Jump to content
Lillybee

The People's Court

Recommended Posts

If you really want to be outraged by people's feelings of entitlement, go over to reddit and look up reddit/choosingbeggars.  It's beyond just shaking your head, it's rage inducing.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

I just saw Thursday's episode and is this a first?  Every single litigant was well spoken!  It's a People's Court Miracle.

 

The first case with the P who loaned the D and her hubby a boatload of money that they didn't pay back.  I think the truth is somewhere down the middle.  I think that the Ds were only too happy to accept all the free outings and payments.  I suspect that the P was happy to buy their friendship to a certain extent, but then realized how much it was costing her.  At any rate, it's over now and the gravy train has reached the end of the line.

 

The travel agent case: The D is lucky that the P didn't sue for all the hassle of getting into their room and the excursions that they had no record of finding booked.  I think that they could have gotten some compensation for that too.  I did appreciate that Purple Lips admitted that she totally owed them the money.

 

Grandma and her used tire.  Being married to a car buff, I know what a tire bubble is and yeah, they're pretty obvious.  When VW told her she had a bubble on her tire, the first thing I would have asked is "show it to me," and then taken a picture of it.  I would have then called up the tire shop to see what's what before shelling out for a new tire from VW.  But honestly, none of that would have ever happened to me because I would never buy a used tire.  Nor would I ever expect to be able to buy any sort of decent new tire for only $60.  Granny says "who looks at a tire?"  Uh, me!  I look at everything that I buy, especially when it comes to garages and dealers because I don't trust them at all.  She tried to pull the little old lady crap who knows nothing about cars, but that doesn't fly with MM.

Edited by AEMom · Reason: Typo
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/8/2019 at 7:40 PM, AEMom said:

I always think that it's a bit fishy when they don't bring the person involved.  

 

On 1/8/2019 at 9:26 PM, CrazyInAlabama said:

There are a lot of reasons the carwash guy, and others who actually did the work don't show up in court.   Some can't leave the state without their parole officer, or bail bond person's consent, others are probably in witness protection, or on the 10 most wanted list.     

There are real reasons, I know a few people who are scared to death of flying, or would have to get a babysitter and pay them for a few days for full time care, or some other personal reason.   And maybe not everyone wants to go to Judge M's court, and potentially be yelled at.    

I always think that it's because the owner doesn't consider the low-tier employee worthy of a free trip to New York/California. He'd rather take a buddy he can have fun with.

Edited by Blissfool
  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post

Hmmm, didn't recognize folks from first case, recognized the case but not the litigants in second case, and pretty sure I've seen the 3rd case before

  1. contractor case: P homeowner says she hired D to do tile work in kitchen & bathroom - supposed to take a week and D was to receive 7 grand - now two months later work still not completed and so far P says she's paid over 17 grand. D counters by claiming P kept changing her mind and adding more stuff to the contract (yeah, I believe it, she does the same thing here in court)... easy dude, write change orders for each addition with the added price, and get authorization signature - I used to do that with this type of client when I was landscaping, mainly because after the 2nd or 3rd change I'd start getting frustrated with them, and when they actually SEE the cost mounting they'd change their mind - most of this type are never going to be satisfied, no matter what you do - from preview we know MM is going to grill contractor about why nobody bothered with a written contract, so forget change orders... oh, and here we get another contractor who claims homeowner wanted Him, and was sending him video of her nude self in the shower - so 2nd part of defense is the old woman scorned defense. testimony oops, need CC to make sense of P's accent - in fact she has trouble understanding MM's question when asked in English. To make the whole mess worse, she runs a day care out of her house which had to shut down while this remodel was happening - she says her customers were okay with her being shut down for the agreed upon 1 week, but not the couple months it took (and apparently still not completed). Oh yeah, not to forget MM comes from a family of contractors, so she knows exactly how it supposed to happen and she doesn't accept D's "didn't have time" to write a contract. Yeah, I grew up around concrete guys and carpenters, and a big topic of conversation when they got together was how some customer decided to change the finish or lay out, how much longer it was going to take etc... ok, now MM tries to get the two sides to agree on what job was to entail - new tile on floor & back splash in kitchen, complete remodel of bathroom, removing a wall in daycare area... anybody else think 1 week and 7 grand sounds like wishful thinking... uh oh, what's P talking about - I thought this was supposed to be a $7000 job, and she just said D wanted $7500 to start work and she wrote him a 10 grand check to get started since she wanted it done quickly - so does that mean she had added a whole bunch to the job and agreed to a new price before work started and still expected it to be done in 1 week... MM backs up and asks for clarification - by time she wrote first check the $7,000 job had ballooned into $15,000 job - and still no contract!... oh, this promises to get good! Turns out D's employee is here as witness for the other side.... not looking good for contractor dude - P claims he was sending workers every day, but not showing up to run the job site - nothing getting done in a hurry and she claims she paid an extra $2,500 over what he asked for in a deposit so that it WOULD be done expeditiously. MM turns to D to ask why, even tells dude she knows exactly what a tile job entails and how long it takes, and dude still tries to dodge and weave. Yeah yeah, dude, demo goes much quicker when you don't have to move her junk out first, but we're talking a job promised to be completed in 7 days and still not done in 2 months and you're talking about wasting a morning to move stuff around. Now he's taking about the extras - uh, yeah, job grew, not just kitchen and bedroom, now all the floors except 1 bedroom, ceiling fans, hot water tank replacement, rewire of bathroom to include CFI, etc - all the more reason to have a written contract... ok, 7 days and 7 grand was never realistic, but now we're talking 2-3 months and more than double the 7 estimate. P having trouble presenting her case with English as second language - but she's in the right court as she has lots of texts, a Judge with a construction/contractor background, and fluent in Español... only hiccup is she starts to bring phone up instead of handing it to Douglas... ok, dude, strike one was the song and dance routine when asked about why things were taking too long - or was strike one no written contract - no I think strike 1 was the nudey video defense (may have been a foul ball as it hasn't come up during testimony yet - may be intro clown BS) - anyway, I think strike 4 is not answering any of the many texts from client until she's threatening to take you to court. D really hasn't had a change to say much since MM shut down his dance routine, but now's his chance - nope, not happening, now he's starting in with how she was pursuing him, cooking for him, saying she wanted to show how a real woman treats a man, etc. He really lays it on thick, saying she wanted to get hitched, was willing to get reconstructive surgery "down there" etc etc Dude, she had moved out while the work was being done, according to her you were mainly a no-show, when she finally got fed up and texted you she was going to take you to court all that was left was the kitchen back splash - even I could do a simple back splash in a day if you give me the materials, and I've done like 2 in my life. I really don't care if she was flirting, sexting, or any of this crapola - you agreed to do a job, were paid, and didn't complete the work (started to say contracted a job, but of course you don't do contracts). My only question is how much he has to pay - they agree all that was left incomplete was the backsplash, but without a contract does he have to pay anything for taking to long and essentially shutting down her daycare - heck unless he comes up with something to back up all the sexting and flirting crapola I'd be fine with Douglas taking him out back for a little talk. (Well, he does know about her tattoo "down there".... what the heck does knowing about tattoos mean!?!...) for first time in long time MM puts down a phone instead of digging through all the texts - well, yeah, all this flirting nonsense is nonsense and irrelevant - and case already running long. Finally, we get to hear what defendant's employee is hear to testify to.... basically, he's here testifying he was on the job for several days, D never paid him a penny - says D claimed P never paid him, so he couldn't pay the employee, so employee went to get money from P and ended up completing the backsplash (part of her lawsuit is she paid this guy and bought the materials to finish the job even though D was already paid to supply materials).  Rough justide time - some of what she's after is clearly not going to happen - missing receipts, a jacuzzi that was never mentioned before needs hundreds of dollars to be installed correctly - but no proof anything is wrong, lost business/wages because of the extra time, but just a wild-ass guesstimate with no evidence, etc... pretty much everything is tossed - P ends up getting $800 out of the 5 grand requested
  2. tow job case: P suing because car was towed from space they claim they were authorized to park in in their gated community - they want the $139.95 it cost them... D is tow guy, says he has contract with the community, says P's vehicle was not displaying proper permit and director of complex signed the tow authorization - says he was just doing job he was contracted to do.... sounds simple enough that we ought to get back on schedule after 1st case ran long.... ok, we've seen this before - P have more vehicles than authorized spaces, so they drive around looking for empty units and appropiate that space - I know I've heard this story - even the bit about how they were on the way to church when they noticed car was gone - but are these different litigants... doesn't matter if these are same fools or not, P admits while stating her case that they parked where they shouldn't have, tow truck was let onto property by security, their vehicle was pointed out to be towed by community staff, it was towed after authorization was signed.... WTH do they think tow company owes them a refund? didn't watch after I heard P testify how hubby parked where he had no right to park - seem to remember their case was based on wrong person calling to get car towed - nonsense, even if true tow company did nothing but job contracted to do. 
  3. dueling headwear: ok, another case I remember - checked program info and it claims this is a new epsiode, but no case info just a "date first aired" - this is the old-time Auntie Jemima, back when she still wore a head scarf, suing her ex-landlord for over 4 grand - over property lost after a judge ordered eviction, seems when she was shown to the curb she expected landlord to safeguard property left in the apartment. Landlord comes in wearing a black Jewish kippah/yarmulke (one of these days I'm going to look up what the different styles mean). Ok, yeah, 99.9999% sure this is a repeat - I remember D coming in and pausing at the gate like he's not sure if he's supposed to cone through and go to the lectern. Another non-case - P locked out after court ordered eviction owing 2 months of back rent - expected to be given extra time to move out after court odered deadline - apparently she's an expert at being kicked to the curb and in the past she was granted extra time to finish moving.... ok - no sympathy for Auntie - besides she has no proof of what was left behind or value of anything left - oh, and she wants back double the deposit because she claims she never received an itemized listing of why it was withheld. Yep, dejavu moment, I don't care what the program info says, I remember Auntie and her rambling. Whole lot of nonsense, she talks about repeatedly being taken to court like that's expected - every six months or so your grown kids rotate in and old and your landlord takes you to court for nonpayment of rent, yep just the way things are. Then when the landlord wins and the judge orders you out, you're supposed to be granted an automatic extension past the final date. Not sure what there is to talk about - Auntie doesn't even know that which of her sons were on the lease, but D has the signed lease ready to pass up. Anyone else think this case - such as it is - should have been referred back to Housing Court where the original judge would be familiar with the case/litigants. Ah, but after D provides the lease everything gets foggy. He can't testify about the eviction proceedings - he wasn't there, his lawyer was - doesn't know if she moved on her own or was moved out by marshals - dude is irritating enough that I want to award Auntie something - but then she's just as irritating and doesn't even deserve the free lunch. Oh, yeah, Auntie had just gotten out of hospital for her heart and back, basically, don'cha know, didn't have tools to take apart the crib and needed tools to remove doors to get fridge out, yeah she left them behind after mean landlord put locks on doors after final move out date issued by judge passed - oh, and landlord stored her left behind property for 30 days after she moved and she didn't retrieve anything. - but of course D can't provide any proof he stored anything..... yep both litigants need a visit out back with Douglas.... doesn't mean I'm going to watch 10 more minutes of this... zip zip... case dismissed
Edited by SRTouch
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

