that time he texted her and told her things weren't going to work out. (Guess when she moved in it was a trial period to see if the cats could get along.) Next day he finally takes cat to vet.... ah, but he didn't bring the vet report, just the bill. While he looks for what he does have, MM asks defendant for her version. From the beginning, she disputes the whole 30 day thing. Says she's moved around a lot and has gone through several introductions with her cat. She actually sounds like she knew what she was doing.... so how did his cat get hurt? Says she was on couch with her cat, his cat came out of his room, looked at her cat, turned to walk away everything good... she stopped paying attention and an hour later the cats get into a scuffle. Anyway, lots of talk, but what it boils down to is she let down her guard and the cats had a fight... sounds like she'll be liable, but for how much? When it happened she offered to pay $700 of the $1000 vet bill... now the bill has increased. Ah, plaintiff doesn't have a vet report, but says he has it on his phone... nope, what he shows the judge is snapshot of an undated page of a multiple report... she takes a recess and tells him to get her some evidence. After the recess he comes back with the vet report, so now MM wants to know why defendant changed her mind and paid dude nothing. Her answer is that he wanted her to pay the bill, but also be responsible for future bills, and she wasn't willing to agree without having a final amount. Ok, but there was only 1 subsequent $30 visit. MM decides defendant, who was the only human present when the fight happened, the one who says she has experience introducing cats, and admits she wasn't paying attention when the fight happened, is on the hook for the 2 vet visits and the cost of the Uber rides to the vet - so $1100.99. used car deal gone wrong: this isn't a fight over a lemon, this one is more a contract case where two sides don't agree on how much the installments were to be.... which begs the question - why on earth would someone agree to installments for thousands of dollars to some stranger. Ok, defendant's intro paints a different story. Says check for the first payment bounced, payments made late, finally defendant decided to undo the deal - car never taken out of her name so she repo'ed it. Ok, they actually have a contract, which plaintiff wrote. He admits he wasn't on time with any of his payments, but argues he made all the payments. Sounds like he wants to claim harrassment cuz the evil woman would come to his house looking for money when he was late. Defendant admits she went to his house three times to try to report the car before finally hiring a repo agent... and MM tells her that wasn't smart, especially in a State where property owners can shoot trespassers. Hmmm, these folks actually did the title transfer like they were supposed to, but defendant was listed as a lien holder. Somehow, though, she got the title switched back into her name... and MM says she must have pulled a fast one because she needed his signature. Poor little lady acting so innocent and clueless seems to be a little conniving as we head to commercial... as MM says when she tells us how she was so scared of plaintiff she went back in the middle of the night three times to try to report the car before finally hiring a repo guy. Ah, and MM tells her, not only was there monkey business getting the title back into her name, the contract doesn't have a report clause - so she illegally repo'ed the car. Now, we have his damage claim where he claims damages for property left in the car. He'll win on the illegal repo, but the property - not likely. His court paper mention hundreds in jewelry and a laptop, but texts at the time don't.... no, at the time he was claiming a guitar and amp - but he admits those items weren't in the car. Here I'm going with the pictures repo company took. Whoa, this lady is 70? Like MM says, looking pretty good for 70, and this 70yo lady who is playing the victim today was sneaking around trying to repo this dude's car in the middle of the night? Ok, both sides breached the contract, him with the habitual late payments and her with an illegal repo (oh, and she has since sent the car out of state with her brother to keep plaintiff from repo'ing the repo.) Rough justice.... plaintiff gets $1500. Defendant still with the victim routine with Doug, now with diminished mental capacity. property damage case: plaintiff says neighbor's tree fell on his car (non-running '94 camarro - which I guess has great sentimental value cause it belonged to his gramps) wants $2500. Defendant says junker didn't work before the tree came smashing down - gramp's car maybe worth $600 - besides, wasn't even his tree that squished the car. Ok, this will be a short case, as plaintiff is really reaching here. Unless he can show some type of negligence, I don't see plaintiff winning because a tree blew down during a storm. Ah, best evidence that defendant did nothing wrong is plaintiff's own video, which shows what MM says look like a healthy tree... oh, and neither of these litigants seems to have any idea of how tall a tree it was - did plaintiff really say 7 feet? Heck the trunk we see in the picture is 7 feet. Edited January 29, 2018 by SRTouch 5 Link to comment
patty1h January 29, 2018 Share January 29, 2018 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: 2. used car deal gone wrong: this isn't a fight over a lemon, this one is more a contract case where two sides don't agree on how much the installments were to be.... which bets the question - why on earth would someone agree to installments for thousands of dollars to some stranger. I meant to rewind and get the woman's name, but I was on auto-pilot and deleted this off my DVR as soon as I finished watching. I was intrigued by the woman's story about losing two of her children and planned on Googling her. Can someone provide her name and/or search for her backstory? Link to comment
AngelaHunter January 29, 2018 Share January 29, 2018 2 hours ago, SRTouch said: used car deal gone wrong: Yet again, we see middleaged and elderly people who don't have one lick of sense and behave badly. Plaintiff obviously can't make even the minimal payments each month and on time. If he can't afford an 8K car, get a 5K car! Oh, but think how cool he'll look tooling around in the convertible even though he can't pay for it. I was thinking he should just buy a car at a dealer, but then - silly me - he probably can't get any kind of loan in his name. Def, after skulking around in the middle of the night to try and repo her car, puts on the "Oh, pity me. This is elder abuse! You can't expect me to carry five more of those 4-oz things. I can't breathe and another 20 oz of baggage to carry might kill me!!" JM didn't buy her "poor little old lady" bullshit. She's lucky she's not going to jail for her forgery. 2 hours ago, SRTouch said: why on earth would someone agree to installments for thousands of dollars to some stranger Truly, it always boggles my mind. Once someone has your property, what is the motivation to keep paying for it, if you're the kind of person who has probably stiffed everyone else and have no credit? I would never, EVER sell my car to some stranger for payments. How stupid is that? But I"m sure if JM had asked def., she'd have said, "Oh, but I TRUSTED him!" All her years on earth yet still so damned clueless. 