>> judge tanya: this is a crazy story! >> announcer: buckle up... >> judge larry: you're claiming mr. speelman stole the truck! >> announcer: ...for one wild ride. >> judge tanya: you pick him up, and then he takes off with the van. >> judge patricia: is that true? >> sweetheart... >> judge patricia: don't ever call me "sweetheart." >> announcer: "hot bench." judge tanya acker. judge larry bakman. judge patricia dimango. three judges. three opinions. one verdict. >> judge patricia: we've reached our decision. >> announcer: in a court of law, it's called a "hot bench." leah gill is suing her former co-worker, michael speelman, for stealing her truck and her children's clothes. >> judge tanya: thank you. please be seated.

>> sonia: your honor, this is case number 29, gill vs. speelman. >> judge tanya: thank you, sonia. ms. gill, you allege in your complaint that you were in what you describe was a close relationship with the defendant. you helped him out, you pick him up from jail, and then he co-signs on a car, and then he takes off with your stuff. so you're now suing him for $2,000. now, mr. speelman says that's not what happened and he owes you nothing. judges. >> judge larry: well, let me start with you, ms. gill. what's the nature of your relationship? >> co-workers. we all just work together. i allowed him to stay at my house. >> judge patricia: so, wait, wait, wait. did you two have a different kind of relationship than just friendship? because there's a notation in here that says she wants you back. why would she want you back? >> three days after i left her house and went back to norman and back to work and back to my normal life... >> judge patricia: yeah. yeah. >> ...i continuously was receiving text messages saying how much she loves me and how much she wants to be with me. >> that's absurd. >> judge larry: i don't mean to cut you off.

i understand that somewhere in this case, there's something about a car. tell me about it. >> okay. saturday, i'm going to go pick up a washer and dryer. my van breaks down. i get the neighbor across the street to drive me to some car lots to pick out a vehicle. i pick out a 2008 dodge ram lone star edition. >> judge larry: did you buy this car? >> i put a down payment on it. >> judge larry: all right, so, you had the $1,500. mr. speelman, did you sign on the loan? >> your honor, the only thing i signed was the purchase of vehicle. i had no co-signer. i didn't need a co-signer. >> judge larry: does anybody have a contract that i could look at? >> yes, sir, right here. >> judge larry: sonia, if i could. >> there's a complete bill of sale, the title, everything you need. >> judge larry: whose name was on title? >> mine. >> judge larry: did somebody insure this truck? >> i did. >> judge larry: you're the insured. you're the registered owner. you're on title. why is she driving away with the car? >> she didn't drive away in the truck. i did. >> judge tanya: this is a crazy story! [ laughs ] >> yeah, exactly. >> judge tanya: something's not adding up. >> exactly. >> judge larry: you know, ms. gill, i'm reading the complaint. you're claiming that mr. speelman stole the truck!

whose truck was it? >> mine! >> judge patricia: it seems to me it's his truck. >> judge larry: right. >> judge patricia: this seems to be his name. >> well, everything was sent to my address. >> judge patricia: but where else would the papers go but for your house? that was where he was residing. >> well, if i had the video evidence, if they would've gave me the video evidence -- >> judge patricia: video evidence of what? >> of me signing the papers and me paying cash for the truck. >> judge patricia: they take a video of you signing papers? >> there are surveillance cameras at all car lots. >> judge patricia: what?! well, i could see surveillance cameras, but they're not focusing on you. oh, there's a signature. every paper indicates michael speelman, and i don't see your name anywhere. >> that's not even the handwritten paper that we filled out. that's printed up. >> judge tanya: ms. gill, let's back up. according to you, you have $1,500 cash that you claim you give to this car lot for the car, and now the car ends up in his name. the title's in his name. you still maintain that it's your car and that he took it and it had a bunch of your stuff in it. >> yes.

>> judge tanya: so, if you have some evidence, something that will help us see your side of the story, that would be helpful. >> i pulled the $1,500 off my atm card to pay for it. >> judge tanya: let's see that. >> judge patricia: the other thing is, you're saying that you got the car on one day. you put all your stuff in it by the next day, and then it was gone. >> no. >> judge patricia: where did you go that you were packing all this in your car to go -- >> chandler out in the country to visit the family. >> judge patricia: so, you were just -- >> took it down there to show them my new truck and to let my kids see their family and to go fishing, and we came back that night to do laundry. >> judge larry: mr. speelman, i've got one question for you. >> yes, sir. >> judge larry: did she pay $1,500 towards the truck? >> no. no, sir. >> judge larry: what's the text message then about her taking out $1,500 to pay? >> i don't know anything about that message. >> judge tanya: well, you know, mr. speelman, i don't have such the good feeling about you because you originally had an answer in this case, and in your answer -- your first answer -- you said that the plaintiff gave you $1,500, and you also threw in some other things about how you think she had a crush on you. she was always doing things to