Hmmm, didn't recognize folks from first case, recognized the case but not the litigants in second case, and pretty sure I've seen the 3rd case before

I checked the schedule and it looks like repeats again this week.  Next week should be new again.

Share this post


Link to post

I never saw any of these cases.

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

contractor case: P homeowner says she hired D to do tile work in kitchen & bathroom

This started as the usual ho-hum person suing contractor for work not done. This is a 15K job - which I think was cheap for the work - and contractor "didn't have time" to write a contract. Funny, last year I had a contractor here to do work and somehow, with his busy schedule, he found the time to sit down and write up a contract,  signed and everything! Had he refused to provide such, I think I may have passed on his services. He even wrote up a new contract when I changed something I wanted done! Anyway, ho-hum case takes a dramatic turn when contractor outlines how plaintiff was putting the moves on him, down to informing him of her tattoo in some intimate area. Gee, the subject of my private parts somehow never came up with my contractor. What a boring life I lead. I think I know what insane surgery he referred to, although I tried to block that info from my mind. Gah! Get a damned contract, you idiots!

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

job case:

How irritating. Plaintiff, with her zombie-looking, silent hubby in tow, seemed to think there was something cute or precious about her illegal parking that resulted in her car being towed. "Oh, sure! I parked in someone else's spot, but hey, no big deal, right?" Must be some upscale gated property where homeowners seem to regularly get foreclosed on. She really thinks the proper person to sue because some other tenant lied (so she says, but proof? Nope) is the tow truck driver who is merely doing his job and removing vehicles from where they have no right to be. Too bad plaintiff didn't have to pay def. for wasting his time with her stupid nonsense. "Wow", says plaintiff when she gets nothing, "Wow" being the usual cry of the petty scammer who loses.

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

dueling headwear:

That plaintiff looked as though she were headed to a Caribbean festival (I just wanted to push that monstrous bow out of her eye) after this is the least of the ridiculousness of this case. She stiffs landlord on rent for two months then thinks she's owed not only her security deposit back, but three times that because it was illegally withheld. Amazing, it is. Def was annoying since he had no proof of anything and his replies to questions were mostly a big smile and a shrug. Didn't matter though. You squat in a place and don't take your crap with you when you finally get your butt out, you don't get any money! How many people think they are entitled to live for free because they have some personal problems? Plaintiff gets exactly what she is owed - zippo.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
37 minutes ago, AEMom said:

I checked the schedule and it looks like repeats again this week.  Next week should be new again.

Yeah, I have the DVD set to only record new episodes - and today is the only one scheduled to record. Somehow they must have got the date of when it was aired in the wrong year LOL not the first time (probably not last, either) this channel screwed up the schedule info 😉

Share this post


Link to post

The tow case where the tenant found out who was getting foreclosed on, and squatted in the parking space for her extra vehicles was hysterical.     She might remember that foreclosed on can mean squatter too, and I doubt that a squatter would be happy about her stealing their parking space. 

The sweet little old lady tenant was anything but, and just another idiot squatter who is a frequent flier at housing court.    I'm glad the landlord got rid of her stuff, and feel sorry for her next landlords, because she's going to do that to them also. 

 

Yes, my cable guide (not always accurate either) said all reruns, and on TPC website they were all reruns from what I remember.       

The one today was the rerun of the two lady firefighters going on a cruise, and the one lady decided not to go at the last minute, so the plaintiff cancelled also, and got her cancellation fees back.    This is the one where to tell the plaintiff that she couldn't make her final payment sent a photo of her relative's deceased infant.      What kind of person sends something like that?   

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

This is the one where to tell the plaintiff that she couldn't make her final payment sent a photo of her relative's deceased infant.      What kind of person sends something like that?   

A person who is not just a deadbeat, wanting to go on trips she can't afford, but uses a dead infant as reason to leave someone else holding the bag and who is evil. As if she ever had a usable credit card - I'm sure JM was right in that she probably lives hand to mouth and figured she could get a free ride from def. The evilness emanated from her. I really think def. should have gotten some money for plaintiff calling her a thief to her employers, but what do I know? I'm not a judge.

Edited by AngelaHunter
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/11/2019 at 5:11 PM, Florinaldo said:

MM should really stop calling litigants "darlin' " or "sweetie". That might maintain the necessary distance between them and the bench and help prevent them from calling her "miss", which she so strongly objects to. How can she expect her warnings to stick when she falls back on a term of overfamiliarity just minutes after reminding them of what title is on the plaque in front of her, as she did today in the idiot squatter case.

That is really starting to bother me more.  I have no problem whatsoever with her wanting to be called your honour, or judge, or whatever.  She is a judge and she has earned that level of respect.  Then at the same time, it sounds condescending when she calls people darling or sweetheart.

 

On 1/11/2019 at 5:26 PM, AngelaHunter said:

Hated the Watermelon Witch. She had plenty of time to shop for melons and to send reams of stupid texts to plaintiff, but she had no time to stick a cheque into an envelope and send it because her husband is in Sloan-Kettering. I bet that's her go-to excuse for everything. JM is not buying your shit, you Wicked Witch. We're talking 1K here, not 5K. Shame on you, you vile hag. "How do you expect me to pick up a watermelon without using both hands?" hag asks. No one expects you to do anything except refrain from damaging the property of others.

Wow, I've seen two shopping cart cases and both of them think that it's "too bad, so sad for you."  The people in this world are unbelievable.

On 1/11/2019 at 5:26 PM, AngelaHunter said:

Or "Wonderflee"?? I didn't catch it. But oh, my - what drama in this circus! The huffing and puffing and eye-rolling, and then finally the fake-crying thing which anyone who has ever seen this show knows carry no weight with JM and in fact only irritates her. "Are you going to cry now?" Bwahaha!  Both of them constantly called her "Miss" as well and then changed to "Judge Marilyn" after admonishment. The black/asphalt coloured lipstick! The laquered wig! The massive eyelashes! The blue fake talons! My head was spinning. Nice try with the bedbugs, Wonderfla/flea. That was some little harmless beetle and I'm glad JM recognized that this time. But all that was as overshadowed as plaintiff's eyelids by the fact that she squats for 5 months in this House of Horrors, is still there, and wants 5K.

On 1/12/2019 at 1:23 PM, AngelaHunter said:

I wish I knew. Even after it was explained to her over and over that she had already stolen 5K from the landlord, she really thought she should get more money. It's incomprehensible.

 

She was something.  And JM just raked her over the coals.  As she should.  She wants security back when she still lives there.  BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA!!!

 

On 1/11/2019 at 5:26 PM, AngelaHunter said:

What a creep that guy was. He knows everything, except when asked why the cheque had a stop-payment on it and then he's "Gee, I just work there. I don't know anything." I love how he claims, "WE were there and ready to start." Oh, but actually he wasn't. He called her. He says they weren't kicked off Home Advisor, well, to his knowledge they weren't. Did he think his sexiness and his sunglasses on his head would charm JM so much she'd take his utter BS as gospel? He got a second reaming from Doug in the Hall. Love you, Doug!

