Yes, the plaintiff took advantage of his friend. The plaintiff is no friend. I guarantee you he pays the guy he is renting from now, right away to secure the place. If the defendant would not have said he could still have the place if he sends a check right away, he would have won no, because the amount of time the plaintiff was taking and pain him was not reasonable. The defendant should have given him a deadline when he first asked to rent the place again, especially seeing how he had to chase him the previous year. I would have wrote, "I'm not going to chase you for the money like I had to last year. You have to pay by X date, or I'm renting it to somebody else."
That’s the worst kind of friend you could have. The plaintiff doesn’t have any empathy, self awareness or consideration. He expects everyone to bend to his time and wishes.. then behaves as if he is god; as if he has the power or go ahead to punish others. He doesn’t remember what his friends say to him because he only hears himself speak.
It's surprising the plaintiff didn't think getting the money to his friend in a timely manner was an issue, especially since the defendant pointed out his frustration in a text the year before. It's unfortunate that the defendant wasn't more specific in his texts - I knew what he meant to say - but it lost him the case.
And he was going to rent it to somebody else, if the plaintiff didn't rent it. It's not like it was just going to either be rented by his friend or not rented at all. That plaintiff really took advantage of the situation. He's no friend.
Exactly!! I hated to see him win. If only his text could’ve been worded a bit differently. Or he would’ve set a deadline earlier. He was trying to be nice to a friend and got taken advantage of.
@Julie Cranford The text was worded fine.. ..the defendant said "1st to send the payment".....not "if you send the payment." Common sense would dictate 1st to send would mean 1st to arrive. And even if it didn't, it was never shown who sent the payment 1st. Also, based on last year's transaction, the plaintiff absolutely knew the payment needed to get there sooner. Another bad decision....
@@juliecranford534- Unfortunately. After chasing him that first year, I would have told him I need the rent by X date, or I'll be renting it to the first person who gives me a check.
@@wvrjl I agree! So many things he could have done differently to protect himself from being in this situation. I think sometimes when you’re dealing with a friend, you don’t take all the precautions you would doing business with a stranger. I hate that for him because he ended up losing money and a longtime friendship.
I do love Douglas, not in a dreamboat way, but I can see that. I like the seriousness with which he takes his job, and the good-natured support he shows the judge, not standing there doing a crowword puzzle like lazy Petri Byrd.
The plaintiff obviously didn't learn anything about how sh*tty it was to make the guy chase him for payment. His "friend" is better off without him. Hopefully the judge's advice will stick with the defendant and he won't be such a doormat. Oh, and learns how to make a firm "agreement" while protecting himself.
Judge f'ed up. Common sense dictates "1st to send payment means 1st payment to get here. And even if you still disagree, where is the proof the plaintiff sent the payment 1st?? Bad decision...
@payable on death So tell me, oh wise one, is this a single party consent state regarding conversations?? Do you know what that means?? Besides, what facts were disputed where a recorded conversation would have made a difference?
@osomartinez I agree, the texts are not a "verbal" contract.. I disagree regarding the wording wasn't clear ...the defendant said "1st to send the payment".....not "if you send the payment." Common sense would dictate 1st to send would mean 1st to arrive. And even if it didn't, it was never shown who sent the payment 1st. Also, based on last year's transaction, the plaintiff absolutely knew the payment needed to get there sooner. Another bad decision....
What?. He DID have a deadline. He's booked for a certain timeframe EACH year. And the other guy DID say who gets payment there first. She is being ridiculous. She knows what he meant, it wasn't unclear. Is she having a senior moment? I don't like it when judges aren't objective.
Plaintiff is an ass. He took advantage of his "friend" and I totally believe he threatened to beat him up. The judgment was correct because defendant really blew it when he said plaintiff could still have the place if he mailed a check. He doesn't seem to understand that a verbal/text/email agreement IS a contract. If he'd just said, "whoever I get a check from first gets it," he would've won this case. Very unfortunate that the inconsiderate jerk in this case was the one who won. Defendant is better off without this loser for a "friend."
I could see the guy kind of threatening to beat him up, by saying, "Remember that guy at the gym? Maybe I'll do the same to you," or something like that. And the defendant not really taking it seriously, so he ignored that and still said send the check. I have a friend who says a bunch of crap to me sometimes, then I don't talk to him for 3-7 days, and then he'll send me another text that has nothing to do with anything he previously said.