help you out, and that felt true to me because, yeah, maybe you're one of these guys who likes to take advantage of women if they think that they have an in with that woman, but then you changed that answer today, and you said she didn't give you $1,500. so, i want to know, what happened between the time that you originally filed the answer and today? >> what happened is, it was a typo, and i never said that she gave me $1,500. >> judge tanya: so that was just a typographical error? >> yes, ma'am. >> judge patricia: all right, so, bottom line is, we have you saying you took out this money in two different installments to give to the car dealer, $1,500 down. they let you take off with the car. you stuff it up with all this stuff, drive to somebody else's house. he comes back. he takes off with the truck, and if he took off with the truck, what happened? >> he took off with the truck and messaged me that my stuff was at qmart. >> judge tanya: why did you leave her things at a market? >> because at that point in time, when she got back to that house that night, she was telling me that i was not leaving in my truck. i could not go here. i could not do this, and i wasn't having it.

i took my keys, i got in my truck, and i left. i realized that there was stuff in the bed of the truck after i got down the road, and instead of going back to her house, i called her, told her where her stuff was. i went inside that store, let the owner of that store know that her stuff is sitting outside. she should be up there directly to pick it up. >> judge tanya: how much was the stuff worth? >> about $500 worth. >> judge patricia: do you have any receipts for those items... >> no. >> judge patricia: ...that you may have had in there? who is this gentleman? >> this is a buddy of mine. >> judge patricia: and what is his relationship to this case? >> he was actually at the casino where i was winning the money, and -- >> judge patricia: oh, wait. i mean, these things just unravel 'cause i was gonna ask you, where'd you get the $1,500? if i would've known it was this interesting, i would've asked you before! >> i was waiting. i picked up my paycheck on friday. my paycheck was for almost $500. i went to the casino. >> judge patricia: and you won $1,000? >> within three days, yes, ma'am. >> judge larry: and that was the down payment? >> yes, sir. the total down payment was $1,500 at the time it was driven off, and the day i picked up the title, it was another $1,000 down. >> judge larry: where did the other $1,000 come from? >> from working. >> judge patricia: but you get a

$500 paycheck you said. >> that was when we picked up the truck. >> judge patricia: so you get $500. you gamble for three days. you get $1,500. >> right. >> judge patricia: you give all of that money to the truck but her nothing for staying there. >> and then i go to work. >> judge patricia: then you go to work, make more money. >> correct. >> judge patricia: another $1,000 in how many days? >> sweetheart, i make over $2,000 a week. >> judge patricia: sweet? [ spectators murmur, laughter ] >> judge patricia: don't ever call me "sweetheart." >> yes, ma'am. >> judge patricia: it's not that i don't like it. i just don't like it from you. >> fair enough. >> judge larry: and on that note... >> sonia: this court is now in recess. >> judge patricia: i got to tell you guys, i'm totally confused. >> judge larry: you know, i know you don't like him, and i know you're not fond of him either. >> judge tanya: not a big fan. >> judge patricia: no, no. >> judge larry: but i'm not buying her story that she paid $1,500 for it. >> judge patricia: i'm with you. i saw the papers. i totally agree with you. he paid $2,500 down. >> judge larry: so, the $1,500's a nonissue, but i do believe he

took her property. the problem is, we don't know what the appraisal value of the property is. >> judge patricia: i'm not inclined to give her the money for anything in the vehicle either because she was really very nonspecific. she had an opportunity in there to say, "i had this, this, this, and this," and all she said was, "i have three kids and him, and i had stuff in the car, and we were gonna do this." i don't even know what she had in there after 24 hours. >> judge tanya: i'm not with you on the property because he could've left it on her porch. he could've left it on the driveway. he didn't have to provoke another confrontation. so not only am i inclined to give her back the full value that she's claimed of the property but i would award punitive damages on top of that. >> judge patricia: i'm not good with that. >> judge patricia: i wouldn't. >> announcer: and later today... >> i told him that this bike is a bit much. i am a beginner. i should probably not be riding. >> judge tanya: after you allegedly didn't want it, you took it on a test-drive! >> judge patricia: you damaged it, correct? >> yes. >> judge tanya: i don't get it! female announcer: you're on the right track to save big

during sleep train's triple choice sale. for a limited time, you can choose to save hundreds on beautyrest and posturepedic mattress sets. or choose $300 in free gifts with sleep train's most popular tempur-pedic mattresses. you can even choose 48 months interest-free financing on the new tempur-choice, with head-to-toe customization. the triple choice sale -- on now at sleep train. ♪ sleep train ♪ your ticket to a better night's sleep ♪

whoo! mmm! ♪ ♪ oh, yeah [ male announcer ] discover your new orleans. start exploring at followyournola.com. >> announcer: closed caption is provided by...

ring ring!... progresso! it's ok that your soup tastes like my homemade. it's our slow simmered vegetables and tender white meat chicken. apology accepted. i'm watching you soup people. make it progresso or make it yourself >> announcer: three judges. three opinions. one verdict. "hot bench." leah gill has accused former co-worker michael speelman of stealing her truck. the judges have returned from deliberation and are ready to rule. >> judge tanya: mr. speelman, i think that your conduct in taking these items, leaving them at the gas station, i think that was shady and nasty.