I really think that poor bastard was told certain things by the owners and so he went there to die on the hill with the knowledge he had - not knowing that they sent him on a suicide mission.  As JM continued to fire shots into him, he finally waved the white flag in defeat.  The owners sent him because they knew that they didn't have a leg to stand on.  The P reminded me of a blonde Elizabeth Perkins.

 

On 1/12/2019 at 1:23 PM, AngelaHunter said:

Heh. I'm a Canuck and try to write it as "check" when I remember, just so's I can fit in here better.:D

As a fellow Canuck, I write documents all day so I have gotten very used to US vs Canadian spelling but I have to write "cheque."  Check just seems wrong to me. :-)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I think they said both women belonged to volunteer fire departments, of course I could have imagined that in my hallucinations after hearing the woman was sending pictures of deceased babies.    Volunteer departments often raise money through different activities, so thieving people should be squealed on.      Actually, I thought at first it was a bit much that the employer was told about her rip off, but I'm thinking that it's probably how she gets along, and that is relevant to a lot of jobs.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I've got another rerun today showing up as "new".  Jeez. The onscreen guide service Dish uses is so freaking sloppy.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
17 hours ago, AEMom said:

Then at the same time, it sounds condescending when she calls people darling or sweetheart.

It's also a cheap way to reaffirm the power dynamics, establishing litigants as children and her as the adult in the room.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, zillabreeze said:

I've got another rerun today showing up as "new".  Jeez. The onscreen guide service Dish uses is so freaking sloppy.

I have Direct TV and have the same/simliar problems. I blame mine on the channel that airs my TPC and Hot Bench - a MyNetworkTv channel  (subsidiary of Fox). I never see descriptions of cases for TPC, just the episode title. I get two half hours of Hot Bench on weekdays, usually one will have case descriptions while the second either has a duplucate description or just "Hot Bench".... a real pain when I get same description on both half hours since DVR thinks it's the same episode and skips the second unless I go to each and tell it to record. JJ is on my local NBC channel - better episode descriptions but more likely to interrupt with "breaking news"... oh like 20 minutes of "There's a thunderstorm 90 miles away and the front is due to hit our area in 4 hours." (Uh, like, southwestern Ok - pretty much any spring day a thunderstorm might pop up) or they spend 15 minutes telling us something is happening so tune in the evening news which airs immediately after JJ

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

breaking news"... oh like 20 minutes of "There's a thunderstorm 90 miles away and the front is due to hit our area in 4 hours." (Uh, like, southwestern Ok - pretty much any spring day a thunderstorm might pop up)

Hee hee.  North Texas here.  Yup.  Thunderstorms in spring?  What a shocker!  Blah. Blah.  It's not like everyone in tornado alley doesn't whip out the phone when we see weird clouds.

Now...a good car chase.  I can take a JJ break for that.  Especially if there's a good chance perp is either gonna roll the veehickle over or get his ass dragged out by 10 cops wanting to beat his ass.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Were today's cases new? I never saw the one about the nasty, frowsy, incredibly entitled cow who is suing her friend for throwing out her shit after she left it there because she was too damn lazy to get it and liked the free storage. She starts out with: "This is a story of friendship and betrayal." Does she think the tale of her missing junk is like "Crime and Punishment"?We're not talking a box or two, but 24 boxes, furniture and other shit she left at her friend's house with the attiude,  "You'll just keep that there until I decide to come get it." Def sent endless emails telling her to pick up her crap, giving dates and times, and she never did it - for a whole year. Def finally got rid of all of it. Too bad she didn't do that a lot sooner. I would have, especially with a vile bitch like plaintiff. Doug in the Hall to plaintiff: "The judge sure gave it to you, didn't she?" Hee.

Motorcycle crash: Plaintiff was in def's mother's pool and Mom kept asking/begging "numerous of times" for someone to move plaintiff's bike since it was blocking her car. Def finally heeds Mommy's request to move it, takes the keys, goes tooling around and crashes the bike into a car. Plaintiff leaves his bike in impound for over a year, because he's only 24 and couldn't figure out how to get there and get it out. Impound yard wants nearly 4K for the storage. Def is a twitchy little tiny liar, which JM points out after he states here he had the accident (on a bike he shouldn't have been riding) because the brakes were bad, something he never mentioned in the gazillion texts between him and plaintiff, where he promised to pay and never did. He lives with Mommy and could certainly afford it, since it seems he bought himself a bike since.

The electrician case was interesting only for fez-wearing plaintiff calling JM "My honour",  giving Doug in the Hall a speech about being Moorish and that the def is a liar who never paid the measly 200$ owed to plaintiff.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

@AngelaHunter, those were definitely reruns.  I remember the woman whining about her lost sentimental items, and that fez wearing dude... who can forget a fez?

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
59 minutes ago, patty1h said:

those were definitely reruns. 

Either my memory is worse than I thought, or there was some dire weather report that day, maybe because it was snowing in the Northeast in January, raining in July or something.

The whiny witch is starting to seem vaguely familiar but I definitely don't remember the motorcyle kerfuffle or The Fez.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I remember the one about the idiot who dumped her extremely precious items on a now former friend, and never picked them up, until they were trashed well over a year later.   I thought it was funny the defendant dumped the 20+ boxes on her mother, and that's where they were finally trashed from.     Maybe the mother had a storage shed empty or something.    If something was that precious, then you wouldn't leave it for 16 months or more, and never even come and get some of it.     What a loser the plaintiff was.    

I only remember the fez wearing electrician because of the fez, and the fact that defendant apparently faked the check that was never put in the bank.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I really enjoyed today's rerun, which I had forgotten so it was kind of new to me. Big loser plaintiff really wants a flashy convertible to drive, even though he can't afford it. Stupid def agrees to let him to take car and make monthly payments. Why on earth would anyone do that - trust a stranger to make payments on something he already has possession of? Of course, loser plaintiff makes nearly all the payments late so "I'm just a poor little old lady and I was very stressed" goes creeping around wherever he lives to try to repo the car. She's a 70-year old grandma! She was terrified of plaintiff, so she only skulked around his place 3 times in the middle of the night. She has breathing probs so couldn't possibly bring 7 items that were around 3" long, here with her. She brought 3 of them, so I guess the other four, that would easily fit in her purse, were just too much for her. I won't even mention the picture of her deceased kids/grandkids she flashed for the sympathy card. I think this is maybe the only case where JM didn't go easy on someone just because that person has managed to live a certain number of years.  In fact, she ripped PLOL a new one. I just wish JM had delved further into Grandma forging the plaintiff's name on a title. Big loser thinks that even though he had the pleasure of tooling around in this car for a year, he should get back every cent he paid and he tries the old, "I had a computer, a guitar and a bunch of other valuables in the car even though I knew def was trying to repo it so I want 5k"! Sure you did. These two underhanded nitwits deserved each other.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

Today's rerun was the Betty Boop makeup woman who was being sued for unpaid daycare fees from just quitting one day, in spite of her signed contract requiring notice.    It was the Angel Wings Daycare, where the plaintiff claimed that some person was smoking inside, then on the porch, or maybe it was someone smoking way far away from the door.    The defendant also claimed there was a cigarette burn on the kid's arm, but she never took the kid to a pediatrician (she worked for one), or made a police report, and the kid was in the day care for a long time after that. All she did was take a blurry photo of the burn, and send it to a nurse friend or something like that.    Then, the most outrageous claim of all, where the mother claimed on Care . com reviews that the daycare provider fed the kids leftover pot roast, that had been sitting out for days.    I'm glad the day care provider got all of her money, and the defendant was shown to be a vicious liar, and a bad mother.    

Then there was the man who hired the defendant to take care of his 99 year old mother, for 24/7 when he was out of town, and she wasn't there when she was supposed to be.  Woman wanted much more money, but she was proven to have left the mother for long stretches of time.     The plaintiff's big defense was the woman who found out she was not carrying for the mother was another care giver.      I loathed the plaintiff, and she's just lucky the patient didn't have an accident leading to her decline when the caregiver was absent.  

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

Today's rerun was the Betty Boop makeup woman

Why do these people seem so much worse on rewatch? Betty Boop proclaims *sigh* "I'm a SINGLE MOTHER", as though she should be exalted and rewarded for being stupid enough to get knocked up with some guy, who, when he sobered up, probably thought, "Oh, hell NO" and took a powder. Yeah, that's just brilliant. Congrats. Yeah, if my baby came home from care with a cigarette burn on her arm, I'd send a picture to a doctor, but wouldn't take the kid or call the cops. Mommy in hall, all indignant, "Well, I was just called a liar." Um, maybe because you ARE a big old liar and a nasty, vile creature too?

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

Betty Boop is actually a "Sainted Single Mother" who claims she ignores her child's cigarette burns, and being fed spoiled meat.   What an idiot, and I feel sorry for the poor kid, being raised by a loon like that.       I'm glad the daycare owner was able to get some justice about the postings that vile creature made about her business.  

Today's early rerun (we get a rerun, and then a new or rerun for the second house of TPC) with the 44 year old man hot to trot after the 16 year old visually impaired girl, including multiple CPS and police reports, and all kinds of shenanigans that should land him behind bars.    The parents have been way too easy on this guy, and should have filed CPS and police reports on him, including making a false police report.         I love that Doug basically called him out on it, and Judge Marilyn, but I bet he's still at it.     