2 hours ago, SRTouch said: cat attack: I skipped this rather quickly after seeing the def's Bitch-Face. Don't want to hear ever again about animals suffering because humans are stupid. Generally speaking, cat bites - even just one - can have serious or even fatal consequences because of the teeming bacteria in a cat's mouth. The fangs force the bacteria under the skin, causing abcesses that can be costly to treat. I'm assuming that's what happened here. 2 hours ago, SRTouch said: property damage case: plaintiff says neighbor's tree fell on his car Ok, how many people have called the police because a tree fell down? Trollish little plaintiff seemed to think that was the best course of action. Poor cops, dealing with this stupidity. I wonder what, exactly, he expected the police to do? Arrest the tree? Arrest the def, or make him pay on the spot for the car damage because he somehow made the tree fall down? That wasn't bad enough, so plaintiff starts lying about some hearsay evidence from his landlord. Yeah, sure. Last year during a violent storm, one of my very large beech trees broke in half and crashed down on my neighbour's property. Strangely, they didn't call the police because, well, I guess they knew I ddn't create the storm just to annoy them. 5 Link to comment
AZChristian January 29, 2018 Share January 29, 2018 1 hour ago, patty1h said: I meant to rewind and get the woman's name, but I was on auto-pilot and deleted this off my DVR as soon as I finished watching. I was intrigued by the woman's story about losing two of her children and planned on Googling her. Can someone provide her name and/or search for her backstory? Sandra Demore, Florida, 70 years old. Daughter: Sherry Lee DeMore Salimone Son: Robert DeMore 3 Link to comment
Schnickelfritz January 29, 2018 Share January 29, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, patty1h said: I meant to rewind and get the woman's name, but I was on auto-pilot and deleted this off my DVR as soon as I finished watching. I was intrigued by the woman's story about losing two of her children and planned on Googling her. Can someone provide her name and/or search for her backstory? Her name is Sandra DeMore. https://www.rapsheets.org/florida/daytonabeach-jail/DEMORE_SANDRA/846698 Daughter's obit http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/tallahassee/obituary.aspx?pid=114971210 Son's obit http://obits.dignitymemorial.com/dignity-memorial/obituary.aspx?n=Robert-Demore&lc=4976&pid=148049977&mid=4525623 https://www.clickorlando.com/news/cause-of-fatal-motorcycle-crash-sought eta- Oops. I see that AZChristian beat me to the punch. Edited January 29, 2018 by Schnickelfritz 3 Link to comment
patty1h January 29, 2018 Share January 29, 2018 (edited) Thanks for the info on Sandra DeMore - sorry that she lost two kids. She loses a point for having that printed condolence card thing that she was ready to wave around for sympathy. Edited January 29, 2018 by patty1h 3 Link to comment
Bazinga January 30, 2018 Share January 30, 2018 (edited) 18 hours ago, SRTouch said: cat attack Disliked the way JM handled this one. Not the decision, just the way she spoke to and treated the respective litigants. Harsher to the plaintiff man then the defendant woman for no real reason. Totally glossed over that the defendant, on her own accord, repeatedly put his cat in his room when he wasn't around, which wasn't their deal. Never criticized the defendant for taking it upon herself to introduce HIS cat to her cat simply because it would benefit her and her cat. Maybe it was my imagination, but every negative comment about the situation was directed to the plaintiff and none to the defendant, as if he set up this situation on his own and nothing was the defendant's fault, even though she had agreed to it and, as emphasized by the ruling against her, she was ultimately to blame, as her actions directly caused the injury to the cat, while the plaintiff's did not. I may be wrong, but I think the reason she was friendlier and less harsh to the defendant was that the defendant had this "cool", "chill", hippie-chick, vibe that JM was grooving on while the plaintiff seemed stiff. The big thing that bugged me was that the defendant called the judge "dude" without being admonished. Just finished watching an episode where a male (a low-life user boyfriend, true) called JM "Miss" twice. Both times she went off on him, saying, "If I was a male judge, you wouldn't call me buddy, would you?" I don't think (my opinion) calling a judge "Miss" is disrespectful and didn't think that guy, even though he was a jerk, meant any disrespect and, IMO, "Miss" is the equivalent of "Sir" not "buddy." I don't think saying "Sir" to a male judge would get a litigant admonished. "Dude" is way closer to "buddy", IMO, then "Miss" is. All this brings up that JM plays favorites with litigants she thinks are "cool," especially. She "liked" the defendant, so she never got on her in a situation she would have got on others and ignored something more disrespectful then what she usually admonishes. Reminds me of the way JM was all friendly with that low-life stripper/butcher tenant (who picked her nose in court) accused of making a butt print on the plaintiff's couch cushion, with her 'ain't I the cutest attitude,' while admitting to assault, as well as a few others in the past. I have also seen many "Misses" go by without comment. In the same episode as the "Miss," JM was twice called "sweetheart" by a piece of trash defendant but she nailed her both times, as well she should have. Edited January 30, 2018 by Bazinga 6 Link to comment
Katy M January 30, 2018 Share January 30, 2018 9 hours ago, Bazinga said: Just finished watching an episode where a male (a low-life user boyfriend, true) called JM "Miss" twice. Both times she went off on him, saying, "If I was a male judge, you wouldn't call me buddy, would you?" I don't think (my opinion) calling a judge "Miss" is disrespectful and didn't think that guy, even though he was a jerk, meant any disrespect and, IMO, "Miss" is the equivalent of "Sir" not "buddy." I don't think saying "Sir" to a male judge would get a litigant admonished. "Dude" is way closer to "buddy", IMO, then "Miss" is. I saw the "miss" episode, or at least I saw a "miss" episode, and I agree it's just something he calls women and he meant no disrespect. However, Miss isn't the equivalent of Sir, Ma'am is. I suppose Miss could be considered the equivalent of Mr, but I don't think you would call a male judge Mr, either. In reality, Miss is probably more the equivalent of "young man." Not full out disrespectful. I have no problem with people calling me miss or young lady, even though, IMO, I haven't seen young in a while. But, in a courtroom setting, to call a judge Miss or Young Lady wouldn't be appropriate. Although if you had an otherwise respectful man in his late 60s or older, I doubt she would call him on it. And, of course, dude isn't appropriate either. I didn't see that episode, though, so can't say what the tone of that one was. 2 Link to comment
