Set your DVRs.
Just like the title says, he will be appearing on Judge Judy on January 18.
More info shortly.
Set your DVRs.
Just like the title says, he will be appearing on Judge Judy on January 18.
More info shortly.
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
Hilarious, dvred.
What is the nature of the dispute?
HILLARY WON
just did a quick dvr search, the local first-run Judge Judy show on 1/18 has 2 cases. One is about a dude who was arrested after a 125mph drunk driving thing that involves his GF, so I think we can safely say the Scalir case is the other one, described as such:What is the nature of the dispute?
When a rent-control tenant goes up against a large property owner and loses, he seeks damages from his illegal tenant.
I could see Ken on either side of this one, but guessing tenant-side.
just did a quick dvr search, the local first-run Judge Judy show on 1/18 has 2 cases. One is about a dude who was arrested after a 125mph drunk driving thing that involves his GF, so I think we can safely say the Scalir case is the other one, described as such:
When a rent-control tenant goes up against a large property owner and loses, he seeks damages from his illegal tenant.
I could see Ken on either side of this one, but guessing tenant-side.
HILLARY WON
Correct.just did a quick dvr search, the local first-run Judge Judy show on 1/18 has 2 cases. One is about a dude who was arrested after a 125mph drunk driving thing that involves his GF, so I think we can safely say the Scalir case is the other one, described as such:
When a rent-control tenant goes up against a large property owner and loses, he seeks damages from his illegal tenant.
I could see Ken on either side of this one, but guessing tenant-side.
The description is actually wrong, though. Ken went against a large property owner and WON.
Background:
Ken has been a rent control tenant in Los Angeles since 1995.
He added an unofficial roommate in September 2015. The building management was aware of this guy, and in fact made contact with him during repairs, and never once demanded he officially be added to the lease. By Los Angeles city law, that makes the guy an official tenant after 60 days or being known to the landlord.
When the building was for sale in May 2017 (20 months after this guy moved in), they decided to try dirty tricks to evict Ken, so as to increase the building's value. Ken's unit would fetch $2100 on the open market, but currently only pays $1100, so that's $12,000 per year difference in rent!
They claimed they had no idea of this roommate (LIE), gave him a backdated three day notice (so as to make it look like he already refused to get rid of the roommate), and filed for eviction.
Through both my guidance and a good attorney, Ken beat the eviction case.
However, his cocksucker freeloader roommate started refusing to pay rent during the eviction proceedings, yet refused to move out. The guy stayed there for months rent-free, not understanding that Ken would be responsible for the rent whether he won or lost the eviction case! (When you're being evicted, you are temporarily not required to pay rent, but it accumulates and you have to pay it when the case is over, even if you lose.)
The building eventually evicted this roommate, but Ken stayed (this was the result of the eviction case).
Ken sued the roommate for the back rent -- $2500, for the months of May, June, July, August, and September 2017 ($500 each).
Judge Judy contacted them and offered to take the case instead, and both accepted.
I will not reveal what happened. You can watch on the 18th.
This is already fantastic.Correct.
The description is actually wrong, though. Ken went against a large property owner and WON.
Background:
Ken has been a rent control tenant in Los Angeles since 1995.
He added an unofficial roommate in September 2015. The building management was aware of this guy, and in fact made contact with him during repairs, and never once demanded he officially be added to the lease. By Los Angeles city law, that makes the guy an official tenant after 60 days or being known to the landlord.
When the building was for sale in May 2017 (20 months after this guy moved in), they decided to try dirty tricks to evict Ken, so as to increase the building's value. Ken's unit would fetch $2100 on the open market, but currently only pays $1100, so that's $12,000 per year difference in rent!
They claimed they had no idea of this roommate (LIE), gave him a backdated three day notice (so as to make it look like he already refused to get rid of the roommate), and filed for eviction.
Through both my guidance and a good attorney, Ken beat the eviction case.
However, his cocksucker freeloader roommate started refusing to pay rent during the eviction proceedings, yet refused to move out. The guy stayed there for months rent-free, not understanding that Ken would be responsible for the rent whether he won or lost the eviction case! (When you're being evicted, you are temporarily not required to pay rent, but it accumulates and you have to pay it when the case is over, even if you lose.)