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
  1. hair salon case: guess P stopped by on her way to go out clubbing - could that dress be any shorter? She says she went to D's salon to get extensions, and not only did the extensions fall out after a couple weeks, so did her real hair. Says she now has a couple bald spots. I'm not an expert on extensions by any means, but have watched enough of these type cases to know that extensions and braiding can sometimes cause baldspots - but that there are several other possible culprits (more than I realized). So, P will need to show her bald spots actually resulted from her salon visit. She wants $1500 - $550 for the salon visit, money to remove the remaining extensions, plus a doctor's visit, plus pain and suffering. D says not his problem - she was happy when she got the extensions - he has no idea what she may have done in the weeks afterwards before extensions and her hair starting falling out. Ok, testimony coming from P makes me wonder about her case. Says she complained to the stylist about how her hair was thin and slow to grow - dude suggested extensions - she had heard horror stories about other people having problems - what the hey, why not go ahead and spend a bunch of money? It might work, and the stylist - who is going to get paid more if you get the extensions, says he can do it, no problem... uh, so stylist is going to tape extensions, like little weights, to lady's thin, brittle hair - yeah, what could go wrong. Danny, the salon owner, says it'll work.... uh oh, another nail in P's case, this was actually second time she had extensions - first time was approximately 6 weeks earlier and no problems. Sorry lady, you knew the risks, had the procedure done anyway, didn't work out - 2 months after first being put in, and 2 weeks after second application, a coworker notices a bald spot - not hearing what stylist did wrong... MM calls P up to look at the spots even though P is hesitate and says a couple times she has pictures. So far, sounds to me like P doesn't have a case - well unless she has an expert or the doctor's report specifically blame the stylist. Hmmm, salon owner, Danny, earlier explained the procedure and sounded like MM questioned how close the stylist taped the extensions to P's scalp - wonder if we're about to learn it was closer than the 1" Danny says it should have been? Ah ha, sure nuf, when MM shows us pix it doesn't look like the tape is an inch from her scalp. Uh oh, now that Danny sees the pic he wants to change his testimony - now he says tape can be half an inch from scalp. Oh, Danny, that sounds bad - you already told us you don't personally do extensions and aren't an expert with them - why, oh why, didn't you bring the stylist who is your expert, and did the work, to court today? Don't really think P deserves the $1500, but think you just opened the door to her getting something. Ok, P had perfect opportunity to present testimony from the second, independent stylist that took out the extensions - but no she didn't bring anything - no, she brought the co-worker who spotted the bald spot. Doctor report just says "traction alopecia" (probably based on her telling him about the extensions and really nothing saying stylist put them in incorrectly). From MM's questions sounds like P hasn't shown enough, even with Danny waffling about the distance from scalp. Yep, after commercial break case ends up being dismissed.
  2. car wreck: P rear ended - D paid for the repairs - now P wants to be paid for lost work (an Uber driver).... oh wow, dude is suing for over $3800 because car was out of commission for ten days?!? Are we to believe dude makes 10 grand a month? Or maybe his bo-NAN-za claim includes pain and suffering?... D doesn't deny he told P he'd make up his lost wages. But says that he agreed to pay 7 days wages when dude was claiming to earn $180 a day... 7x180 = 1,260... nope, dude got too greedy, D withdrew settlement offer..... ok, once testimony begins we learn another bone of contention is that D wanted to pick the shop where car was repaired - preview has MM all worked up over D trying to dictate who makes the repairs - apparently D was doing some work for a repair shop, so he was going to negotiate down the repair bill in exchange for cutting what he charged the shop for his work... ok, no question of liability, just dispute over amount of the lost wages.... at the time of the accident D talked P into not going through their insurance, saying he'd pay lost wages which an insurance adjuster might deny. Ok, D testimony changing some of want we already heard - forget the 7 days, dude just changed that to he was willing to pay $180 for ten days - so $1800 - in lost wages. So, why didn't he pay? Ah, the old reliable 'he didn't have the money' defense'. So, months go by with P waiting for the money D agreed to pay,  until P gives up and files suit (and of course asks for ridiculously inflated amount expecting it to be knocked down in court/negotiations). Ok, unless something else comes out, I say give P the $1800 plus interest and call this one done. Nope, all that comes out is D getting upset that P was calling and texting asking for what D agreed to pay and he didn't have - so of course P should be happy to wait, he'll be paid - eventually - and here P is texting "hey, I can't pay my rent  and other bills, when am I going to get some of the money you promised?" Heck, I could see my way to giving P extra over and above the $1800. More MM reads more I'm willing to make D pay... and she agrees - she tosses the  $180 a day for 10 days figure they agreed upon, and allows P to up the claim to $240 for 10 1/2 days - jumping from $1800 to $2520. Then, because P is pissed and tired of chasing D, he tacked on time wasted and other usual nonsense.... MM awards the $2520 over D shouted objections as case goes 5 minutes over time.
  3. rental dispute: confusing intro - not sure who was renting from who - something about someone changing their mind, someone not able to get electric in their name because of outstanding bill, fraud accuses D, trying to put bill in someone else's name, who knows what all - since intro is wrong more often than right, skipping to testimony and to let MM summarize this mess. Ok, P was the potential renter. She gave first month and deposit to D - never moved in - wants back more than she paid. Ok, we've heard these cases enough for me to say D is entitled to a month's rent if place taken off market in reliance of P moving in - IF place was actually available for P to move in.... let's hear this stuff about turning on utilities. P blows her case in opening statement when she tells us reason she couldn't move in on date in lease she had signed was because she - the plaintiff - had to first pay her outstanding bill (4 freekin' thousand bucks). 2nd case ran long, but sounds like we could call this one already. Okkkkkkk she just pulled the "single mother" card (of 4, yet) who just didn't know about the old bill. Says, for last several years, she's been renting with all bills paid, and didn't know about this colossal bill that has been collecting late charges and interest since her divorce years ago. Soooo, the fraud charge? Well, seems when utility company wanted their money P first tried to avoid paying old bill by getting D to rent place all bills included, then asked D about opening new account in kids' daddy's name. 'Bout that time, had I been the potential landlord, I'd be looking for a way out of having P as a tenant. From MM's questioning of D, sounds like that's what happened - D used this as an excuse to refuse to lease to P - I get the reason, but as long as utility company was getting paid by daddy it really was no skin off D's nose. D tries to claim name on utility contract has to match name on lease - says who, asks MM? Ok, guess this is what we have to talk about for these 15 minutes. Who actually breached the lease?  P for not moving in - or P for refusing to let P move in? Didn't think P had a case - but now looking like D latched onto this old bill as an excuse to deny renting to P - understandable, but changes who has to eat the lost rent/deposit. Okkkkk, now we learn P actually paid deposit and first month's rent. Big kerfuffle when D refuses to let P move in and wants to keep all the money , cops called, D convinced to return half the money. Now P wants double amount D kept because she says it was wrongfully withheld.... hey, she's got a point - it was D who (understandably) canceled the lease, so she should have refunded ALL the money. Ok - forget the double down wishful claim, P gets back the rest of the money she paid. Oh, and in hallterview D has nothing to say - but have to laugh when Doug finds out it's P's brother who ended up paying utilities in her new place (meaning utility company may still not being paid - but who knows, sainted single mother of 4 may have worked out a payment plan and be paying down that bill - yeah, toght, I'm sure she's paying off her 4 grand light bill from way back when).
Edited by SRTouch
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

car wreck: P rear ended -

That Julio was such an arrogant, thick-headed asshole. I love these people who injure others - in this case by rear-ending someone because Julio is a lousy driver and has (invalid) excuses for smashing plaintiff - and act as though they're the injured party. Not only does plaintiff get deprived of his means to earn a living due to Julio's stupidity, but has to endure all the stress and aggravation of sending a zillion texts to Julio to try and get some of what he's owed. I'm glad JM decided to up the amount, because giving Julio a break on the price resulted not in gratitude, but in his little "Back off, or I'll give you nothing" attitude, as though he's dispensing some favours when he was 100% wrong. He's just lucky that plaintiff was agreeable to taking his car to the shop that owes def. 14K, or so he says, or he'd have to pay out of his own pocket. His mom passed away, so that means he doesn't have to pay for the damage he caused?

 

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

 

1 hour ago, SRTouch said:

rental dispute: 

Now we're in a new category with the SSMOF (Sainted Single Mother of FOUR). I agree with JM. I don't blame def for not wanting to rent to someone who stiffs people on the money she owes because I'd figure she'd do the same thing to me, but you have to give the money she put down back! Her SonnyBoy inadvertantly made plaintiff's case for her. Duh. Nice going, Son.

Landlord/mom? The extra-wide, black, exposed bra straps were a nice touch. Classy!

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Today's new episode has another dog attack, and the plaintiff's mother who was walking the little dog when it was attacked, is wearing a seizure inducing stripped top, with a ruffle all around her at chest level, and with the cold shoulder look.     I wish someone would throw a garbage bag around the woman, because she looks awful, and that top is butt ugly.     