Broderbits January 30, 2018 Share January 30, 2018 11 hours ago, Bazinga said: The big thing that bugged me was that the defendant called the judge "dude" without being admonished I thought the defendant was using "dude" for the plaintiff during her testimony, not the judge. As in "I said to him, Dude......". You're right about MM being extra nice to litigants she thinks are cool or cute, but it doesn't affect her judgements. Being hip does not get you off the hook in a contracts case. 1 Link to comment
teebax January 30, 2018 Share January 30, 2018 23 minutes ago, Broderbits said: I thought the defendant was using "dude" for the plaintiff during her testimony, not the judge. As in "I said to him, Dude......". You're right about MM being extra nice to litigants she thinks are cool or cute, but it doesn't affect her judgements. Being hip does not get you off the hook in a contracts case. The defendant called MM dude at one point, and then I think in the hallterview used dude to refer to the plaintiff. I was surprised MM let it go, too. I teach high school near the AZ/Mexico border, and our students call us Miss and Mister, without our last names. It used to bother me, but then it was explained to me that in Mexico they call the teachers Maestro and Maestra. By the way, I'd LOVE to be called Maestra and am trying to make it happen, but so far only one of my students has indulged me in such a fashion. Anyway, I'm told the Miss and Mister come from the Maestra and Maestro and is actually meant as a sign of respect, not disrespect. It doesn't bother me like it used to, when coming from students. If a grown man called me "Miss" I might still ruffle, especially if I had a title like "Judge" or "Doctor." 5 Link to comment
Bazinga January 30, 2018 Share January 30, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, Broderbits said: I thought the defendant was using "dude" for the plaintiff during her testimony, not the judge. As in "I said to him, Dude......". I disagree. I had initially thought that and rewound to check as I thought it so offensive. "Dude" was really not directed at the plaintiff. (This is an exact transcript of that part of the conversation). JM was questioning the defendant: "Were you trying to hold him hostage to the living situation?" Defendant: "No, no, I was well out of there, dude." The "dude" in that sentence has to be the judge, as she is not talking about or to the plaintiff. I agree that Miss is more like Mr. and Ma'am is correct and more like Sir but, while wrong, I don't find Miss as offensive or sexist as JM does. Dude is worse then Miss, IMO. Personally, I don't like when client's call me by my last name alone, i.e. Bazinga. I think that is rude, offensive, and intentionally so. I might be wrong, but to me comes off negative and bothers me, a lot. To me it always sounds tinged with attitude and contempt. At the same time, I don't want to be called Mr. Bazinga, either, but don't think that is offensive. I prefer first name only, as I like to be informal. I correct people to the first name when they use the last name or Mr. Bazinga. Also, tell people "Sir" is not necessary, as I think it too formal and stuffy. Edited January 30, 2018 by Bazinga 1 Link to comment
AngelaHunter January 30, 2018 Share January 30, 2018 (edited) 12 hours ago, Bazinga said: even though he was a jerk, meant any disrespect and, IMO, "Miss" is the equivalent of "Sir" not "buddy." I"m sure I've heard her compare being called "Miss" to a male judge being called "Mr." IMO, "Sir" or "Ma'am" are the only proper forms of address to a judge, other than of course "Your Honour" or "Judge". 18 minutes ago, teebax said: If a grown man called me "Miss" I might still ruffle, especially if I had a title like "Judge" or "Doctor." Agree! I would never call my dentist, doctor, or my vet "Miss." I address them all as "Doctor." They've worked hard to earn their titles. Edited January 30, 2018 by AngelaHunter Shouldn't have said "even" my vet. They're doctors too and have to figure out what's wrong with patients who can't tell them anything! 5 Link to comment
SRTouch January 30, 2018 Share January 30, 2018 (edited) Parking lot body shop: has to be more to this than what is said in the intro. Plaintiff's intro says defendant approached him in Best Buy parking lot and offered to remove a scratch on his car, then covered the scratch with spray paint. So, why did he let some dude in a parking lot spray paint his car? Anyway, somehow expects the judge to award him almost 3 grand. Intro for defendant says he's an entrepreneur who did a good job repairing the scratch, plaintiff was happy with his work when he paid the defendant and he is shocked he's now being sued for all this money. Seems in court TV "entrepreneur" and "scammer" are pretty much interchangeable. This case is all about MM having fun with the litigant's stories. Plaintiff tries to paint himself as a victim who was "targeted" by scammer defendant... but that falls apart pretty fast because he hired dude to cover up the scratch. Sooo he agrees to pay scratch remover dude, then proceeds into the Best Buy to take care of business. When he comes back out, defendant now has 2 helpers, and they're sanding the car! Says when job was done the scratch was gone, but he was left with a lousy paint job. Dude, you got the result you should have expected when you let some guy in a parking lot do your body work. Anyway, the entrepreneur tells his customer that he's using some special paint - wait two weeks, wash the car, buff it a little, saying the magic word and presto, car finish will be like new. Wow, all the body shops will be going out of business! Ok, plaintiff hasn't shown me anything (except how gullible and stupid he is) so over to defendant. Yep, dude talks like I expect a scammer to talk... case is going nowhere and I skip ahead. Ah, plaintiff is up at the monitor pointing out the horrible job, and talking about how a real body shop wants 3 grand to undo the entrepreneur's repair job... yeah, right, he means paint the whole car. Ah, but here's rest of the story. After defendant did the work, plaintiff was supposed to wait a couple weeks, then use rubbing compound and a buffer to bring out a factory finish. Well, plaintiff wasn't happy and later that day he comes back to complain. Tells defendant he's a DEA agent, asks for and is given defendant's ID, and later on shows up at dude's house. When asked, he tells MM that defendant is making up this whole story. Says he works for a canine unit for some private firm - not sure what that means, but guess he's sort of on the fringe of law enforcement. More nonsense when MM asks why he's suing for 3 grand instead of what he paid guy for the job (and defendant has already offered to return). Plaintiff responds, well he has no proof of what he paid, so figured he'd ask for 3 grand. Huh? Oh, and plaintiff still hasn't tried what defendant told him to do, which was to use rubbing compound and buff it out. MM decides to just go with the defendant's settlement offer and return the money. Hmmm I wouldn't have given him anything, but she decides the entrepreneur is a scammer. A twist on tenant deposit case: this tenant says landlord returned the deposit. Ah, but there's a problem - check bounces. Landlord tells her to put it through again - her bank says there's a stop payment. Landlord, defendant, agrees he returned the deposit and