Hell, after he took advantage of our friendship the year before, I would have wrote him that I'm not going to chase him for the rent again. He needs to pay by X date, or I'll rent somebody else.
I think when he demanded the money the first time, that was the deadline. Not 2 months later. Bad ruling. Guess the plaintiff has lost any future ability to use the condo so that's a bonus.
"I don't think there was a formal contract, only an agreement." What?! Does he not realize that a verbal agreement is the same as a written one? The only difference is that one is easier to enforce. Smh.
The plaintiff messed his old friend around the previous year and then again the following year and then he wonders why after delaying to pay him until the last minute he is surprised that his friend finally rented to someone else, but this judgement was based on the interpretation of those few words 'First person to send me the check will be the renter', which means, the first person to send it, theoretically means it's the first check to arrive. But the judge interpreted it as meaning if you say it's in the mail it's yours, and of course he replied 'check sent' even though it didn't arrive for 4 days, and in between time the defendant rented to someone else. Although the plaintiff won, he played a dirty game with his long time friend, but now he has nowhere to stay for next summer...
If he never would have sent that text that says you can still have the place, he could have rented it out to somebody else. Because any judge would have said that making him wait for months to get the payment, and he even surpassed the previous year of waiting until September. That is not a reasonable time period to wait for the check to rent it out. If he would have never sent that other text that said "you can still have it," the defendant would have won.
The plaintiff took advantage of his so called friend! Acting like there was no need to pay in a timely manner. He only took advantage because they had been friend.
Exactly. I guarantee he doesn't do that to the person he's renting from now. If he did, he would lose the place. It's unfortunate that the defendant sent that text saying, you can still have the place if you send a check right away. Because if he had not sent that text, he would have won because waiting for months and months to get the check is not reasonable. He also should have set a deadline right away. Especially after the previous year.
No matter how much of a jerk the plaintiff was, you can't say "send me the payment now and you can have it," have him DO THAT and then not give it to him!!!
Plaintiff comes off as an entitled jerk with no consideration for his friend. He thinks he should just wait and wait and wait until he feels like sending a check, when he gets around to it.
The judge was very technical and semantic on this decision, which is kinda shocking given the leeway she uses sometimes in other cases, when she knows what the intention is. The friendship seems one-sided. The plaintiff seemed to have no consideration for the Defendant. Says he called and “reprimanded” him, and just his choice os language makes me believe he probably was trying to be a tough guy with the Defendant. Based on how long he dragged it out, I would’ve gone with the Defendant, since nobody wrote anything down, and it was clear what the Defendant meant. Cases like this are about what’s more likely, not exactitudes. Anyway, hope the Defendant has learned from this and finds better friends.
I agree 100%.. Common sense would dictate "1st to send payment means 1st payment to get here.. Even if it in some way doesn't, where's the proof the plaintiff sent the payment 1st?? Bad decision...
Did the plaintiff go to Aruba? Did the defendant return his money? If the plaintiff got his money back and went to Aruba, did his extra accommodations cost $1053 more? That's the only thing that makes sense. If the timeshare was $1000 and he had to pay $1053 instead of the $1000, wouldn't he only be entitled to $53. This is a weird case where they don't specify anything about how the actual money the plaintiff is using for was calculated.
It's not acceptable to blow somebody off for months in paying them, just because you're friends. The fact that you're friends should mean that you'd want to pay them as soon as possible, so there wouldn't be a problem with your friendship. Not take advantage of your friendship. I would have given him a deadline after he blew me off the previous year. I would have said, "You can rent it again this year, however I will not accept a payment as late as September. Please pay me by X date or I will give it to somebody else." That plaintiff should be ashamed of himself. He's no friend. He had no problem paying for his tickets two-and-a-half months earlier, but couldn't pay for the actual place? I guarantee you the person he's renting from now, he pays the rent right away. If the defendant would not have sent that text saying that he can still have the place if he sends the check, he would have won. Because he made it clear he could still have the place if he sent the check, and the guy sent the check right away at that point.
Disagree with the judge. The text message said whoever pays first gets it; not that he would definitely get it if he sends the check the same day. If the defendant got the payment from someone else first, why should he cancel that person? Certainly the defendant didn't breach. Rather the plaintiff did not complete the contract by making the payment in time. In this case, words would not be sufficient. Money talks. Nevertheless, they were friends, and its terrible to see a broken friendship.
