This! Precisely why when I contracted to have a tree removed I made sure that they also do stumps and made a contract for removal of both tree and stump.
Only if customer want it removed,but that has never been part of my tree removals, simply because it requires special tools, either you get a stump grinder, or a backhoe loader or mini excavator ,if the tree is small enough sure. I've hand dug plenty of smaller trees and transplanted them six feet or smaller. But were talking large trees with huge roots that are usually larger than the tree itself. The best way to deal with stumps are to drill deep into the base and pour Epsom salt into the holes,then fill up with water, cover with plastic and over time it will rot away. Non of my customers ever cared to have the stumps removed immediately,I've always just drilled holes... This contractor should have at least done that,or you leave the stump high enough for a seat,or plants.
Removing a stump is a job and a contract by itself. It takes certain tools to do that if the job is simple. But sometimes (and very often) the job won’t be simple so it IS a job by itself.
Why would she when you in front of a bias 🤡 that gonna have her back regardless of proof no shame just bold with the lies and everything else my opinion free speech first Amendment 🧹🥴💅🤡🤥
I agree with the plaintiff in this case💯. Just because the defendant wasn't well informed regarding contract details, doesn't mean the business owner should take a loss - he did the work!!! All she had to do was specifically ask for what she wanted and got him to draft the proper documents for the job. NO.. STUMP REMOVAL SHOULD NOT BE INCLUDED with regular tree removal service, it's a completely different job! That's it, that's all.
Dude said he didn't need to remove shit that he partially did because you couldn't run a lawn mower through the area, so therefore it wasn't 'the lawn' - even tho the contract said he'll remove debris from a fokking lawn
@@VladmirPoopN Well, true that, BUT if you were to look at that statement from a legal POV, as if it were language in a contract, then it's about *not removing stumps* {(no stump removal = removal of no stump = no removal of any stump) should NOT be (apart [from]/ a part [of]) "regular tree removal." } 😏
me too - I just knew she had it. However, in her defense, there was obviously some additional work done, so she did do the work, or had someone else do it for her
Wondering if she was made to pay anymore since she didn't provide what she was suppose to or if she was just left with the same judgement? Wish he told us that. Lol
@@tiendaphillips8738 she will adjust it. They normally say that they do but for some reason she was so far up this guy’s ass she couldn’t even hear anything he had to say so she missed that part.. she totally had a hard on for him and wasn’t even trying to listen to him.
@@bethclark9319 Beth, thank you for your service of being a Nurse during your career. Without you our health care system would be much worse then it is. I strongly believe that Nurses are the real hero's of health care. So Thank You again.❤
She said her friend helped get it for her. I think either her friend was in a position to obtain free use of the machine or they rented it themselves, therefore it wasn’t in her name. At the very end JM said she should reassess if the receipt wasn’t turned over, but I hope all she got was $100 worth of credit. Because she didn’t understand the contract she signed doesn’t make it invalid. Though they should probably be a bit more specific to avoid customers like this in the future. The company did a lot of work and deserved their fees.
The legal definition of lawn includes land area covered with turf and trees or shrubs. The judge was correct. But both the plaintiff and the defendant should have been more specific with the contract.
And we do not agree with you, due to the fact a Judge is always correct in these matters. Millian is a homeowner and a landlord, for then she knows of what she is talking about in this case.
His contract was specific and he is correct about the lawn even I know the difference since I have a huge property. She was hoping for a free or cheap clean up.
It's not that she was hoping for a free cleanup it says she didn't understand the contract. I was once in her shoes to being a first-time home buyer when I was young I am under the understanding that the lawn is property and I would assume that my property would be cleaned Twigs leaves and all.
She should have asked more questions as to what she could expect the finished job to look like and not assume it would be as she thought, thinking something and reality can be two different things.
A lawn is: "an area of grass that is kept cut short and is usually part of someone's garden or backyard, or part of a park.". The plaintiff made a VERY good point...or tried to, anyway. There is "lawn" and there is "not lawn". His contract specified "lawn". WRONG decision, by the judge.
Well if the woods area is still part of the girl’s property that should have been cleaned up as well. I think it was all just some confusion I think the guy thought she just wanted her grass area of her lawn cleared but if the woods area is still in her property line the work he did there should have been cleaned up
I’m surprised he didn’t say to her the stumps are a separate contract that we can do just to keep her business. I get he wanted to get paid but there was a better way to go about this.