then stopped payment. He says he stopped payment when his contractor told him there was over 5 grand in damages. Nope, he doesn't get to change his mind like that. Ok, this plaintiff seems to be prepared... even brought her lease. Seems she's another victim of Sandy. Lost the house she owned in the storm, and rented from defendant so that her 9yo could stay in his same school district. Signed a 2 years lease, which changed to month to month - she stayed over 3 years. Then she says he told her he was either raising the rent or selling the house. No walk through after she moves out, but he did inspect it after she was out and sent her a check. Ok, now defendant gets mouthy, interrupting and saying plaintiff is lying, talking over judge even as MM is disagreeing with plaintiff that most landlord's don't agree with tenant using part of deposit for rent (even though it happens a lot, according to law it shouldn't). Ok, back story done, real question is the rubber check which later turns into stop payment. Landlord inspected the house, wrote the check, tenant wasted time and lost money in bank fees.... why wouldn't landlord have to honor the check? My understanding is that as soon as he wrote the check and gave it to her he was committed. Lots of doubletalk from defendant about how he didn't know about the damage until the contractor inspected the house... yeah, that's why the law gives the landlord some time to get estimates for damage found during the walk through - but of course there was no walk through here. Ok, turns out plaintiff isn't as prepared as I gave her credit for. MM is letting landlord make his case for damages... sounds like a second bite of the apple to me. Anyway, he has before and after pictures of the hardwood floors showing damage. Plaintiff questions when the before pictures were taken, but has no pictures of her own from before she moved in. Landlord has pictures of wall damage from picture/shelves, overgrown landscaping (tenant responsible for landscaping maintenance in contract) etc. As we go to commercial we hear MM getting on landlord addressing plaintiff's question of when his before pictures were taken... seems he rented the house to another family between the time pictures were taken and plaintiff rented the house... oops, not good for landlord's credibility. Especially not good that MM discovers the date of when pictures were taken by going through his phone. To compound his goof, he interrupts and argues with MM when she points out that pictures are from a year before plaintiff moved in. As I already said, I think once he gave her that bad check that became her 2 grand... MM disagrees, she bases her decision on the damages which defendant can prove and lets him keep $250. Hmmm, hate to say it, but Harvey agrees with me, once landlord wrote the check and stopped payment he was a "goner" landscaper put down bad sod: plaintiff hired defendant to re-sod his back yard, and three days after installation the new grass was dead. Says defendant told him it was grubs, but plaintiff says no way grubs could kill the grass that fast. Another landscaper suggested 1st guy over fertilized the grass. Hmmm, sounds better than grubs, but also sounds like hearsay and just a theory unless there was some testing done. Anyway, bottom line is plaintiff wants the dead sod replaced. He's suing for 2 grand, $1300 for what he paid, plus $700 for aggravation. Defendant's intro doesn't mention grubs, he says when he installed the sod he told the plaintiff he needed to water it. Says when guy called to complain, he went over and found the sod bone dry. He offered to replace it, but wanted to be paid a rminimal fee - and plaintiff wanted it done for free. Ok, having done landscaping, I have dealt with customers like plaintiff.... never with sod, but I've put in plants, told customer to make sure to water them, only to have customer call a week later saying plants are dead and found they were never watered. Yep, after commercial I find plaintiff just like I figured. Says defendant told me to water 30-40 minutes a day, and he watered 30 minutes every morning. Course I don't know what defendant told the guy, or where these people came from, but I doubt any new sod would survive with 30-40 minutes of oscillating sprinklers a day - and this apparently is not first time defendant has laid sod. Then we have plaintiff and his pictures... B&W to show us dead grass, which would prove nothing about whether or not he was watering the grass enough. I'm ready to toss the guy now - but then I haven't agreed with any of the rulings today. Next, differing stories about how long it took for customer to call about brown spots and for landscaper to come check on it. Not sure what plaintiff is saying. Says landscaper picked up a corner of sod and told him it was too dry, he agrees it was dry, but insists it wasn't TOO dry because he watered every day. Ok, like I said, I've never laid sod, but the first site I looked at after google https://gvt.net/turf-care/new-sod-care agrees with what defendant is saying. "The key to establishing new sod is to keep it properly watered for the first month. Immediately after installing sod, water thoroughly making it spongy to the step. The new sod should be kept thoroughly wet to a depth of 4" to 6" and watered 3 to 5 times a day during the first 7 to 14 days depending on the season. Lift a corner of the sod to determine the depth of moisture. In the first week, it is very important to keep the new sod damp." Dude never gives up on the notion that he watered enough. MM says about all she knows is that you have you water the heck out of new sod, and yayhoo chimes in with "I did!" Dude, take a pie pan and set it in the middle of the lawn, then turn on your sprinkler for 40 minutes and see how much water is in the pan. Drop a sponge in the pan and see is it's wet the next morning - or even a couple hours later around here in the summer. Case dismissed - hey, I agree with this one! Edited January 30, 2018 by SRTouch 7 Link to comment
DoctorK January 30, 2018 Share January 30, 2018 Quote I doubt any new sod would survive with 30-40 minutes of oscillating sprinklers a day That was the point that hit me. The plaintiff said that he put out a (as in one) portable sprinkler each morning. Unless his lawn is smaller than 10' by 15', I don't think there is any way that a single sprinkler for 1/2 hour a day could be enough for healthy grass, let alone new sod. The plaintiff was a clod (no pun intended). 5 Link to comment