Edited by CrazyInAlabama

Share this post


Link to post
  1. uh oh - dog attack..... skipped... too early for that kind of nonsense - even though I'm just starting to watch 3 hours after it aired..... noticed as was zipping ahead that Clown Harvey has a real clown - in costume - with him on the street
  2. car loan to friend of 20 years not repaid: P says she thought she was safe loaning D rent money and money to buy a car since they had known each other for years - but once D got the money he stiffed her and cut contact. Says D owes little over $1600.  D is going with what DiMango calls the Adonis defense - yep, he's such a prize that he claims P was throwing money at him trying to buy his love. If not for fact that we see so many pathetic people - of both genders - trying to buy love I'd laugh, but hey, wouldn't be first time we've seen it... nah, but is hefty D worth it. Lady, I think you could do better if you shop around.... ok, in preview clip sounds like MM gets P to admit these two were intimately involved, and silly woman routinely picked up tab when they want out - and while P is admitting to footing bill chunky D is smiling and practically dancing with glee instead of being humiliated as I would be. Testimony begins with MM asking if these two were dating - D quickly answers yes from off camera while P doesn't answer until pressed - then she says she didn't consider their outings 'dates'. Pressed further, she admits they kissed, were intimate - but not really dating? Nah, she says, not really dating since he never took her out - Fat Albert, still with the smirk on his face, interjects, she took me out on dates. Poor pathetic litigants - both of them - I can't imagine agreeing to cone on national TV and telling everyone either side of their story. At least MM is practically having to drag P's story out of her - Fatty seems proud that he found someone to pay the way for his sexy self. Ok, not really into watching pathetic fools today, I zip ahead to hallterview.... hmmm, D comes out the loser.... backed up the tape enough to hear D evidently admitted it was a "loan" .... I think reason he was so happy looking the fool in court is that he's in a haze - when I pause the recording there's a closeup of his face as he's talking to Doug - if I had smell-o-vision I'd expect to be smelling some potent Mary Jane.
  3. sketchy car deal: P says he bought a car from D - car died 4 hours later - took it back to, and D traded him another car - stopped by cops and car impounded because of bad plates - wants back the $2430 he's out... as intro goes on lady sitting behind P can barely stop laughing at the pathetic story... D comes out - thick little bald fireplug Michelin man physique complete with belly roll and wearing the requisite cross necklace - his story is P knew the dealer plates on car were only good for 30 days - it's P's fault car was impounded as he didn't register car as required - uh, yeah, when you buy a car you get temporary plate and a deadline you have to meet for going to DVD and registering car... anyone what to bet on whether dufus P ever had insurance. Alrighty, before we go to commercial, in the preview clip we see MM making P look the fool - do you know if there was a warranty on the Saab  (first vehicle) mumble mumble from P - while D quickly interjects there was a 30 day warranty while waving a paper - and MM, still addressing dufus P, no, I want to know if YOU know what you bought? - P mumble mumbles again before we hear, no, really didn't know about any warranty.... DUFUS!... ok, testimony starts and P begins by telling us about the Saab - bought it, 4 hours later radiator blows.... ok, all this is showing dufus is a DUFUS. first car sort of inmaterial, except to give MM chance to show us dufus didn't know about the warranty. P says when he got back to the dealer with the sorry Saab, he wanted his money back but was told no cash refunds, but here's a replacement (just like agreed to in the warranty he never read and didn't know about.) D promptly exchanged the Saab with problems for a second car - replacing it with a beemer - dufus probably overjoyed driving a BMW. Ah, but what he's claims is that the beemer was never to be his, no he claims it was a loaner while sorry Saab's radiator was being replaced.... oh, dude, that position is laughable - you think we'll believe a dealer us going to give you a loaner and let you drive around until you're stopped over 30 days later while they replaced a radiator that could be swapped out in an hour or two... oh yeah, and D quickly produces the signed purchase agreement for the beemer. Ah, but when Douglas hands the signed agreement to dufus he claims he's never seen it before. Ok, says MM, but didn't you spend money making some minor repairs on the beemer? Who pays to fix up some loaner instead of just going back and getting a different loaner. Not sure what dufus answers, tired of his mumbled answers and ready to zip ahead. Oops, have to go back and see what happened, appears a switcheroo has been pulled. Now I have to listen to the MUMBLER.  What he tells us is that he fell in love with the loaner beemer and told D he wanted to keep it. Says they agreed on the phone that he'd keep beemer for same price, but he never went in and signed an agreement. Still, why was he stopped with expired temp tag? Starting to swing Mumbler's way, but way he talks might take too long - so MM smoothly shifts to Mumbler-wife.... ah, breath of fresh air after listening to litigants from both sides. Hmmmm, don't even have to make the switch to wifey, dufus must have just been nervous and tongue tied, because all of a sudden he's making sense. Ok, car was NOT impounded due to expired dealer tag - he was stopped because cop spotted that dealer tag was a phoney and suspected car had been stolen. Huh!?! Maybe should have led with that! Oh yeah, now that wife calmed dufus down, his brain is functioning. When MM asks for proof tags were fake, he quickly passes up the proof. Hokkkayyyy, police report says tag expired when car was stopped, but P says he still had a couple weeks - uh, date of tag doesn't match the official paperwork, sounds like somebody modified the tag - ok, now P quick to produce picture of phoney/modified tag - sure nuf, police stop occurred in Jan and expiration date on tag is Feb 17 - D now claiming car stopped/impounded because tag was unreadable - pretty lame since P has the picture with phoney date - MM gets him to admit the pictured tag is one he gave P when he drove off in the beemer. Yep, switcheroo, indeed... P started out mumbling and looking the fool, while D was always so quick to have any needed evidence - looks like he just wanted a quick decision before P pulled it together. Now it's D dancing around not making any sense. Meanwhile, beemer sitting in impound, and with all the paperwork shenanigans D pulled impound officials aren't sure who to release car to.... oh yeah, seems when cop ran beemer VIN car still registered to previous owner - beemer registration never transferred to dealer and car hasn't been registered since '15. Yep, what a mess - and none of it fault of dufus (well, cop also cited him for no proof of insurance). Now D still waving papers and starting to talk so fast he's about to start foaming at the mouth. So, car sitting in impound, P can't get it out because the temp tag D gave him is invalid, and D can't get it out until he straightens out the jumped title mess - and D wants P to pay the impound/tow fees before he straightens out the mess he created jumping title and giving P an altered temp tag. Ok, now I understand why, when I jumped ahead I found D coming out the loser. Oh, yeah, and in hallterview D pretty much admits he routinely alters the temp tags, but this is first time he was caught because usually the modification is illegible and slips by.
Edited by SRTouch
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Saw "dog", assumed animals being injured because of idiotic owners. Totally skipped.

Judge M, weren't you a little harsh with a 38-year old woman who would do and pay anything for the company of the def? She would pay for their outings, take him to the casino and pay for the hotel and buy him a car. In return, I guess he consented to have sex with her. I mean, look at him and listen to him speaking, JM! A veritable Greek god who spoke with such eloquence and who has lived a successful and upstanding life. Oh, wait - no, actually he's a 39-year old fugly, bloated, muttering loser, who has been to prison at least 3 times and is getting his first job. Truly, if I were as pathetic and desperate as the plaintiff, I would have swallowed my 1600$ loss rather than have everyone know to what level I would sink for a warm body and get a tongue-lashing from JM.  This never ends! Women, what the hell is going on?

Then we had plaintiff, a really dumb idiot who has no idea what he signed buying some beater car from the incomprehensible Uncle Fester who was sporting a huge cross around his neck. This was such an underhanded and convoluted tale of crap car, no registration, towing, impound, etc that I lost interest. I really hope the plaintiff's wife was rolling her eyes at her silly, babyish husband and not JM.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
23 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

D is going with what DiMango calls the Adonis defense - yep, he's such a prize that he claims P was throwing money at him trying to buy his love.

Haha - we posted at exactly the same time, SRTouch, but as usual, your recaps are stellar! The Adonis defense - yes!! But I can't really blame these cretins for feeling that way, when they always get women to bankroll them. Why wouldn't they think they are a true gift to women? I can honestly say it never occured to me to buy a car for any boyfriend I had, but of course they never asked because they weren't deadbeats.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, AngelaHunter said:

Then we had plaintiff, a really dumb idiot who has no idea what he signed buying some beater car from the incomprehensible Uncle Fester who was sporting a huge cross around his neck. This was such an underhanded and convoluted tale of crap car, no registration, towing, impound, etc that I lost interest. I really hope the plaintiff's wife was rolling her eyes at her silly, babyish husband and not JM.

The defendant in this case was a famous Dr Who character, Strax:

 


 

maxresdefault.jpg

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, howiveaddict said:

The defendant in this case was a famous Dr Who character, Strax:

omfg!! *****5 Star Award!

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

I never saw "Strax" but the resemblance is uncanny. Def also had a huge head but a tiny face. It was very odd.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

OMG!  That P in the architect case was a BITCH.  No doubt in my mind that she treated the D like crap.  First time things didn't go her way she probably lost it and made life hell.  No sympathy for her weaselly little husband cowtowing to her bullshit either.  Architect deserved all his money + battle pay.