I worked for a property maintenance company in the office and the Jusge was wrong. But I also witnessed how many customers tried to get out of paying g certain parts by saying they didn’t understand…even tho they signed it beforehand
@@nancyhowell4505 wait wait….you, an adult, found it necessary to correct me because I’m your brain and lack of common sense, assumed I thought Judge was spelled with an “s” rather then a typo? You’ve got to be joking. If you aren’t joking, please get it together. The most insanely stupid shit I’ve seen in awhile
I know from previous experience that stump grinding isn't included in the original contract. IF, however, the plaintiff explained the purpose behind removing the trees and brush (to make the beach) you would think the plaintiff would have made the contract more specific. Plaintiff was argumentative over terminology. I'm surprised she never supplied the receipt.
Honestly, because she can be really rude when the plaintiff or the defendant are trying to explain to the judge certain details, so she’ll be able to have a better understanding she always cut them off she, I feel she doesn’t let the plaintiffs or the defendant, you know explain their case fully so she can understand where they’re coming from. She always cut them off and when another person is trying to you know clarify things she doesn’t allow that and I think it’s really messed up. It’s starting to really get on my
He needed to bring a dictionary to show the judge that a lawn is only the mowed pard of the ground with grass. She emphatically disagreed with him when the plaintiff tried to explain what a lawn is.
Next time someone says something about my half dead lawn I'm going to correct them; case law says that dirt is also a lawn, therefore my whole yard is a vibrant thriving lawn.
Even if she had provided a receipt for the equipment,that should have not been deducted from the contractors pay. Stumps are not part of tree removal,no matter what so many people here think. That is a separate job, or if otherwise stated in contract.
The way the judge treated the plaintiff was beyond ridiculous. The defendant didn't pay him a single cent but let's treat her like she's so damn innocent
That woman finished the job and literally got Lyme disease. And he still gets his money. Tell me how he's innocent?. His definition of lawn was ridiculous..that's why the judge got on his case.
Judge Milian, sis I love your show, but even I know that the wooded area you keep pointing at ISN’T considered to be a lawn. Lawn would be the grassy parts, he is correct on that matter. Just because she’s a bit dim witted doesn’t mean he is in the wrong. And it is normal for stump removal to be separate. My neighbor owns two houses and I’m always talking to her and her husband since they have a very nicely, manicured lawn. And I have learned a LOT from them. Also the definition provided by the GardenProfy: “A yard is generally an outdoor area adjacent to a house or other building, while a lawn is a specially cultivated patch of grass.”
Literally having the same problem at my home. We had bushes removed and they were actually supposed to remove the stomps. Fast forward to the next spring we want to put turf in that area but guess what they packed dirt onto the small stumps they supposedly removed. We started digging to level and that's when we were able to see the small stomps from the bushes. I tried getting them out but theyre so deep and strong still almost like its still has a bush on top. I'll have to call 611 to dig them up!! We paid for stump removal and treatment. They put some chemicals on them to kill the roots and dug them up a few days after. I guess they didn't do all of them. I think it's not worth suing over idk. Depends how much it cost to get it done the right way 😑
Lawn and property IS different. My lawn is from my house to 73' out but my property is from my house to 118' out ... sooo Judge listen to the Man when he is trying to give YOU the definition of LAWN 🙄
Yup. I worked for property maintenance company and I feel for all owners of these companies. There are always a few of these customers that don’t want to pay when the work is done
Legal definition of lawn means: land area covered with turf kept closely mown or land area covered with turf and trees or shrubs. I think this is what the judge was going off of.
BS case, lawn is lawn...bush area doesn't become lawn just because you remove the scrub. It has to be prepared and seeded with grass seed to then become a part of the existing lawn.
Sounds like we need to define what "is" is. I initially was on his side until he started quibbling about the lawn area. If the tree was on that area, that is what you are cleaning up. He certainly deserved some payment. I have haggled with contractors and we come to an agreement on price if they didn't fulfill everything.
He got paid half of what he was owed because Ms “I got sweaty and should be compensated” somehow convinced Milian that stump removal was part of the contract.