SRTouch January 30, 2018 Share January 30, 2018 (edited) On 1/30/2018 at 12:13 PM, Bazinga said: Personally, I don't like when client's call me by my last name alone, i.e. Bazinga. I think that is rude, offensive, and intentionally so. I might be wrong, but to me comes off negative and bothers me, a lot. To me it always sounds tinged with attitude and contempt. At the same time, I don't want to be called Mr. Bazinga, either, but don't think that is offensive. I prefer first name only, as I like to be informal. I correct people to the first name when they use the last name or Mr. Bazinga. Also, tell people "Sir" is not necessary, as I think it too formal and stuffy. Another time where background and context play a role. After 20 years in the military, I see nothing wrong with using last names. First names? Heck unless I was friendly with someone, or in their chain of command, chances are I never knew their first name. Course, after 20 years enlisted, being called Sir is just plain wrong! These days, I'm the oldest guy at work, and pretty much everybody, including the owner, calls me "mister (first name)" I admit I enjoy having the gate guard address me by rank when checking my ID card when I go on post - not required for retired NCO's, but something I worked for and waited for years to achieve. In fact I try to address enlisted folks by rank when they're in uniform - officers still Sir or Ma'am OTOH back to where this started, the person sitting on the bench deserves respect, and calling him/her buddy, dude, sweetheart is not, in my opinion, showing respect. MISS is more respectful than dude, but when sitting on the bench wearing the black rope doesn't quite make it. Edited February 3, 2018 by SRTouch 6 Link to comment
AngelaHunter January 30, 2018 Share January 30, 2018 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: Parking lot body shop: Just when you think you've seen it all, they get dumber! Sure, if some guy sidled up to me in a Best Buy parking lot and said, "Psst! Want me to fix your scratch? 260$." I would never argue or ask any questions. I'd say, "Sure!" and then toddle off to get my item in the store. 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: A twist on tenant deposit case: this tenant says landlord returned the deposit. Ooh, wasn't he a wily one, thinking he could pass off pics of the place before anyone lived there in order to fool JM and keep all that money. Another scammer who got caught. These cases never fail to make me grateful that I haven't rented in over 20 years. You have the audacity to hang pictures on a wall in a house for which you are paying an arm and a leg? Well, that 0.50$ worth of spackle will cost you 1000$. 1 hour ago, SRTouch said: landscaper put down bad sod: Scammers AND nitwits abound. "I watered it 35 - 40 minutes every morning!" Gimme a break. I've had sod put down. That water wouldn't even penetrate to the soil in that time. Anyone with an ounce of sense or who asked the landscaper would know that even 3 - 4 hrs may not be enough, depending on time of year and temps. 35 minutes? May as well not bother at all, as that can do more harm than good. And those pictures? Another one who think JM is an idiot, but he thought they were just fine, which he continues to whine in the hall. What a schmuck. 6 Link to comment
Florinaldo January 31, 2018 Share January 31, 2018 18 hours ago, Bazinga said: All this brings up that JM plays favorites with litigants she thinks are "cool," especially. She "liked" the defendant, so she never got on her in a situation she would have got on others and ignored something more disrespectful then what she usually admonishes. As I have said previously, I often get the feeling she would have liked to be one of the cool "bad" girls in school or college. At least she usually recovers from her initial bout of unfounded sympathy and rules according to the law. 4 hours ago, SRTouch said: landscaper put down bad sod: That's the only case I caught today for the last 15 minutes. Plaintiff was obviously trying the saddle the landscaper with his own negligence in not watering the new sod enough. I also know from personal experience how much intensive watering is necessary. Which is why up here they try to put it down outside of the dryer months of the year, and do it starting in September. Or else, invest in an autonomous watering spout that can go back and forth on its own for hours. 1 Link to comment
teebax January 31, 2018 Share January 31, 2018 The Best Buy guy reminded me of when I took my car to be detailed before its lease return. A guy approached me at the car wash and asked if I had any chips in my windshield. I told him I had one in my other car, but since I have full glass coverage I was going through my insurance. The dude freaking lost it! He screamed at me that I was "taking food from his kids' mouths." It would've been funny if it weren't so damn terrifying. I ended up complaining to management, who told me he was allowed to be there and if I didn't want his service I could just say no. Needless to say, I voted with my feet, and they lost my business that day. I remember wondering at the time who would trust some rando in a parking lot to fix anything on their car. Today I got my answer. 11 Link to comment
califred January 31, 2018 Share January 31, 2018 (edited) I have a small dent in my trunk bc to get it to close right you have to push super hard. It pops out. Since moving to Hawaii I’ve had like 3 people either stop me in the parking lot or motion for me to roll down my window so they can fix my dent. I’ve never said yes bc well I don’t typically hire people in parking lots/traffic Edited January 31, 2018 by califred 3 Link to comment
AngelaHunter January 31, 2018 Share January 31, 2018 12 hours ago, teebax said: I remember wondering at the time who would trust some rando in a parking lot to fix anything on their car. Today I got my answer. I used to wonder about things like that, such as who on earth would fall victim to some outlandish and illiterate scam email. Watching this and JJ answered my question in full. 5 Link to comment
Katy M January 31, 2018 Share January 31, 2018 13 hours ago, teebax said: I ended up complaining to management, who told me he was allowed to be there and if I didn't want his service I could just say no That would be reasonable if he just asked once, and you said no. But, he screamed at you. He must be related to the owner or something. 3 Link to comment
SRTouch January 31, 2018 Share January 31, 2018 (edited) rental ruckus: couple chuckles as the litigants come in. Plaintiff comes in, doesn't appear lost, but breezes through the gate and keeps walking like she's heading for the bench before circling to the right and around the front of her table to get to her microphone. Then defendant comes in with his glasses hanging from his shirt collar, uses both hands to put his glasses on the top his head, hesitates and sort of pats them a couple times, then decides to take them off his head and lay them on the lecturn. Plaintiff runs a hair salon and rents space for her business. She says she had a hand shake deal with the owner instead of a signed lease - an Italian thing she explains. The salon is a family affair, pretty much everyone including her father were involved in establishing and running it. She claims defendant bought the building around the time her father died. She was grieving his death when new owner comes in telling her she'll have to sign a lease - oh and rent was going up by $800. Big kerfuffle, she says he threatened her life, she moves out, wants her $3000 security. Course defendant disagrees with her version. Yes, he wanted to raise the rent $800 - the property tax had just gone up $4000. He says after they negotiated, the agreed upon rent increase was $350.... but still nobody put anything in writing. She agrees that the increase was $350, but for the next 8 months she is $300 short each month. So, what we have is a month to month tenancy - which MM points out is not a smart business move for either of them... hmmm name of the place is Fingerprints Nail and