He unfortunately didn't prove anyone else sent it first. I also believe he said that you can have it if you send the check right away, OTHERWISE I will give it to whoever sends the payment first. After that text, he sent the check right away. The defendant should have set a deadline in the first place, especially when the guy blew him off the previous year. And since he didn't set a deadline, he would have won if he just would have never sent that last text saying, you can still have it, as long as you send the check right away. He sent the check right away after that text. If he would have never sent that last text, he would have won, because the plaintiff waited an unreasonable period of time before sending the check. He could have just sent him a text saying you've taken too long to send the payment, I am going to give it to whoever I receive payment from first.
I don’t know what gave me a bigger headache, the outrageous claim, JM practically yelling, the calmness of defendant or the superiority complex of plaintiff, but I hope defendant learned the lesson to surround himself with better people or so called friends.
It's kind of sad that old friends are in court over this. The plaintiff absolutely should have paid sooner, especially after being shown frustration the year before because he paid so late. On the flip side the defendant got all mad and frustrated when he never told the plaintiff "pay by this date". So every day he'd get madder and madder when the plaintiff was oblivious to the fact because in his mind "he wasn't late." A tiny bit of communication would have fixed this whole thing. They both should have acted their age and used their words instead of getting angry with the other. All of that being said, I can't stand the attitude of the plaintiff. I wouldn't have rented to him. He acts like he's entitled to the place and that he can just pay whenever he feels like it.
The Plaintiff isn't a good guy for what he did to a friend but the defendant told him send the ck and you have it and the Plaintiff did. Unfortunately he said that.
No Adrian. According to you, she is only argumentative and combative with BLACK people. This case proves you wrong. You are just trying to find something to complain about because you can't accuse her of racism today.
Adrian- I have noticed a pattern where you comment on each video that the judge is rude, argumentative, racist, etc. Why do you continue to watch so intently and what is the deeper psychological meaning of your persistent criticism? Are you obsessed with her?
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
I feel bad for the defendant. The plaintiff milked this situation. Took his sweet time paying.
Yes, the plaintiff took advantage of his friend. The plaintiff is no friend. I guarantee you he pays the guy he is renting from now, right away to secure the place. If the defendant would not have said he could still have the place if he sends a check right away, he would have won no, because the amount of time the plaintiff was taking and pain him was not reasonable. The defendant should have given him a deadline when he first asked to rent the place again, especially seeing how he had to chase him the previous year. I would have wrote, "I'm not going to chase you for the money like I had to last year. You have to pay by X date, or I'm renting it to somebody else."
Both me & JM yelled out, " YOU REPRIMANDED HIM???" at the same time 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
That’s the worst kind of friend you could have.
The plaintiff doesn’t have any empathy, self awareness or consideration.
He expects everyone to bend to his time and wishes.. then behaves as if he is god; as if he has the power or go ahead to punish others.
He doesn’t remember what his friends say to him because he only hears himself speak.
You said a mouthful at the end, holy shit. I know a few people like that.
It's surprising the plaintiff didn't think getting the money to his friend in a timely manner was an issue, especially since the defendant pointed out his frustration in a text the year before. It's unfortunate that the defendant wasn't more specific in his texts - I knew what he meant to say - but it lost him the case.
I think he learned that from this experience 😂
that and that you can't cash someone's cheque and then give him nothing... All the best to you!!
And he was going to rent it to somebody else, if the plaintiff didn't rent it. It's not like it was just going to either be rented by his friend or not rented at all. That plaintiff really took advantage of the situation. He's no friend.
The plaintiff was a user and had no consideration for his ‘friend’ who was renting him the condo.
💯NARC
Exactly!! I hated to see him win. If only his text could’ve been worded a bit differently. Or he would’ve set a deadline earlier. He was trying to be nice to a friend and got taken advantage of.
@Julie Cranford
The text was worded fine..
..the defendant said "1st to send the payment".....not "if you send the payment."
Common sense would dictate 1st to send would mean 1st to arrive.
And even if it didn't, it was never shown who sent the payment 1st.
Also, based on last year's transaction, the plaintiff absolutely knew the payment needed to get there sooner.
Another bad decision....
@@juliecranford534- Unfortunately. After chasing him that first year, I would have told him I need the rent by X date, or I'll be renting it to the first person who gives me a check.
@@wvrjl I agree! So many things he could have done differently to protect himself from being in this situation. I think sometimes when you’re dealing with a friend, you don’t take all the precautions you would doing business with a stranger. I hate that for him because he ended up losing money and a longtime friendship.