Owning a home is one of the biggest responsibilities that one can have in life which is why when there is work like this that you want done it's imperative to find the right people where everything is outlined and thoroughly understood in the contract. But this defendant couldn't prove that she spent $400 because she didn't provide the receipt. I didn't believe her.
Lady only paid for half a complete job and the court let her stiff this guy for that half . Unless stated no tree company is going to remove stumps, that is another job in itself. She was looking for a bargain and by the look of the picture she received one with the courts help.
@@billmoran3219 Not true. We had a tree yanked out, stump included. We didn't specify anything and neither did the company. They just took it all out.
I’ve had many dead trees on my property. Ash trees that where infected by beetles. The stump where extra. Ran about $200 extra per tree. Since most where not on my lawn I had two stumps grinned down. However the tree guy should of racked out the brush and I was told that the stumps where extra before hand.
It's gotta be specifically in the contract. Most tree companies don't do stump removal because it takes too long. Or they'll make you pay a lot more to do it as well. They also don't do finish grading after the trees are removed.
Stumps are ALWAYS separate. The stumps are the hardest part to deal with and takes the most hours. The roots and debris she's talking about needs to be rototilled and that's also a separate job. I think the issue is that she wasn't 100 percent clear about the area that needed to be worked on. Forest land clearing is subjective. Some people do the minimum and some want it completely cleared and smoothed. I think if she was to get all she wanted, the cost of the job would have been much higher. You get what you pay for rings true here. The Plaintiff needs to stipulate the exact area to be cleared so he doesn't run into this issue again.
Man. That is some CHEAP tree work! It cost me more than that to have 2 trees shaped last year that were half that height. And nobody includes stumps. Those are extra.
That is what makes it so disgusting, he gave her a deal & she withheld payment? What a self-centered bi***!. She probably the other work done for free giving some chump a sob story & that is why she didn't provide a receipt. User.
the lawn is the lawn, where the grass grows and you mow- the woods is not the lawn, stumps are not removed by tree cutters, unless it is specified in the contract
She says that he should be paid for the work that he's done she just doesn't feel like he did the full job well then why haven't you paid him even a dime? If you feel like the job wasn't done up to your standards why not give him half? she literally gave him nothing for his work! Of course now she's going to say she thinks he should get something because the People's Court pay whatever's owed when the judge makes the ruling smdh!
Stumps are NOT part of removing tree. Stump removal is a contract in itself.
This! Precisely why when I contracted to have a tree removed I made sure that they also do stumps and made a contract for removal of both tree and stump.
And sometimes different companies. One person cuts and removes tree. Someone else comes for stump removal.
Removing a stump is not easy. We still have a hole where the root was whe the stump was removed.
We had a tree removed and they took the stump. We didnt pay separately. It was take that sum bitch out the yard.
Exactly!!
Stump removal isn’t usually a part of tree removal..but it should be!
Then you pay a lot more!
Only if customer want it removed,but that has never been part of my tree removals, simply because it requires special tools, either you get a stump grinder, or a backhoe loader or mini excavator ,if the tree is small enough sure. I've hand dug plenty of smaller trees and transplanted them six feet or smaller. But were talking large trees with huge roots that are usually larger than the tree itself. The best way to deal with stumps are to drill deep into the base and pour Epsom salt into the holes,then fill up with water, cover with plastic and over time it will rot away. Non of my customers ever cared to have the stumps removed immediately,I've always just drilled holes...
This contractor should have at least done that,or you leave the stump high enough for a seat,or plants.
For an extra $1000
Does someone want to tell her the s in debris is silent 🤫
As soon as I heard her say "de-breeze" I wrote her off...🤦🏽♀️
Her shoes are everything 👏🏾👏🏾
The Judge's shoes? I found them ugly and clunky.
Removing a stump is a job and a contract by itself. It takes certain tools to do that if the job is simple. But sometimes (and very often) the job won’t be simple so it IS a job by itself.
I am surprised she never gave the court the receipt according to Harvey.
I’m not. She lied all the way through this.
I assume the tree cutter received most or all of the $400 that was NOT spent on a machine.
Why would she when you in front of a bias 🤡 that gonna have her back regardless of proof no shame just bold with the lies and everything else my opinion free speech first Amendment 🧹🥴💅🤡🤥
@JamesJones-yj8ku Well I would conclude yes she was lying given she didn't submit the receipt.