Hair Salon. Google shows a FB page, but for some reason it won't load for me right now. Anyway, dude is letting her skate each month and not filing eviction papers. Then along comes an icestorm - roof leaks - ceiling tiles buckling and about to fall. She says she told defendant (oh, and she has pictures) and offered to get it fixed and deduct the cost from the rent... hmmm isn't she about $2400 behind in the rent at this point? How much more does she want to deduct? Defendant agrees she sent the text and pictures, but says he had just had a heart attack and was about to go into surgery. Sorry about the health problems, dude, but no excuse for someone not to call your tenant when she notifies you that the building she is renting from you is unsafe. I could see a delay getting back to her, but not two days - dude's adult son is by his side in the court, why couldn't he or someone else call the tenant/plaintiff (seems that intro said defendant actually this guy's company, so probably a family owned deal where family fills the various positions on paper). But, no, nobody handles it until he is feeling better two days later - well, not really correct - he gets back to her after two days, but what he tells her is that it can wait until the ice melts. Not exactly good landlording - I'm sure her customers admired the buckling, water marked ceiling tIles when they were kicked back in the shampoo chair. She disputes his timeline. She says after two days of no reply to her texts/calls she paid $575 to get it fixed, and he finally came 2 days later after it was repaired. Ah, but seems she paid her hubby to send a crew to do the work. Yes, she has pictures of the tiles, but she wants defendant to pay hubby for more than just the ceiling... actually, what she says falls in line with what I expect needed to be done, and she does offer up another estimate, but she's doing this on a building she only has a month to month rental agreement, without the owner's permission - not to forget she hasn't paid the agreed upon rent for 8 months. Ah, more disagreement.... defendant says he went to her salon 2 days after he got out of the hospital and no repairs had been done, she says he came 4 days after he got out, and repairs had been completed and she had paid hubby (who, she interrupts MM to say is actually her ex-hubby). Anyway, somebody's lieing because I don't see this as simple mistake on the dates. Actually, maybe not - defendant is easily excitable (MM cautions him that he gets too excited for someone who recently had a heart attack) and now in almost the same breath he says the job was 0% done and that it was done. While he's all excited MM has plaintiff searching for the date of when the job was done and proof of payment - what she presents is a picture of her bank statement with the dates cut off - MM tells her to pull up her statement with the date, and plaintiff says she can't get the statement - so MM tells her she "better get it." Plaintiff is NOT happy. Over to defendant's side while she tries, for the third time, to get what MM told her she needs. Ah, guess the son has decided dad needs help, as he takes over. I must have been wrong about plaintiff agreeing she was $300 short each month, because MM just said that was still disputed. Ah, but son - who BTW is a lawyer - sent plaintiff a letter way back the first time she was $300 short. Ok, back to credibility. MM getting what she wants from the plaintiff is like pulling teeth, and now lawyer son presents this letter, which plaintiff says she never received, and then says he didn't send it certified mail because he was just doing his dad a favor. Everybody gets a laugh when MM says he should have learned better in law school. Over to plaintiff - who I guess never found the evidence MM had her looking for - who tells us about the kerfuffle when dude showed up and she presented him with the $575 bill for work that hubby may or may not have done and told him she was deducting it from the next rent payment. She says the old dude who just had the heart attack reacted to her deduction by screaming he was going "to take her out." She says she took that as a threat to her life, so she headed off make a report at the police precinct. Ah, now that sonny found his voice he decides he can shout out in the middle of her testimony - which earns him a smack down from the judge. Actually, his interruption makes sense, even though he should have kept his mouth shut as I'm sure MM would gave asked for a police report without his help. And, yes, she does present a police report. She says the cops advised her to leave, so she closed up shop and left in the middle of the night after writing a letter saying she was leaving. Again with the woe is me - I'm a victim story, she left in the middle of the night, terrified for her life, had just lost her partner (I guess that was her dad dieing - or maybe the divorce). MM cuts her off and tells her she doesn't feel sorry for her - which has plaintiff arguing and cutting off the judge who is telling her she is NOT a victim, she made a choice. Ah well, MM is letting both sides shout out. She leaves on the 12th, and rent is paid on the 15th, so 3 days notice.... P: but but he told me I had to get out! MM: no he told you to pay him his money or else D: exactly MM: I don't need you to contribute.... good, MM is ready to rule, and I'm getting tired of these folks. Now MM has to figure out what was owed when plaintiff moved out. Ok, the $300 a month for 8 months can't be proved. She left a mess, landlord has pictures, but no proof of what it cost to clean up. Tenant doesn't get the $575 for the disputed ceiling repair (which MM reminds P she still hasn't proved she paid hubby - or even that the job was done). Ah, now defendant tries the victim card - he had back surgery, he has grandkids, never been a landlord before and just wanted an easy no stress job, then he turns to the audience even and asks does he look like a criminal..... yep, I'm ready to hear the decision and get to the next case.... but, nooo, they've decided to let this case run long. Not only are there conflicting stories between the litigants, but the litigants are conflicting their own stories. Ah, finally she presents the check which is supposed to prove she paid hubby - turns out she endorsed it. Hmmm, maybe that's why she dragged her feet when MM told her a picture of the front of the check and a bank statement weren't enough... turns out she wrote the check to a company, it came out of the account represented by the statement, yet when it was cashed/deposited it turns out she was authorized to cash the check.... Pretty slick. MM breaks out her pencil and pad.... even discount the 300 a month shorthand, and disallowing most of the ceiling repair, plaintiff owes more than the amount of the security deposit she's suing for. Instead of the often heard WOW from a losing litigant, today's winner, defendant/landlord exclaims God bless you when MM announces her decision. Plaintiff comes out and tries to play the victim card with Doug, but he cuts her off like MM did inside. Would have been a good 20 minutes case - 30 was just too long. innocent bystander's fence gets creamed: not sure what defense defendant could present that would get him out of this. According to intro, uninsured