I hate that the plaintiff won. He was being difficult for no reason.
I don’t agree with the judge’s decision. The guy clearly took advantage of the friendship.
The Bailiff, Douglas, seems so nice! Very likable!
Douglas is sooooo dreamy 😍 ✨️ 💖 ❤️
I do love Douglas, not in a dreamboat way, but I can see that. I like the seriousness with which he takes his job, and the good-natured support he shows the judge, not standing there doing a crowword puzzle like lazy Petri Byrd.
I loooooooved this episode she really explained!!!! I understood both sides but I love her rationale. Fair as possible
Douglas….. dang! I could not focus on the case. You are 💯 fine!
Yasssssss
The plaintiff obviously didn't learn anything about how sh*tty it was to make the guy chase him for payment. His "friend" is better off without him. Hopefully the judge's advice will stick with the defendant and he won't be such a doormat. Oh, and learns how to make a firm "agreement" while protecting himself.
😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊
The law was on the plaintiff's side, but morality sure wasn't.
This defendant is so dense. I'm baffled he still doesn't get it.
He has money like most boomers but not so skilled with technology;he doesn't even know how to record conversations
Judge f'ed up.
Common sense dictates "1st to send payment means 1st payment to get here.
And even if you still disagree, where is the proof the plaintiff sent the payment 1st??
Bad decision...
@payable on death
So tell me, oh wise one, is this a single party consent state regarding conversations??
Do you know what that means??
Besides, what facts were disputed where a recorded conversation would have made a difference?
Money and friendship don't mix
It mixes just fine if one friend doesn't take advantage of the other. That's why it's also best to have things in writing.
Defendant is ridiculous. How do you not have a written contract for use of a timeshare or any other property? Verbal contracts aren't worth spit!!!
it was a written contract. just about everything about their agreement was in the text messages. the defendant was too messy in his language.
@osomartinez
I agree, the texts are not a "verbal" contract..
I disagree regarding the wording wasn't clear ...the defendant said "1st to send the payment".....not "if you send the payment."
Common sense would dictate 1st to send would mean 1st to arrive.
And even if it didn't, it was never shown who sent the payment 1st.
Also, based on last year's transaction, the plaintiff absolutely knew the payment needed to get there sooner.
Another bad decision....
jeez, the plaintiff in this case is just such a jerk. such an "i can do what I want and you will like it" attitude he has.
What?. He DID have a deadline. He's booked for a certain timeframe EACH year. And the other guy DID say who gets payment there first. She is being ridiculous. She knows what he meant, it wasn't unclear. Is she having a senior moment? I don't like it when judges aren't objective.
What he meant to say and what he said are two different things, which is why he lost. 🤷🏽♀️
Funny how people say “I’m good for the money” but don’t pay. Wild
Plaintiff is an ass. He took advantage of his "friend" and I totally believe he threatened to beat him up. The judgment was correct because defendant really blew it when he said plaintiff could still have the place if he mailed a check. He doesn't seem to understand that a verbal/text/email agreement IS a contract. If he'd just said, "whoever I get a check from first gets it," he would've won this case. Very unfortunate that the inconsiderate jerk in this case was the one who won. Defendant is better off without this loser for a "friend."
Me too I hate when JM acts like this . Not even letting him finish the conversation.
I could see the guy kind of threatening to beat him up, by saying, "Remember that guy at the gym? Maybe I'll do the same to you," or something like that. And the defendant not really taking it seriously, so he ignored that and still said send the check. I have a friend who says a bunch of crap to me sometimes, then I don't talk to him for 3-7 days, and then he'll send me another text that has nothing to do with anything he previously said.
Hell, after he took advantage of our friendship the year before, I would have wrote him that I'm not going to chase him for the rent again. He needs to pay by X date, or I'll rent somebody else.
I think when he demanded the money the first time, that was the deadline. Not 2 months later. Bad ruling. Guess the plaintiff has lost any future ability to use the condo so that's a bonus.
"I don't think there was a formal contract, only an agreement." What?! Does he not realize that a verbal agreement is the same as a written one? The only difference is that one is easier to enforce. Smh.