Case with son in law loan, I really think 1/2 would have been fair.  Not that invested in the case however....

Def had Janky Teef like so many litigants and I noticed Doug in the hall getting up all close and personal.  Eeeww.  Not me.  You just know there's some lethal fumes radiating from some of those septic pieholes.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
  1. first looks to be a contract case: P wanted a remodel done and hired D, an architect - D does plans/drawings - permit applied for - city denies permit - big kerfuffle - they part ways - P wants $800 she paid back. Doesn't sound like much of a case - unless he guaranteed he'd get a permit (and he'd be a fool to guarantee what someone in the permit/code enforcement office might do). There are all sorts of things not in his control - impact on neighbor properties, fire codes, electric service - heck, think I heard this work was to be done on second floor so can the structure even support the additional weight. D intro - ah, seems he warned them the community board which had to grant petmission is known to be picky, and he suggested they keep it simple during initial planning meeting - but, noooo, he says, they kept adding stuff and board gave thumbs down. Says he explained it's fairly common for first application to be rejected - but that approval could usually be granted after subsequent meeting with board. When, as half expected, 1st application was rejected P went off on him, was verbally abusive, demanded money back and sued when he refused. He's countersuing for $1612, the balance of his fee. Testimony starts - geez, didn't think much of P and her case to begin with, but opinion not improved with MM's first question, where do you live? Simple question, should be simple answer, instead P pulls out some brochure and does a show and tell - who knows, if she had made a poster and made it into something for a presentation to show roomful of people (or something the judge - and camera - could see, it might have made sense, but instead she's holds it and, not even keeping it faced towards judge as she checks her notes, and, at first, not letting Douglas take it to judge when he goes over to pick it up..... uh oh, 'nother big problem with her reno plans - she's not just dealing with a city permit office, she's in a Historical District. Don't think her performance would impress any arbitrator, but especially not this judge who has listened to contractors in her family complain about customers with unrealistic expectations when dealing with permit offices. Anyway, she wants to give her rehearsed presentation, taking who knows how long, instead of answering pesky questions from JM. Only 4 minutes into the hour and, unless there's a shocker coming, like a guarantee clause in the contract, this case could be called now. Geez, lady wants to go step by step through the whole process, and all MM is asking is if she hired D, a certified architect, to do drawing to take to board after her amateur drawing were rejected. MM has had enough of pulling teeth from P, she switches sides to see if D will provide any answers. Ok, we quickly learn D had a written contract, dude was to be paid $200 an hour and each time he had 8 hours of work put into job he's supposed to bill the client... sounds reasonable - not really sure what architects earn, but dude is an established professional with, I think he said, 48 years experience. Says he explained to them that he had made a dozen applications to this board over the years, and only had 1 approved without requiring changes to plans. Sooooo, no big surprise, board shot down his plans. So far, still not seeing a case on P side.... this is one of those cases when I think we might need split screen - every so often, as D is talking, we get a shot of P digging through her papers and raising her hand to interject something - so far she's not verbally interrupting D's testimony, and MM just told her to put her hand down. So, asks MM, what happened when 1st attempt was shot down. Now we get D story of how P went off, calling him stupid, incompetent, dissing work for previous client, etc etc - he decides she's crossed the line, quits (in a polite letter MM receives ftom P and reads aloud later) and sends a final bill. Ok, at this point - P still has no case for return of retainer. Only question for me is how much of the final bill D can justify - IIRC he's to be $200 an hour - he says total bill comes to  $2400 - so he should have proof of 12 hours work and proof he notified client after completing 1st 8 hours... geez, only half way through this case - and  switching back to mouthy/antsy P. Ok, MM starts by asking P why she thinks she should not only not pay remaining balance, but get full refund when it's obvious D did some work... and again, P ignores question - she's find her place in her script and starts reading... and despite MM repeatedly telling her to STOP yakking and show proof of what she's yakking about, and then stop the yakking so MM can actually read what she passed up to Douglas.... and now it comes out that all this took place back in 2014.... geez, how did D get through the preliminary meeting with this woman!?! MM is about to call this one, she's fed up with stubborn, no-case P and has resorted to yelling - and P is yelling right back, even cutting off hubby when he dares to try to say something.... MM is holding up P's own evidence saying what she submitted doesn't support her position at all, in fact backs up D's position - some cross aisle shouting.... we have 5 more minutes - most of that will be commercial and street clown and will be zipped through... ok, ruling time - with additional interruptions from P and MM saying P is impossible to work with, she even interrupts the judge - P has another paper she want to submit, MM says give it to Douglas, but don't talk, MM reads it aloud and I'm not even sure what it says as I was focused on P continuing to yak and interject as MM is reading. This no-case case is running long. P continues to try to interrupt, but MM ignores her. Case dismissed. She cuts the counterclaim in half, giving D $800 instead of $1600... not really sure if she questions his billable hours or fact that he didn't file suit until he got sued. Hallterview - Whoa, Doug bravely asks scary P how she feels about having to pay D $800, and she looks him in the eye and gets ready to rumble - hope security was just off camera - and, true to form, she interrupts Doug and says what she wants to say. 
  2. family loan: dad suing son in law over money he loaned loving couple back when they were looking to buy house. Well, son in law says, daddy's little girl, his wife, is an alcoholic who has been in and out of rehab - says the house deal fell apart because money loaned for house ended up paying for a trip to rehab. Intro not giving me much - are the loving couple still together? Is daddy suing D because they split up? If D admits there was a loan, what does it matter what the money was spent on - a loan is a loan, and needs to be repaid, right? And, of course age old question in these family feuds - WTH would think it a good idea to come on teevee and air family problems.  Anyway, intro makes case sound like it belongs  on Dr Phil - or maybe Springer - which I'm not interested in watching - so this may be a quicky. testimony - first thing MM does is point out the women are noticeable absent... ok, pops says he gave loving couple 4 grand with understanding that if house deal fell through it would become a loan - deal fell through, D has repaid 100 bucks, p wants the other $3900 - one problem I heard is that D approached P's wife about the gift/loan,  so why isn't she here? Doesn't matter much, as D readily admits it was a conditional gift that would become a loan if conditions weren't met, conditions weren't met - so, why, asks MM, are we here? Now we get into entitled adult children who feel they should be able to unilaterally changes terms of agreement. I agree that dad demanding repayment of money because it was spent on daughter's rehab rather than a house sounds petty - but unless both sides agree to change the deal, the deal stands. Ok, now we're entering the Dr Phil zone... D hid wife's drug and alcohol use from everyone, but she spun out of control and he checked her into rehab - spending  $3750 to get her in... a day after being admitted she was booted and came home..... oh no, MM into family counselor mode and wants the juicy details - zip zip - glad I skipped ahead - quick snippet and it sounds like reason for case is P using the gift/loan to pressure D into not pursuing custody of the two kids now that loving couple are splitting (we learn in halltetview D doesn'the know where wife is (she has history of going on benders) and P says he knows where she is (in rehab, yet again) - apparently he blames D for loving daughter's relapse (supposedly history of drug/alcohol abuse prior to marriage, so must be son in law's fault she fell off wagon). Ok.... much to do about nothing.... conditional gift, condition not met, it's a loan - pay up.
  3. friend's squabble over fridge repair bill: P says he bought parts and fixed D's fridge expecting to be paid, but D says there was never agreement to be paid. D's intro story is that P was repairman sent to fix her freezer/ice maker - while fixing the ice maker something he did killed the fridge - she ended up having to replace fridge, she doesn't owe inept P anything. (whoa, quite the dress code on Defendant side - D dressed to go out clubbing while sidekick is dude in unbuttoned too-small wrinkled shortsleeve shirt) ok, stories don't jibe - was P acting as repairman for store or was he off the job doing friend a favor. testimony well, from what he's saying he was off books, doing work for friend. She called him - not store - he diagnosed problem, ordered parts (has receipt of purchased parts) put parts in (whole repair - including parts - to be $180. D agrees that was originally deal. P does the work, but D had left house, leaving him with teenage daughter. When he finishes, teenage daughter approves job, and he leaves, saying he'll return later to be paid. When he gets back she claims something he did messed up fridge (apparently this is a high end fridge/freezer with ice and water available in door and a control panel on door with thermometer showing temp in freezer and frifge, and now temp isn't showing). Also, though you can now get water from door, water is not being cooled and no ice is being made. I know nada about her fridge, but I'd be looking for a reset button on the control panel. Anyway, she refuses to pay the agreed upon price, kerfuffle, she says she just replaced the fridge - but sounds awful iffy and has hard time saying what happened to old fridge. MM having lots of trouble getting understandable testimony from D - wondering why she doesn't just get testimony in Spanish and put on her translater hat, as we've seen many time in the past, when D says she's having trouble testifying in English. Finally she gets across that when new fridge was delivered the delivery guys took the old one out. Apparently, from what she's saying, she works 16 hours a day and when she complained his repair had screwed things up suddenly P started dodging her and wouldn't come to fix the fix - she got frustrated, and just bought a new one. I'd be asking for proof of the new fridge, but MM takes a different tact - she says, even if everything D is saying is true, why should P be expected to eat the cost of the parts and write off the labor charge for the service call D admits was made? Rough justice time - P did work, but MM believes D when she says she bought new fridge because old one died after repair - P gets $50 knocked off bill so $130. Hoboy, in halltetview she claims P wanted to her to pay with sex - but she didn't say anything because she didn't want to ruin his marriage - oops, what difference does it make if she tells us in halfway or in the courtroom.
Edited by SRTouch
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, zillabreeze said:

OMG!  That P in the architect case was a BITCH.