defendant caused a wreck which resulted in plaintiff's fence needing $1326 in repairs. Ah, defense appears to be the world conspired against him. Seems some mystery car cut him off, he barely tapped a third car, crazy lady driver who was barely tapped drove off the road and went 100 feet before hitting the fence (which he would have added shouldn't have been there if he had thought a little more). Ok, before we even get any testimony defendant is striking out with me - partly because of some of my admitted prejudices. First, he's a three-name dude - which has MM questioning how to pronounce his first and middle names - not sure where his folks came up with first name of Caisson. Then, maybe because of 20 years in the Army, I get a little irritated when he is shown being sworn in with his hand in his pocket - heck he keeps his left hand in his pocket throughout the hearing. Then we have the whole uninsured motorist thing. Not to mention when he describes the accident he repeatedly refers to a suicide/breakdown lane - I could have that one wrong, as his description wasn't all that coherent, but I think he was talking about a - center turn lane... where's the white board diagram and toy cars today? Anyway, the biggest thing, in my mind, even by his own testimony he would be at fault (oh, and he was ticketed). Then we get the "tap" where he swerves into someone else's lane. OTOH, (according to the intro) just a small tap and crazy lady over reacts and drives off the road into plaintiff's fence. Then, when questioned, the tap turns into a hard enough impact to send crazy lady skidding into fence, and him and son going to ER and his car being totaled... Ah, but that is moreto do with intro dude's exaggeration rather than defendant dodging responsibility. So, intro has defendant uninsured, and tapping a car driven by bad woman driver - none of which comes up in his testimony. Actually, his testimony is that he accepts some liability, just feels the mystery driver is the real culprit, so defendant shouldn't be stuck with whole bill. Oh, and he says he does have liability insurance... more dodging responsibility.... he describes his son's injuries, and when asked, says, yes, son was in a car seat. Then MM points out that police report says car seat improperly installed - he says cop never mentioned that to him - well, duh, when kid and dad are getting loaded into ambulance it's not exactly the right time to point out an improperly installed car seat. Ok, quick decision... plaintiff wins award against defendant... if mystery car exists, defendant's recourse would be to sue that driver if he/she can be found. Thankfully, a short 15 minutes case, which leaves 15 minutes for #3. exes continue fight after the breakup: plaintiff says when the broke up his gf took $200 out his his sock drawer. He wants his money back, and countersuit is just continuation of the kerfuffle. Ah, another couple who are better off apart. Defendant admits taking $200 of the $740 he had stashed, but says she took it so she could pay to have the locks at her apartment changed when he threatened to beat her up. Yep, sure nuf, she has a countersuit asking for $300 for missed work. Yep, another quick one... if intro is close to right (for a change) she owes him $200. (Ah, and another guy with his hand in his pocket.) Ok, the kerfuffle happened while he was at work. He works nights, and I guess shared her apartment. (Later on we learn he often stopped by at 3am for a booty call when he got off work.) Ah, another curse of the cell phone... people at work on their phone instead of doing their job - wonder how many breakups are caused by cell phones - people on the phone when they shouldn't be, going through checking on partner's phone, etc. Not to mention all the squabbles over money caused by phones. Anyway, he admits he was saying nasty things during their phone fight, with her finally asking for her keys back. He comes by when he gets off work, they meet in the elevator as she's on her way to teach the future citizens of America. (BTW, both litigants seems to know how to speak the English language.) He gives her the keys - she's in a hurry so tells him to come get his stuff later. Couple days later he gets his stuff and his money, but she tells him she's keeping the $200 because she doesn't trust he didn't make copies of the keys. Crossing the aisle... she agrees with some of what he says. Says she was asleep when he called, woke her up screaming and cursing, saying he was going to beat her and her kids... huh, where'd that come from... seems we're missing part of the story... MM tries to get the back story, but defendant insists it was out of the blue, we eventually get the early morning booty call story, but neither can remember what started the fight that night. Hmmm, seems she's mad because he didn't bring her the keys at 3am right after he got off work, instead waiting till she was on the way to work at 9am. She says if he had brought the keys at 3 she would have paid theory change the one locks, but since he waited til 9 he has to pay. Huh? How does that make sense? Ok, her reasoning is nonsense - let's hear the $300 missed work counterclaim. Ah, not so fast. Now dude is admitting he threatened her. Says he always jokingly says he's going to send someone over to "jump" her, so she should have known he wasn't serious. Anybody thinking verbal abuse? And how often does physical abuse start out with verbal abuse? Now I'm thinking she had the right to use his money too change the locks - and if she really called and had someone there at 6 am she could well have paid $200. Ah, but once she had the money she should have returned his money. Not only that, but she's in court and didn't bring proof that she actually changed the locks. Quick ruling - she has to return his money. Oh, and I must have missed the dismissed countersuit. Edited February 1, 2018 by SRTouch 4 Link to comment
AngelaHunter January 31, 2018 Share January 31, 2018 (edited) Well, that was fun. Plaintiff is suing her former landlord. Nothing new, but these litigants were very interesting. Plaintiff starts off with a dramatic, rehearsed speech about how she put her heart and soul and life into the business she opened, with her husband and father. She didn't think she needed a lease, since it's "old style Italian" to do business on a handshake, even though the new landlord is definitely not Italian. Is it also old-style Italian to appear at court in the afternoon with half your breasts exposed? Probably not, but anyway, she tried her best to appear pitiful with more rehearsed, sad garbage and make JM sorry for her. No dice. JM informs her that she's not a victim and she feels not one iota of pity for her. Plaintiff shows a picture of a check, claiming she hired her husband, or her ex-husband, to repair storm damage in the premises, but it turns out she endorsed the check. Very shifty, she was. Def (and I understand why he had a heart attack. A little excitable.) has his oily, arrogant shyster-lawyer son there. He gets on JM's last nerve when he said he couldn't be bothered sending plaintiff a letter certified. People really need to watch this show before appearing on it. So-called lawyers should know how hard JM is going to be on them. Of course no one ever thought about a written