The defendant should appeal this ruling. The judge is ridiculous with this judgment
You can't appeal these ones unfortunately
The plaintiff messed his old friend around the previous year and then again the following year and then he wonders why after delaying to pay him until the last minute he is surprised that his friend finally rented to someone else, but this judgement was based on the interpretation of those few words 'First person to send me the check will be the renter', which means, the first person to send it, theoretically means it's the first check to arrive. But the judge interpreted it as meaning if you say it's in the mail it's yours, and of course he replied 'check sent' even though it didn't arrive for 4 days, and in between time the defendant rented to someone else. Although the plaintiff won, he played a dirty game with his long time friend, but now he has nowhere to stay for next summer...
If he never would have sent that text that says you can still have the place, he could have rented it out to somebody else. Because any judge would have said that making him wait for months to get the payment, and he even surpassed the previous year of waiting until September. That is not a reasonable time period to wait for the check to rent it out. If he would have never sent that other text that said "you can still have it," the defendant would have won.
The plaintiff took advantage of his so called friend! Acting like there was no need to pay in a timely manner. He only took advantage because they had been friend.
Exactly. I guarantee he doesn't do that to the person he's renting from now. If he did, he would lose the place. It's unfortunate that the defendant sent that text saying, you can still have the place if you send a check right away. Because if he had not sent that text, he would have won because waiting for months and months to get the check is not reasonable. He also should have set a deadline right away. Especially after the previous year.
He for sure bullied his friend and "reprimanded" him and told him he would do to him what he did to the other guy.
Ohhhh JM looks good in this one I like her lipstick 💄
No matter how much of a jerk the plaintiff was, you can't say "send me the payment now and you can have it," have him DO THAT and then not give it to him!!!
Plaintiff is awful to ruin such a long friendship and act so entitled.
Plaintiff comes off as an entitled jerk with no consideration for his friend. He thinks he should just wait and wait and wait until he feels like sending a check, when he gets around to it.
Why hook your vacation plans on your check “getting there first”… that’s nuts.
"There was no consideration exchanged judge" says the clearly not a lawyer.
Idk, he was pretty casual about getting his friend the payment. So wrong!
Hey PC Fam!!
I'm at work eating cereal.. 🙄
It's Friday!!
Happy Friday!
Hello. Watching from Australia. Happy Saturday
Hey!!!! I’m eating a cheese stick and drinking juice 😄😄
The plaintiff is a jerk. Feel bad for the defendant.
This was a good case. Bad outcome but good case
Was your friendship really worth you keeping the money 2 1/2 months extra?
The judge was very technical and semantic on this decision, which is kinda shocking given the leeway she uses sometimes in other cases, when she knows what the intention is. The friendship seems one-sided. The plaintiff seemed to have no consideration for the Defendant. Says he called and “reprimanded” him, and just his choice os language makes me believe he probably was trying to be a tough guy with the Defendant. Based on how long he dragged it out, I would’ve gone with the Defendant, since nobody wrote anything down, and it was clear what the Defendant meant. Cases like this are about what’s more likely, not exactitudes. Anyway, hope the Defendant has learned from this and finds better friends.
I agree 100%..
Common sense would dictate "1st to send payment means 1st payment to get here..
Even if it in some way doesn't, where's the proof the plaintiff sent the payment 1st??
Bad decision...
Yes ! I agree ! I think Judge got it wrong this time . I absolutely love her; but in this case I think she should have ruled against the plaintiff
I assume that he sent the payment itself back to him???
He threatened to beat him up and then he made that offer 3 days later??? I'm not sure I'm buying that one either.
The plaintiff sounds and looks like Pedro Pascal 😂
Did the plaintiff go to Aruba? Did the defendant return his money? If the plaintiff got his money back and went to Aruba, did his extra accommodations cost $1053 more? That's the only thing that makes sense. If the timeshare was $1000 and he had to pay $1053 instead of the $1000, wouldn't he only be entitled to $53. This is a weird case where they don't specify anything about how the actual money the plaintiff is using for was calculated.
Bob is a bully and took advantage of the situation. I hope he sees these comments so he knows how bad he came off.
15:45 A person asks one thing and they answer what they believe… Answer what you believe but answer the damn question they asked too.
It's not acceptable to blow somebody off for months in paying them, just because you're friends. The fact that you're friends should mean that you'd want to pay them as soon as possible, so there wouldn't be a problem with your friendship. Not take advantage of your friendship. I would have given him a deadline after he blew me off the previous year. I would have said, "You can rent it again this year, however I will not accept a payment as late as September. Please pay me by X date or I will give it to somebody else."