That plaintiff is WAY beyond mere bitch!! I totally understand the architect not pursuing his remaining fee, because who needs that kind of crazy nastiness in their life. His letter to her suggesting they discontinue working together was very gracious, much nicer than I would have been to her.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

first looks to be a contract case: 

Glad to see a contract case, which I usually enjoy, and did enjoy this one, but holy hell - Ilsa, She-Wolf of the SS? First of all, she insists on waving around pics and drawings and everything but a PowerPoint presentation about her upscale dwelling. She cannot shut up for one second and she seems to be temperamentally incapable of listening to one word from anyone else, including JM. Def. has had a 48-year career as an architect and has done many projects for this particular area . He must know something, and I completely believe that virulent harridan called him stupid and incompetent and he wisely cut off dealings with the witch. Four years later, she decides he doesn't deserve a penny of what she paid him even though he did work. He, understandably, was willing to give up the balance owed just as long as he never had to listen to one more screeching, insulting rant from Ilsa. "I don't know how anyone can deal with you," JM tells plaintiff. Amen. I think Doug in the Hall was ready to run away as this witch continues to rant and rave while her little hubby, who has probably been beaten down to a tiny little nub, hovers behind her.

21 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

family loan: dad suing son in law over money he leaned loving couple

So distasteful. Def is like the desperate, passive women we see here all the time who will put up with anything. Def's wife sounds like a mentally ill, violent, abusive drug/alcohol addict and I'm sure this didn't come up all of a sudden, yet def thought it a good idea to have another kid with her just two years ago and then to buy a house with her.

36 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

oh no, MM into family counselor mode and wants the juicy details - zip zip - glad I skipped ahead

It seems wife was not at the rehab facility for an hour when another resident "looked at her" the wrong way and she attacked that resident to the point where the woman needed medical care. Wifey gets the boot same day. Grandpa and grandma have the kids and won't let def see them, even though grandparents don't have the right to do that. Plaintiff is asked why he thinks def is unfit to see his own kids? Well, Daddy says, def knew his darling daughter should not be given alcohol, yet he gave her alcohol, so none of this is daughter's fault - not her drinking, drugging and taking off to get it on with an Uber driver. I was very suprised when JM awarded plaintiff the entire amount he was seeking. Isn't a loan given to a married couple a marital debt, to be split in half? What am I missing? Oh, and Chris? The dye job isn't working for you. And scrape up a backbone, please. There was something about his affect that was very off-putting.

 

31 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

Hoboy, in halltetview she claims P wanted to her to pay with sex - but she didn'the say anything because she didn'the want to ruin his marriage - oops, what difference does it make if she tells us in halfway or in the courtroom.

Oh, hell - I missed that since I'd had enough of the litigants by then. Pay for the repair of an ice-maker with sex? Hilarious, and funny she never mentioned that during the case.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, AngelaHunter said:

I was very suprised when JM awarded plaintiff the entire amount he was seeking. Isn't a loan given to a married couple a marital debt, to be split in half? What am I missing?

There are different rules depending on whether it is a community property or common law state as to whether one spouse owes for the debts of another.  In most community property states, both spouses are equally responsible for the repayment of debt incurred during the marriage, even if only one spouse enjoyed the benefit.  But that is not the issue here.  In this case, the plaintiff gave both the daughter and son-in-law a conditional gift of money, when the condition was not met, the gift became a loan.  The plaintiff could proceed after both of them or choose to go after one of them, as they are each liable severally (to simplify, think of this word as separately-they can be severed from each other), and jointly (to simplify, think of this as kept together) and a creditor can sue either party severally, or both jointly, at their option.  The defendants can then sort it out between themselves perhaps, though as it is, as you describe, marital debt and was loaned to both of them, I would think they are both liable for the debt and one would not recover from the other.  But, as to the plaintiff, he can go after either or both at his choice.  As he blames the husband for his daughter's problems, he obviously is going to go after the husband and not darling daughter.  Though I don't think this was his motivation for not pursuing the daughter, she might not have any assets or income for him to try to collect from her.   

That is why you don't want to cosign for anyone.  The creditor doesn't have to pursue the primary borrower, they can pursue the co-debtor for the whole amount. 

Quote

Hilarious, and funny she never mentioned that during the case.

Well, she said she didn't want to hurt his marriage by bringing it up in court, so she saved it for after.  Nice of her.

Edited by Bazinga
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post

In the violent addict wife case, I hope she's an ex by now, if the defendant has a brain in his head.    Then she can move in with her parents, and they can put up with her relapses, and violent attacks, and defendant can raise his kids in peace.     By the way, the defendant needs an immediate vasectomy if he had either kid after she was addicted and in and out of rehab, because he's too stupid to have more kids with anyone.      I mostly feel sorry for those poor children.   

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

I mostly feel sorry for those poor children. 

I try not to think too much about the kids of most of the litigants. It makes me too upset and angry to think of little kids with addicts/drunks/violent savages and losers for parents, all of whom, of course have the right to spew out as many kids as they like, to be abandoned, neglected and mistreated. Too bad babies have no rights at all.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

Years ago , my grandmother wanted to sue her  ex son in law (my  father) for money loaned for a house, when my parents were married.  She didn't because she would have to sue my mother too.  She also helped my mother and step dad buy a house when they first got married.   Years later, my  mother was in a nursing home and step dad was building a new house, that was wheel chair friendly, so my mother could visit.  My grandmother got her nose out of joint and  told my step dad she needed new dentures, and got him to give her the money back from the loan.  She never did buy new dentures. She just didn't want him to build a new house.  I can see my grandmother suing and going on a court show if she was still alive.  She also wrote down every penny she ever gave anyone in a book.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, howiveaddict said:

I can see my grandmother suing and going on a court show if she was still alive.  She also wrote down every penny she ever gave anyone in a book.

She sounds like a lot of litigants. They don't loan or give money because they're so incredibly generous. They give it for control over people - "I gave you the money for that house/car/whatever, so I can dictate how you use it and who is allowed in it."

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post

Too bad JM can't mandate therapy for some of these litigants; they really need that more than a monetary judgement. Therapy and a large dose of common sense.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, Broderbits said:

Too bad JM can't mandate therapy for some of these litigants; they really need that more than a monetary judgement. Therapy and a large dose of common sense.

And basic education (to include reading 'riting & 'rithmaric) along with some basic finance and budgeting - oh and give them a book of old time truisms/sayings like 'a fool and his money are soon parted' 'you can't buy love' 'don't buy a pig in a poke' (may have to explain that last one)