It was my polite way of saying "She's lying!" 😄
and we all know that young thing got the house from her sugar daddies and she aint used to paying men , they pay her !
I agree with the plaintiff in this case💯. Just because the defendant wasn't well informed regarding contract details, doesn't mean the business owner should take a loss - he did the work!!! All she had to do was specifically ask for what she wanted and got him to draft the proper documents for the job. NO.. STUMP REMOVAL SHOULD NOT BE INCLUDED with regular tree removal service, it's a completely different job! That's it, that's all.
Dude said he didn't need to remove shit that he partially did because you couldn't run a lawn mower through the area, so therefore it wasn't 'the lawn' - even tho the contract said he'll remove debris from a fokking lawn
*apart* of the removal job or *a part* of the job?
@@JoeMCool they still used a double negative, so I'm not sure they even know.
@@VladmirPoopN Well, true that, BUT if you were to look at that statement from a legal POV, as if it were language in a contract, then it's about *not removing stumps* {(no stump removal = removal of no stump = no removal of any stump) should NOT be (apart [from]/ a part [of]) "regular tree removal." }
😏
Happy weekend to all my People's Court friends!!🎉
IM SO HAPPY JM IS GETTING HER OWN SHOW!! 💃🏾💃🏾💃🏾💃🏾💃🏾💃🏾
Really????
FR?!
I haven’t heard this!
@@TwinkiesforDinner Yup that’s how I found out let me tell you I screamed! because i was so happy!
What it's gonna be called will the real liers come on down 🥴🧹🤥👺🤢🤮🥵😫
Y’all - when Harvey said she never turned in the receipt, I literally gasped.
me too - I just knew she had it. However, in her defense, there was obviously some additional work done, so she did do the work, or had someone else do it for her
Wondering if she was made to pay anymore since she didn't provide what she was suppose to or if she was just left with the same judgement? Wish he told us that. Lol
@@tiendaphillips8738 she will adjust it. They normally say that they do but for some reason she was so far up this guy’s ass she couldn’t even hear anything he had to say so she missed that part.. she totally had a hard on for him and wasn’t even trying to listen to him.
Wow else knew that girl was lying about the equipment rental fee's? You could tell by the look on her face when JM said she will need the receipt. 😅
Agree, and having poison ivy all over her body and Lyme disease. I didn't see any redness, and I am a retired nurse.
@@bethclark9319
Beth, thank you for your service of being a Nurse during your career. Without you our health care system would be much worse then it is. I strongly believe that Nurses are the real hero's of health care. So Thank You again.❤
She said her friend helped get it for her. I think either her friend was in a position to obtain free use of the machine or they rented it themselves, therefore it wasn’t in her name. At the very end JM said she should reassess if the receipt wasn’t turned over, but I hope all she got was $100 worth of credit. Because she didn’t understand the contract she signed doesn’t make it invalid. Though they should probably be a bit more specific to avoid customers like this in the future. The company did a lot of work and deserved their fees.
Lawn is grassy area. I agree with the plaintiff 100%. A contractor has to really cover their bases.
She lied about the $400.00
How tall are these trees? "My trampoline is 8 feet wide" lmbao
Judge now is an expert on lawns, another wrong verdict.
Its like calling the woods your lawn,try raking there!
Plaintiff is SMOKIN’ HAWWWTTT!!!!!! 🥵
I did not agree with Milian (as usual). The area where the trees were was not lawn. Furthermore, Stump removal would be a separate contract.
The legal definition of lawn includes land area covered with turf and trees or shrubs. The judge was correct. But both the plaintiff and the defendant should have been more specific with the contract.
And we do not agree with you, due to the fact a Judge is always correct in these matters. Millian is a homeowner and a landlord, for then she knows of what she is talking about in this case.
His contract was specific and he is correct about the lawn even I know the difference since I have a huge property. She was hoping for a free or cheap clean up.
It's not that she was hoping for a free cleanup it says she didn't understand the contract. I was once in her shoes to being a first-time home buyer when I was young I am under the understanding that the lawn is property and I would assume that my property would be cleaned Twigs leaves and all.
