|
Friday, 5/21/04 PC
TGIF! Poor insight and judgment alert! Debra Hawes is suing “Richard” for $3K, for various expenses during their brief relationship. The two met on the internet and she moved the defendant and his two kids in with her own two 48 hours after meeting! The defendant’s daughter helped pick out the plaintiff from online profiles. Ms. Hawes explained they “really hit it off.” Judge Milian immediately asks how she knows this guy isn’t going to molest her kids. She responds that she had a good feeling about him. She was being treated for anxiety and depression and was on medication. She explained that they had an agreement to split expenses even though he wasn’t working the whole time they shared quarters. He stated that he did pitch in all along, even hocked his ring and two guitars to help out with the bills. Things weren’t so peachy after the move. She found that he “just wanted a woman for the bedroom and the kitchen” and discovered that his mommy (he’s 39) cut his toenails (that visual was really hard to shake!) :-O And he was unhappy that she wouldn’t fix a lunch for him when he’s working those 16-hour days and all she’s doing is managing the household and the kids. He finally had it with her because she gave him the cold shoulder for a week, but she was the one to kick him out. He was still married, but separated from his current wife. Judge Milian acknowledges their bad decision-making and that they were just “in love with love” and says their kids even know this whole thing was bizarre!
Sean Douglas is suing John Carter, owner of Al’s Tree and Landscaping, Inc. for damages to his fence that occurred when the defendant was doing work for a neighbor. Initially, the plaintiff’s wife was interested in having the defendant work on some on her trees and briefly spoke to him about an estimate. However, in the meantime this damage was discovered and the neighbor who was having work done first was there to testify. Mr. Douglas asked his neighbor for the phone number for the defendant to speak to him about the damages. The response he got was a message left that said the fence was old anyway and that he did him a favor in helping to remove some of it. Interesting that the defendant didn’t state that some elderly lady told him it was going to be replaced anyway, which is what he brought up in court! Mr. Carter said there were two elderly ladies sitting in lawn chairs watching this whole production and one of them made this comment. Even still the defendant denied being responsible for all the damages, saying at best, he maybe knocked a couple pickets off. He also made a comment about the fence in comparison to the upkeep of the property, namely the lawn (possibly race related) and Judge Milian jumped on that!
OK, this is what I love to do! I love to listen to a case and say, “Who is more credible and why?” Edna Firhan is suing Michelle Williams for $125, the balance due on some merchandise sold to her. She also was asking for transportation fees ($25). Ms. Firhan has a small business at home and she sometimes goes door to door with her products, clothing and jewelry. She went to the salon where the defendant was working and sold her some things. Ms. Firhan had good rapport with her customers and would give the merchandise to them, even without being paid in full. She would take payments if that worked better for her customers. This was the situation with the defendant. She said the defendant seemed nice and would be someone she would socialize with. However, when the plaintiff went back to collect the money, the defendant no longer worked at the salon. She said the defendant told her the salon “hated black people” and that’s why she left. The plaintiff said the defendant accused her of harassing her, when initially she was only calling once a week. Ms. Williams acknowledged owing this money but said she didn’t pay her because of the treatment from Ms. Firhan. She accused her of calling her racial slurs and had a whopping counterclaim for $5K for harassment! Hmm… what do you think has that ring of truth here?!
JM's rulings below...
|