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
  1. Squabble over.... not sure - but MM will go after the juicy gossip: P intro says these litigants were besties for 15 years - P getting hitched and invites D to be a bridesmaid - wild bachelorette party where I guess for entertainment they got matching tats - P paid D's way on trip to Atlantic City - big kerfuffle over something to be determined - D unfriended her bestie and is booted from wedding party - P suing for $170 for either the trip, the tat, or the bridesmaid dress (she has a dress in court). D intro - guess case about Atlantic City trip, as intro starts by saying P begged her to go to Atlantic City with her and said she (P) would pay their way, BUT she acknowledges it was a loan - says P split the beans on personal 'bestie' stuff shared in confidence - and that's reason for kerfuffle and big boot from wedding - ah ha, the dress - seems there's a countersuit for the price of the bridesmaid dress, so of course instead of just giving it to D, P brought it today... testimony... (JJ would be having a fit with P and all these 'yeps') uh oh, case is one of those 'was it a gift or loan' cases and will probably be settled with texts after boring recital of kerfuffle belonging on Springer... probably a quicky case, as I'm still on 2nd cup of coffee... ok, first part of case is the tats - seems everyone in wedding party got a tat at the bachelorette party.... really great idea - not! - I imagine lots of peer pressure to get the tattoo, P already knew D was broke as she had agreed to pay D's way (either as gift or loan), and since D is suing for price of dress P booted her from wedding and has already stuck her friend with that bill... ok, over to D, when asked she admits the trip/tat bill was a loan. Her defense is that when P publicly shamed her at the party and booted her from the wedding it offset her having to repay the loan. Then, as if being humiliated by bestie at party wasn't bad enough, MM wants the details aired on national TV.... doesn't matter to me what her relationship problems were/are - D told good friend, P, in confidence, specifically asking P not to bring it up during trip so D could just have a good time, and P betrayed that trust - not liking P much - in fact, not much liking MM pursuing this, D clearly uncomfortable talking about cause of kerfuffle and I don't think it matters - D already admitted she knew the P was 'loaning' her the money and feels debt should be forgiven because P betrayed a confidence - oh, and apparently, while discussing various dangerous activities (like parasailing) they might do, Fiancé said he wouldn't care if D dies, and bride tells everybody what he said during the car ride.... I don't see D getting out of the debt, but also don't see her having to pay for a bridesmaid dress - not only is bride blabbing personal business but now fiancé insulting (MM calls him a jerk and bride agrees).... ok, commercial time, and I'm over this case as preview clip shows MM playing counselor again trying to patch up broken friendship - hey nothing I'm hearing would make me want to be P's friend.... zippety zip zip - decision time - MM decides a loan is a loan,  yep I agree - where I disagree was I felt D should not have to pay for dress (course, I skipped have the testimony) - MM says she should, and has Douglas deliver dress to D - everybody teary eyed at decision as friendship looks to be dead and over with
  2. Car deal: huh, just heard P bought three cars from D's used junker lot because Uncle told her she could trust D - maybe 1 car on Uncle's sayso, but after first car it's on you lady - hmm as I listen, maybe she bought it lemon, exchanged for lemon #2, then exchanged #2 for lemon #3 - anyway, she's  asking for 3 grand... D intro - says he runs a semi-charitable business - takes donated cars, inspects them, sells them with a 30 day warranty - donates proceeds to charity. Agrees he sold P 3 cars, but says each car passed inspection before being sold, and woman kept cars months after the 30 day warranty ran out. First impression - P doesn't have a case and D knows it. testimony (CC needed for PYep, pretty much what I thought. D gets donated junkers, fixes them up til they can pass inspection, sells them, donates the selling price minus cost of repairs plus a cut of the profit. P actually just suing over price of 1 car, 18yo BMW. This deal goes back to 2016 when she bought three cars from D - yep, all three at once, she says - and none of them worked? I'm confused, and so is MM - difference is she gets paid to listen (and she can't even turn on CC) and I have my zippety button. And yes, I zip right on through this lady's testimony - when D comes on screen I start listening - he's kind of entertaining - needs glasses to read, but doesn't have them, tells us he's too vain (laugh from gallery) says when woman complained car wouldn't start he offered to fix it, did in fact fix it, has had car since 2016 and car still legally hers and she could come pick it up today - not even pay for the repair - clown faces from P - she doesn't want the car, she wants cash refund - MM working hard to convince hard headed P to just take the car - strongly hinting in preview that if she has to make a legal judgement P won't like the ruling - P shown shaking her head - after commercial, D even offers to bring the car to her and park it in her driveway, Hard head still shaking her head as gallery laughs - ok, I zipped through a lot, but just heard MM essentially tell the woman she has no case - woman refuses to listen - MM tells her she has one week to go get the car (heck, D even willing to deliver it to her house) or, MM tells D, give her an additional 30 days after the week passes and it will be an abandoned car and Driver can claim and resell it - and Hard HEAD P still yelling at judge as she walked out. In hallterview she's yelling car has been stripped and not worth anything. D still says it drives and works fine - says if she doesn't come get it he'll resell it and try to give her her money back. Listened to Harvey - he says D dropped off car with the keys at P's house - didn't say if it was chopped or something running veehickle 
  3. room rental kerfuffle: P claiming landlord refused to return his deposit - suing for over a grand for a deposit on a room? - D says dude is hygenically challenged and left place a stinky mess - carpet ruined - testimony ah, not just deposit,  the $1050 represents deposit, rent, and property left behind when landlord told D to give P great boot... hmm wonder if D had permission to sublet a room.... hoookayyy - dude lived there 19 months, D even agrees he was a decent enough tenant/roommate - D says he gave notice that he was leaving to live with his gf - says they agreed on a day to have walk through with actual landlord - says he started moving out before the walk through date, had most of stuff out, but still had a week before the scheduled walk through - room entered and property damaged a week before scheduled final day (at least some of the damage property is a "Satanic" poster he had on the wall, which he explains was actually a poster of the Joker, from a Batman movie.... hmmmm, wonder which Joker poster was Satanic.... as P was testifying I was thinking he might be out of luck on the rent question - less than a month notice - but no, he was constructively evicted when room was entered before move out date, now not even sure D can collect on damages because P should have had an additional week to clean/fix things - only question for me now  (still 10 minutes of testimony coming) is what property was damaged. Was this a 99cent poster from the Dollar Store or a print autographed by one of the more famous actors who played the role and worth big bucks. Now D trying to excuse the early entrance to the room, but he's already admitted he entered room while it was still rented to P, talking about damage to the carpet, etc - nope I already decided that and not listening to his excuses (unless of course I have to rewind to figure out some switcheroo) ok, I do end up backing it up a tad to figure out why P is only getting $282 of the $1050. Nah, not that interesting.... I back up and hear MM running her adding machine - ah, she's deducting damages while I would have denied based on the early/illegal entrance into the room. Unusual thing about the case is that I got feeling both sides were being honest - even when knowing it might hurt their case
Edited by SRTouch
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
31 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

Squabble over.... not sure - but MM will go after the juicy gossip:

Rough, Mean Girl plaintiff is way too immature to get married and her betrothed sounds like an asshole. Anyway, JM playing counsellor really bugged me in this case. I know her intentions are good, but she is not qualified to play this role. Def. started to tell her that it wasn't just this incident that caused the break, but JM cut her off, not that this plays any part in a legal decision. I dropped a friend I'd had since I was eight years old after one particular incident, but not because of that one incident. That was merely the proverbially straw that broke the camel's back and made me say "That's it. Over!" So I really understood def. Maybe when she's older she'll realize that if you tell your friends horrible things about a boyfriend, don't expect them to cheer when you take him back. It's a no-win situation. Anyway, who wants a friend that betrays confidences? Save your tears, plaintiff. You'll probably need them for when your marriage breaks up.

 

39 minutes ago, SRTouch said:

r deal: huh, just heard P bought three cars from D's used junker lot because Uncle told her she could trust D

Yes, I always buy a bunch of ancient clunkers from some guy who "won't let me" test drive them and who refuses to give me copies of paperwork. Hee! But she's a SSMOT, and they always deserve special consideration to be exempt from existing laws, so you can't expect her to take care of her own business. This single mother with all kinds of bills to meet thinks it's a good idea to buy an 18-year old BMW, when she could have gotten a much newer car for a lot less money, but oh - the allure of tooling around in a BMW was too much to resist. Car breaks down, she doesn't like it or whatever - she imperiously expects seller to come pick it up from her place and magically fix it, because after all - she's a SSMOT(or maybe only One. I forget). The def was ridiculous with his "I can't see to read my own contracts because I feel that wearing glasses will ruin my Adonis looks and people might gasp with horror and pass out on the street if they see a middleaged, twerpy man wearing glasses." Yeah, it's much hotter to see someone acting like Mr. Magoo and admitting he can't read from his own papers. Fool. Doug in the Hall had to listen to SSM ranting and raving that the old beater was in pieces last time she bothered to check on it. Who cares?

All you people who are renting: Make sure you don't put any demonic, Satanic posters on the walls of the shitty room you're renting. I had to stop watching this when I heard about the dog being locked in said shitty room 24/7. Plaintiff was a particularly revolting individual with what seemed to be a very nasty grill and who thinks living in some room somewhere puts him a great position to have a dog, yet he can still find a woman to take him on. I can just picture her. Don't know what happened. Don't care.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

In Bachelorette Trip Gone Bad drama, J M was wrong to blame D for P being a bitch.  That "it's all about you " horseshit has got to go. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
35 minutes ago, arejay said:

In Bachelorette Trip Gone Bad drama, J M was wrong to blame D for P being a bitch.  That "it's all about you " horseshit has got to go. 

I think we've all known one of those bitchy 'friends' like the bride from hell.  I think the Defendant was one of her doormat 'friends' that she's probably spent most of their aquantance putting down and talking about behind her back, but that type goes through friends so fast they have to keep the ones who are too beaten down to leave.

But when the Defendant went back to her boyfriend against bridzillas wishes, it was time to make her pay.  Get her in a car with a bunch of other bridesmaids that the def doesn't know, wait until they're gunning it down the highway, then start her crap.  Tell everyone all about the loser boyfriend, her financial issues, and mention that her fiance said that he wanted everyone to stay safe, except for the defendant, if someone had to die, it should be her.  Sneak off for breakfast without her, and then get caught saying rude things about her when she was supposed to have left the room, and then blame her for everything for not playing along when she's being bullied and humiliated by her so-called friend.

The bride was awful, and the defendant is better off without her as a friend.  I hope she and her groom tear each other into little pieces with their rude comments and one upmanship.

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
On 22/01/2019 at 8:02 PM, howiveaddict said:

The defendant in this case was a famous Dr Who character, Strax:

Now you've done it! I will never be able to watch another episode featuring Sontarans on another campaign of conquest without imagining MM giving them one of her patented heartfelt but silly speeches about trying to get along and "these people are all you've got".

Much like she did today with those two young ladies who stopped being friends after that disastrous Atlantic City trip. Anyone with an ounce of common sense could see that this relationship had run its course, but MM's pollyanish outlook on life said otherwise.

 

The car deal plaintiff was so pigheaded that she obviously has developed an allergy to facts; she did not have a single piece of evidence that the defendant had chopped up her car, yet that was the line she stubbornly stuck to till the very end in the hallterview.

Edited by Florinaldo
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×