That plaintiff should be ashamed of himself. He's no friend. He had no problem paying for his tickets two-and-a-half months earlier, but couldn't pay for the actual place? I guarantee you the person he's renting from now, he pays the rent right away. If the defendant would not have sent that text saying that he can still have the place if he sends the check, he would have won. Because he made it clear he could still have the place if he sent the check, and the guy sent the check right away at that point.
first off, is she saying "if you MAILED the check! or if you, mail the check?" im thinking he was saying if he had already mailed the check.
The Defendant was a real friend because he passed up money during the Summer-Vacation season.
Disagree with the judge. The text message said whoever pays first gets it; not that he would definitely get it if he sends the check the same day. If the defendant got the payment from someone else first, why should he cancel that person? Certainly the defendant didn't breach. Rather the plaintiff did not complete the contract by making the payment in time. In this case, words would not be sufficient. Money talks.
Nevertheless, they were friends, and its terrible to see a broken friendship.
He unfortunately didn't prove anyone else sent it first. I also believe he said that you can have it if you send the check right away, OTHERWISE I will give it to whoever sends the payment first. After that text, he sent the check right away. The defendant should have set a deadline in the first place, especially when the guy blew him off the previous year. And since he didn't set a deadline, he would have won if he just would have never sent that last text saying, you can still have it, as long as you send the check right away. He sent the check right away after that text. If he would have never sent that last text, he would have won, because the plaintiff waited an unreasonable period of time before sending the check. He could have just sent him a text saying you've taken too long to send the payment, I am going to give it to whoever I receive payment from first.
The plaintiff is a tight wade.
Not a true friend
I don’t know what gave me a bigger headache, the outrageous claim, JM practically yelling, the calmness of defendant or the superiority complex of plaintiff, but I hope defendant learned the lesson to surround himself with better people or so called friends.
It's kind of sad that old friends are in court over this. The plaintiff absolutely should have paid sooner, especially after being shown frustration the year before because he paid so late. On the flip side the defendant got all mad and frustrated when he never told the plaintiff "pay by this date". So every day he'd get madder and madder when the plaintiff was oblivious to the fact because in his mind "he wasn't late." A tiny bit of communication would have fixed this whole thing. They both should have acted their age and used their words instead of getting angry with the other. All of that being said, I can't stand the attitude of the plaintiff. I wouldn't have rented to him. He acts like he's entitled to the place and that he can just pay whenever he feels like it.
I would’ve told the interviewer at the end of the case. I would have beat him up if I didn’t win this lawsuit.
Huh?
The plaintiff is another user. I am sure if he could not make the trip he would not have paid the defendant. Again nice people get screwed.
There wasn't a formal contract there was an agreement. What do you think a contract is?
He never got it!! And left thinking JM made a bad judgment because she mistakenly thought they had a contract.
9/ 17 my father’s birthday, he just passed away December 2022. 9/10 my grandmother’s birthday. Very significant dates for me.
Plaintiff is a con all the way. Promise of payment and then not fulfilling it was bad on the plaintiff.
Not enough new People's Court episodes today, only one. I'm having a tough time withdrawing.
I love Doug
The Plaintiff isn't a good guy for what he did to a friend but the defendant told him send the ck and you have it and the Plaintiff did. Unfortunately he said that.
Here we go
the Plaintiff has a mental issue. He's got real issues.
When you have to chase n beg anyone who owes them money..are usually obnoxious spoiled brats who smoke .. they always have money for smokes
Foiling A Friends' Furlough
Tape recorder on my phone 😂😂😂
Will they start making it back to court, or they sticking to the TV remotely making their appearances)
They're back in the courthouse without an audience.
All this over a time share....lmbo
Disagree. This guy had many chance to pay and didn't after all the emails. Bob not to smart.
Plaintiff is a jerk!!
Wow
Milian once again being argumentative and combative throughout the case for no apparent reason.
No Adrian. According to you, she is only argumentative and combative with BLACK people. This case proves you wrong. You are just trying to find something to complain about because you can't accuse her of racism today.
Nah she just sees through their bs and isn’t having it.
stop watching then
You being a troll again
Adrian- I have noticed a pattern where you comment on each video that the judge is rude, argumentative, racist, etc. Why do you continue to watch so intently and what is the deeper psychological meaning of your persistent criticism? Are you obsessed with her?
judge judy dupe