lease or getting one damned thing in writing. I bet plaintiff wished she had stayed home, since she ends up paying def. a bundle. Oily, arrogant shyster-son concedes in the hall that JM knows the law. I"m sure she was thrilled to hear that, especially considering the source. Then we had Caisson Jamik being sued for smashing plaintiff's fence after he forces someone else's car into the fence when a phantom driver cut him off. He had no time to hit the brakes because that takes - what? - 1/10th of a second? I guess his mom never looked up the meaning of "caisson" or she may have thought better of the name. He loses. Plaintiff is awarded all the damages he claimed. Finally, there was... some guy who makes booty calls on def at 3:00a.m. She's a teacher (and I guess her kids leave her class saying "goin'" and "comin'" and even "cursin"") who thinks the middle of the night booty calls suit her just fine until plaintiff tells her he's goin' to send someone to mess her up. But he always says that! What's the problem? Def thinks he owes her because she had to change her locks after that. Personally, if my booty call threatened me and I had to change the locks, I'd probably absorb the expense. Edited February 1, 2018 by AngelaHunter SRTouch - posted at the same time again! Yours is better! 7 Link to comment
SRTouch January 31, 2018 Share January 31, 2018 22 minutes ago, AngelaHunter said: Personally, if my booty call threatened me and I had to change the locks, I'd probably absorb the expense. What, and miss the chance to brag to all the parents next teacher/parent night about your appearance on national tv! ? And, @AngelaHunter once again we're writing at the same time. Course I always have a bunch of typos - made worse today since I don't have time to proofread before heading to work. 4 Link to comment
AngelaHunter January 31, 2018 Share January 31, 2018 28 minutes ago, SRTouch said: What, and miss the chance to brag to all the parents next teacher/parent night about your appearance on national tv! Oh, no kidding. She can teach the kiddies the Do's and Don't's of wee hour booty calls - which occured with her own child in the house. 3 Link to comment
Florinaldo February 1, 2018 Share February 1, 2018 2 hours ago, SRTouch said: rental ruckus: The plaintiff lost me as soon as she started with her sob story invoking her dead father's memory. MM eventually tells her it does not work with her either. I was glad that the facts justified a verdict against her, although landlord was not quite as diligent as he should have been in discharging his obligations and was neglectful in not insisting that the correct amount of rent be paid each month. 2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: I guess his mom never looked up the meaning of "caisson" I suppose you are referring to "maladie du caisson" i.e "the bends", caused by faulty decompression procedures after a dive. It would explain his apparent mental confusion. Maybe she gave birth to him while in a submarine. 5 Link to comment
AngelaHunter February 1, 2018 Share February 1, 2018 2 minutes ago, Florinaldo said: Maybe she gave birth to him while in a submarine. Okay, you made me spew out about 1.85$ worth of Drambuie. I wouldn't normally think of suing for that amount, but then remembered a case here where plaintiff was suing for 3$, so - see you in court. 8 Link to comment
NYGirl February 1, 2018 Share February 1, 2018 The woman in the third case was a teacher!! A teacher!! And she kept saying "axe" instead of "ask". Boy did I shake my head at that one. 7 Link to comment
SRTouch February 1, 2018 Share February 1, 2018 (edited) On 1/31/2018 at 6:26 PM, Florinaldo said: I suppose you are referring to "maladie du caisson" i.e "the bends", caused by faulty decompression procedures after a dive. It would explain his apparent mental confusion. Maybe she gave birth to him while in a submarine. Actually, with my time in the Army, my first thought is "the caissons rolling along" song, which refers to the two wheels cart used to carry artillery ammunition (and also the casket in military state funerals). But, you're right, caissons are also sort of bell diving structures where compressed air in keep water out of a chamber used in underwater construction, and decompression sickness is also known as "caisson disease"... which I just learned when I googled caisson. Edited February 3, 2018 by SRTouch 7 Link to comment
AngelaHunter February 1, 2018 Share February 1, 2018 On 1/30/2018 at 9:37 PM, teebax said: The dude freaking lost it! He screamed at me that I was "taking food from his kids' mouths." Gee, what made him think YOU are responsible for the care and feeding of his offspring? You should have told him to go ask Byrd to support them. The only time anyone approached me was at a gas station where I was filling up. A young woman was selling a waterless car wash product (and I felt sorry for her because it was about minus 20 that day). She demonstrated the product on my car and it worked really well, so I bought three. She was so happy! Win/win. OF course she was working for a company and never hinted that I should pay to feed any members of her family. 5 hours ago, SRTouch said: my first thought is "the caisson rolling along" song, which refers to the two wheels cart used to carry artillery ammunition (and also the casket in military state funerals). Yeah that was my first thought as well, but I like the "bends" one too! 6 Link to comment
teebax February 1, 2018 Share February 1, 2018 15 hours ago, NYGirl said: The woman in the third case was a teacher!! A teacher!! And she kept saying "axe" instead of "ask". Boy did I shake my head at that one. Teacher can encompass a lot of things, though. I don't think I'm ready to claim her as one of us just yet. 5 Link to comment
SRTouch February 1, 2018 Share February 1, 2018 29 minutes ago, teebax said: Teacher can encompass a lot of things, though. I don't think I'm ready to claim her as one of us just yet. Gotcha, just like the nitwits who claim to be nurses. Truth is, the "teacher" may turn out to the the dish washer in the school cafeteria. 8 Link to comment
teebax February 1, 2018 Share February 1, 2018 21 minutes ago, SRTouch said: Gotcha, just like the nitwits who claim to be nurses. Truth is, the "teacher" may turn out to the the dish washer in the school cafeteria. Yes; I've seen daycare workers refer to themselves as teachers. Now some of them are certified for preschool, but many of them are in more of a caretaker role. I think it's the same with litigants who call themselves nurses, like you said. 8 Link to comment
Florinaldo February 1, 2018 Share February 1, 2018 (edited) 17 hours ago, AngelaHunter said: Okay, you made me spew out about 1.85$ worth of Drambuie. I wouldn't normally think of suing for that amount, but then remembered a case here where plaintiff was suing for 3$, so - see you in court. Sorry my dear but I am not hauling my keister to court just over a little measly Drambuie; de minimis non curat lex after all. Now, if it were some Chartreuse MOF, then it might be worth me sparing some of my so very precious time for litigation. I did not know about that "caisson" song but have now learned something new. Edited February 1, 2018 by Florinaldo 3 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.