She looks to be in really good shape for someone suffering from poison ivy all over her body!!!
And Lyme disease
Not saying I believe her but both poison ivy and Lyme disease can be present without it being immediately noticiable to an outside observer.
@@blkcubwhtbear5361 how does someone look like they have Lyme disease?
@@Ahhmisohornie *looks at defendant* apparently they look healthy and ready for a model runway walk
The Judge is getting confused with the two. The Yard is Different then the Lawn area. The Lawn is Always Grass
I'd sue the judge for stupidity.
She should have asked more questions as to what she could expect the finished job to look like and not assume it would be as she thought, thinking something and reality can be two different things.
A lawn is: "an area of grass that is kept cut short and is usually part of someone's garden or backyard, or part of a park.". The plaintiff made a VERY good point...or tried to, anyway. There is "lawn" and there is "not lawn". His contract specified "lawn". WRONG decision, by the judge.
Read the legal definition of lawn.
He should be paid in full. I disagree with JM but he will be fine. At least he is getting something
Well if the woods area is still part of the girl’s property that should have been cleaned up as well. I think it was all just some confusion I think the guy thought she just wanted her grass area of her lawn cleared but if the woods area is still in her property line the work he did there should have been cleaned up
I’m surprised he didn’t say to her the stumps are a separate contract that we can do just to keep her business. I get he wanted to get paid but there was a better way to go about this.
The Defendant must have said to herself: I,m stumped.
I KNEW SHE WOULD NOT PROVIDE THOSE RECEIPTS.... LOL
How many times are we going to hear the "he hardly knew her..." In the opening?
This girl doing nice lawn by her own ❤
I believe him. Both are nice folks,just a misunderstanding of contract. She needs to pay him!
As a homeowner, I learned 2 things from this episode and the comments below: Tree stump and definition of "lawn". 😃
I worked for a property maintenance company in the office and the Jusge was wrong. But I also witnessed how many customers tried to get out of paying g certain parts by saying they didn’t understand…even tho they signed it beforehand
hi, I'm curious why you thought the judge was wrong..
Reread what she said.
@ jenny lynx *Judge 🙂 *g?
@@nancyhowell4505 wait wait….you, an adult, found it necessary to correct me because I’m your brain and lack of common sense, assumed I thought Judge was spelled with an “s” rather then a typo? You’ve got to be joking. If you aren’t joking, please get it together. The most insanely stupid shit I’ve seen in awhile
It's the case of "You're a chump and so is your stump". 😂
Anyone thats smart knows a stump isnt included with the tree removal, takes a different set of tools and work all together.
JM just went to the plaintiff's table to show off her shoes.
A lawn has grass dear! 😂
The judge is always so rude
I know from previous experience that stump grinding isn't included in the original contract. IF, however, the plaintiff explained the purpose behind removing the trees and brush (to make the beach) you would think the plaintiff would have made the contract more specific. Plaintiff was argumentative over terminology. I'm surprised she never supplied the receipt.
When are we all going to learn to be very very specific with contracts? 🤔
Honestly I’m so sick of JM siding with the defendant on this case. I’m so sick of JM rulings on cases like these
Honestly, because she can be really rude when the plaintiff or the defendant are trying to explain to the judge certain details, so she’ll be able to have a better understanding she always cut them off she, I feel she doesn’t let the plaintiffs or the defendant, you know explain their case fully so she can understand where they’re coming from. She always cut them off and when another person is trying to you know clarify things she doesn’t allow that and I think it’s really messed up. It’s starting to really get on my
He needed to bring a dictionary to show the judge that a lawn is only the mowed pard of the ground with grass.
She emphatically disagreed with him when the plaintiff tried to explain what a lawn is.
Plaintiff was ripped off and correct. $1063 was cheap for all that work and the debris was removed.
This is some bs for real. You're gonna tell me all that work he did is only worth 500? Gtfo. He easily did over 1000 worth of work.
Being petty here, but if she pronounced the 's' on the word 'debris' one more time, I was going to scream!!!
Trust me, you’re not being petty! I wanted to punch the screen 😂
@@65lianne Thanks for that, Lianne. 😁
Next time someone says something about my half dead lawn I'm going to correct them; case law says that dirt is also a lawn, therefore my whole yard is a vibrant thriving lawn.