The building eventually evicted this roommate, but Ken stayed (this was the result of the eviction case).
Ken sued the roommate for the back rent -- $2500, for the months of May, June, July, August, and September 2017 ($500 each).
Judge Judy contacted them and offered to take the case instead, and both accepted.
I will not reveal what happened. You can watch on the 18th.
HILLARY WON
Hopefully somebody posts the show here. Also, hopefully 1 that can be watched from here in Canada.
(•_•) ..
∫\ \___( •_•)
_∫∫ _∫∫ɯ \ \
My understanding is if you win your case the show pays the damages not defendant. Is this correct?Correct.
The description is actually wrong, though. Ken went against a large property owner and WON.
Background:
Ken has been a rent control tenant in Los Angeles since 1995.
He added an unofficial roommate in September 2015. The building management was aware of this guy, and in fact made contact with him during repairs, and never once demanded he officially be added to the lease. By Los Angeles city law, that makes the guy an official tenant after 60 days or being known to the landlord.
When the building was for sale in May 2017 (20 months after this guy moved in), they decided to try dirty tricks to evict Ken, so as to increase the building's value. Ken's unit would fetch $2100 on the open market, but currently only pays $1100, so that's $12,000 per year difference in rent!
They claimed they had no idea of this roommate (LIE), gave him a backdated three day notice (so as to make it look like he already refused to get rid of the roommate), and filed for eviction.
Through both my guidance and a good attorney, Ken beat the eviction case.
However, his cocksucker freeloader roommate started refusing to pay rent during the eviction proceedings, yet refused to move out. The guy stayed there for months rent-free, not understanding that Ken would be responsible for the rent whether he won or lost the eviction case! (When you're being evicted, you are temporarily not required to pay rent, but it accumulates and you have to pay it when the case is over, even if you lose.)
The building eventually evicted this roommate, but Ken stayed (this was the result of the eviction case).
Ken sued the roommate for the back rent -- $2500, for the months of May, June, July, August, and September 2017 ($500 each).
Judge Judy contacted them and offered to take the case instead, and both accepted.
I will not reveal what happened. You can watch on the 18th.
Ken Scalir is a a motherfucking real one.
re: People's Court/Judge Judy > the losing party doesn't have to pay---the show makes the payment for the loser--just give them a good story/interesting theater: its a good method to collect from a dead beat.Correct.
The description is actually wrong, though. Ken went against a large property owner and WON.
Background:
Ken has been a rent control tenant in Los Angeles since 1995.
He added an unofficial roommate in September 2015. The building management was aware of this guy, and in fact made contact with him during repairs, and never once demanded he officially be added to the lease. By Los Angeles city law, that makes the guy an official tenant after 60 days or being known to the landlord.
When the building was for sale in May 2017 (20 months after this guy moved in), they decided to try dirty tricks to evict Ken, so as to increase the building's value. Ken's unit would fetch $2100 on the open market, but currently only pays $1100, so that's $12,000 per year difference in rent!
They claimed they had no idea of this roommate (LIE), gave him a backdated three day notice (so as to make it look like he already refused to get rid of the roommate), and filed for eviction.
Through both my guidance and a good attorney, Ken beat the eviction case.
However, his cocksucker freeloader roommate started refusing to pay rent during the eviction proceedings, yet refused to move out. The guy stayed there for months rent-free, not understanding that Ken would be responsible for the rent whether he won or lost the eviction case! (When you're being evicted, you are temporarily not required to pay rent, but it accumulates and you have to pay it when the case is over, even if you lose.)
The building eventually evicted this roommate, but Ken stayed (this was the result of the eviction case).
Ken sued the roommate for the back rent -- $2500, for the months of May, June, July, August, and September 2017 ($500 each).
Judge Judy contacted them and offered to take the case instead, and both accepted.
I will not reveal what happened. You can watch on the 18th.
(long before there was a PFA i had my Grenade & Crossbones avatar at DD)
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Reply With Quote