As of now, my lawn is busy feeding bees, and others.
Pardon my weeds, I'm feeding the bees.
We inadvertently removed our stump, after it dried out we started a fire on it and it burned itself
JUSTICE FOR THE PEOPLE COMING FALL 2023!!!! WOO WOO!!!
TELL HIM DOUG "HE NEEDS TO CLARIFY HIS CONTRACT" SEEMS LIKE HE HAS QUITE THE ATT-I-TUDE 😡💯
I agree Robbbie! He should know what the legal definition of lawn means. It's his job! Just didn't want to do the work.
"Get off my lawn", "This isn't your lawn it is your wooded area." lol
Even if she had provided a receipt for the equipment,that should have not been deducted from the contractors pay. Stumps are not part of tree removal,no matter what so many people here think. That is a separate job, or if otherwise stated in contract.
The way the judge treated the plaintiff was beyond ridiculous. The defendant didn't pay him a single cent but let's treat her like she's so damn innocent
That woman finished the job and literally got Lyme disease. And he still gets his money. Tell me how he's innocent?. His definition of lawn was ridiculous..that's why the judge got on his case.
@@shaydaslaysliterally no one said he was innocent. Quit cryin 😅
@@KrazyVideoChickis I
@shaydaslays is it3 E I i😂
The judge comes from a family of contractors and seems to "know" everything that contractors should have done. She was wrong here.
Judge Milian, sis I love your show, but even I know that the wooded area you keep pointing at ISN’T considered to be a lawn. Lawn would be the grassy parts, he is correct on that matter. Just because she’s a bit dim witted doesn’t mean he is in the wrong. And it is normal for stump removal to be separate. My neighbor owns two houses and I’m always talking to her and her husband since they have a very nicely, manicured lawn. And I have learned a LOT from them.
Also the definition provided by the GardenProfy: “A yard is generally an outdoor area adjacent to a house or other building, while a lawn is a specially cultivated patch of grass.”
Maybe the court should investigate what a lawn is? 😂
Happy Friday!! 🎉
Literally having the same problem at my home. We had bushes removed and they were actually supposed to remove the stomps. Fast forward to the next spring we want to put turf in that area but guess what they packed dirt onto the small stumps they supposedly removed. We started digging to level and that's when we were able to see the small stomps from the bushes. I tried getting them out but theyre so deep and strong still almost like its still has a bush on top. I'll have to call 611 to dig them up!! We paid for stump removal and treatment. They put some chemicals on them to kill the roots and dug them up a few days after. I guess they didn't do all of them. I think it's not worth suing over idk. Depends how much it cost to get it done the right way 😑
Lawn and property IS different. My lawn is from my house to 73' out but my property is from my house to 118' out ... sooo Judge listen to the Man when he is trying to give YOU the definition of LAWN 🙄
ajajajajaja 😂
Yup. I worked for property maintenance company and I feel for all owners of these companies. There are always a few of these customers that don’t want to pay when the work is done
Legal definition of lawn means: land area covered with turf kept closely mown or land area covered with turf and trees or shrubs. I think this is what the judge was going off of.
She is delusional and her entitlement is out of this world
BS case, lawn is lawn...bush area doesn't become lawn just because you remove the scrub. It has to be prepared and seeded with grass seed to then become a part of the existing lawn.
if poison ivy removal was part of the job that would have been a separate thing - I think $1000 for removing 3 trees sounds cheap!
“Debrees” 😂
This time the judge is full of CRAP! Cutting a brushy woods does not make it a lawn!!!
Judge Milian was KILLIN IT with them shoes tho! 🔥🔥🔥
definitely not technically a lawn… but at least he’s getting paid lol
Judge is WRONG! She yelling at him and he didn't get paid. She real nice to her
The defendant is walking depression
Not only was the judge wrong about the lawn, she went back on her word, saying today is the trial, yet gave the defendant more time.
Sounds like we need to define what "is" is. I initially was on his side until he started quibbling about the lawn area. If the tree was on that area, that is what you are cleaning up. He certainly deserved some payment. I have haggled with contractors and we come to an agreement on price if they didn't fulfill everything.
The plaintiff wanted to play a semantics game. Glad the judge ripped him a new one. 👏👏👏
Stump grinding is a seperate charge to my knoweledge
He got paid half of what he was owed because Ms “I got sweaty and should be compensated” somehow convinced Milian that stump removal was part of the contract.
Owning a home is one of the biggest responsibilities that one can have in life which is why when there is work like this that you want done it's imperative to find the right people where everything is outlined and thoroughly understood in the contract. But this defendant couldn't prove that she spent $400 because she didn't provide the receipt. I didn't believe her.
Adrian not believing a woman while also talking about the house his mom gave him out of pity? Shocking.
Lady only paid for half a complete job and the court let her stiff this guy for that half . Unless stated no tree company is going to remove stumps, that is another job in itself. She was looking for a bargain and by the look of the picture she received one with the courts help.
@@billmoran3219 Not true. We had a tree yanked out, stump included. We didn't specify anything and neither did the company. They just took it all out.
@ChrMor At the end, Harvey said she never provided the receipt.
@@ButtonsCasey you’re very lucky to have found that company then. Because that isn’t standard practice in the industry.
THE HEELS YESSS 😂❤
Every thing should be in the contract
How short is the judge? Those was some big heels and she still looks small. Lol
Jm usually is fair but i think she is dead wrong
I’ve had many dead trees on my property. Ash trees that where infected by beetles. The stump where extra. Ran about $200 extra per tree. Since most where not on my lawn I had two stumps grinned down. However the tree guy should of racked out the brush and I was told that the stumps where extra before hand.
She's very privileged who will not like when she doesn't get paid by john
It's gotta be specifically in the contract. Most tree companies don't do stump removal because it takes too long. Or they'll make you pay a lot more to do it as well. They also don't do finish grading after the trees are removed.
Judge M is honestly the worst judge when it comes to construction contracts! She’s a complete women when it comes to this shit!!!
Definitely don’t agree with the judge on this one. Smh
Wow judge is rude to both of them.
hey judge- nice shoes!
Stumps are ALWAYS separate. The stumps are the hardest part to deal with and takes the most hours. The roots and debris she's talking about needs to be rototilled and that's also a separate job. I think the issue is that she wasn't 100 percent clear about the area that needed to be worked on. Forest land clearing is subjective. Some people do the minimum and some want it completely cleared and smoothed. I think if she was to get all she wanted, the cost of the job would have been much higher. You get what you pay for rings true here. The Plaintiff needs to stipulate the exact area to be cleared so he doesn't run into this issue again.
Wow our tree removal guy always did the stump grinding and removal. I guess we were just lucky.
A BEACH were the brush was cleaned up is NOT THE LAWN.
Man. That is some CHEAP tree work! It cost me more than that to have 2 trees shaped last year that were half that height.
And nobody includes stumps. Those are extra.
That is what makes it so disgusting, he gave her a deal & she withheld payment? What a self-centered bi***!. She probably the other work done for free giving some chump a sob story & that is why she didn't provide a receipt. User.
The judge is wrong
The wooded area isn't lawn
The contract should have stated
We're brush and trees removed
Will be raked and removed
Always take a payment before hand.
He’s being a smart ass with the whole “lawn” thing. If it’s my property, it’s my lawn. I wouldn’t know it to mean anything differently.
Stump removal is always separate and extra.
Next time he should specify “clearing and grubbing” “prep for new lawn” common literature in construction.
Yes
Dear, the S in DEBRIS is SILENT
This case had me confused about "lawns" 🤔🤔🤔🤔
the lawn is the lawn, where the grass grows and you mow- the woods is not the lawn, stumps are not removed by tree cutters, unless it is specified in the contract
Lady trying to get a free tree job.
The hell Harvey....the stomp of the tree is apart of the tree end of it
It drove me slightly nuts that she kept pronouncing the "s" in "debris."
Omg me too. I wanted JM to correct her so badly
Okay judge I see you in those pumps !!❤
She says that he should be paid for the work that he's done she just doesn't feel like he did the full job well then why haven't you paid him even a dime? If you feel like the job wasn't done up to your standards why not give him half? she literally gave him nothing for his work! Of course now she's going to say she thinks he should get something because the People's Court pay whatever's owed when the judge makes the ruling smdh!
Cut down 2 40 foot trees for a $1,000 way cheap