so i -- i would've given ms. gill the full value, what she was asking for, $500, for that property, but you caught a bit of a break today. i was in the minority here. that's why there are three of us. for that reason, we are awarding ms. gill $200 from you, and, ma'am, we can't award anything further than that because my colleagues felt that you just didn't make a good enough case about what the items were. as for the car, there's no evidence that this was your car, ma'am. he's on the title. all the evidence is in his favor, so we've denied your claim, but we are awarding you $200 for the value of your property. thank you. the case is dismissed. >> sonia: this courtroom is now in recess. >> i hope he wrecks the truck. i don't care. >> she had told me that she loves me. >> that's absurd. >> that she wanted to be with me. >> i've been single for 10 years. that's absurd. >> she wanted to have a future and all this type of stuff. i've known the chick for a week. >> he's -- he's a lousy person. >> she can have the $200. merry christmas. have a good one. >> announcer: and now the next case. >> sonia: case number 43 on

calendar, wright vs. micklus please step forward. >> announcer: 22-year-old james wright jr. is suing 18-year-old jacob micklus for damaging a motorcycle he was in the process of selling him. >> judge patricia: mr. wright, you had a motorcycle that you believe you sold to the defendant, and then he backed out of the deal. when he gave you the bike back, it was damaged, and you're suing for those damages. >> yes, ma'am. >> judge patricia: your position, mr. micklus, is, you said, "i never really bought the bike," and you don't owe him anything. >> yes, ma'am. >> judge patricia: okay, so, let's start with you. mr. wright, how do you put the bike out there for sale? what do you do? >> i listed it on craigslist online, and he called me and wanted to buy it, so i brought it over to him. >> judge patricia: and what was the price? >> $2,500. >> judge patricia: okay. >> he decided he wanted it, so he wrote me a check. >> judge patricia: did you ever give him a bill of sale for the bike? >> no, ma'am, i didn't do it. >> judge patricia: now, how did you decide you wanted the bike? >> i never decided i wanted the bike. when he brought it over, we asked him if we could have a mechanic check it out, possibly leave the bike with us in our possession so we could have that mechanic check it out the next

day. he agreed on the terms that i give him a security deposit so he would know that i would not steal his motorcycle. >> judge patricia: now, you ended up giving him how much money, sir? >> i wrote the check for $2,300. >> judge patricia: did you negotiate that as your new price? >> yes, ma'am. >> judge patricia: okay, so, that's not a security deposit. you bought the bike. but let me ask you this. do you really think he was gonna buy the bike without having somebody look at it? >> [ chuckles ] he -- that was nowhere part of the deal, but... >> judge tanya: what was not part of the deal? >> that he was gonna have a mechanic look at it. >> judge tanya: you were selling it as is? >> yes, ma'am, and i rode it up and down the street, showed him it was working fine and everything was good on it. >> judge patricia: yeah, but why don't you give him the keys and the title? >> well, because i was gonna wait until i cashed the check, and when i got the money from the check, i was gonna bring him the keys and the title. >> what had happened was, when i had wrote that check, i had -- we had agreed that i would pay him in cash on friday. and that friday, i ended up backing out of the deal. i told him that this bike is a bit much. i am a beginner. a 650 is a powerful bike that i should probably not be riding. he was okay with it. >> judge patricia: so, when you were looking for a bike, you didn't think, "what kind of power do i need?"

you didn't have a conversation with anybody? i find that hard to believe. >> judge larry: the suzuki sv650. is that right? >> yes, sir. >> judge larry: i know a little bit about bikes. i ride them. do we have a picture of the bike when you got the bike back? >> yes, i have a few photos. >> judge larry: all right. quite frankly, i'm a little concerned why this lawsuit isn't for the purchase price of the bike -- $2,300. >> judge patricia: mm-hmm. >> judge larry: rather, it's $900 for damages you claim the defendant caused when he took it out for a little ride outside your presence. >> well, because after he wrecked it and took the money out of my account, i went and got the bike back, and i've sold it since then as it was. >> judge larry: how much did you sell it for? >> $1,200 the second time i sold it. >> judge patricia: so, it was still drivable? >> no, it was not. >> judge patricia: okay, so somebody bought a bike that they couldn't ride because they were gonna fix it? >> yes, ma'am. >> judge tanya: this was a very, very sloppily done transaction. >> oh, yeah, for sure. >> judge tanya: and i don't think that two of you are bad guys. i'll just be candid. i think you're young and you really don't know how to buy and sell things appropriately, but, mr. micklus, you're not off the

hook because you claim in your answer that a 650 is a powerful bike. "i shouldn't be riding," but then after you allegedly didn't want it, you took it on a test-drive! i don't get it! >> the reason behind that was, after i'd gave him that security deposit, i ended up backing out of the deal, like i said. >> judge larry: well, did you drive it and damage it? >> it was almost a week and a half later. what had happened was, he ended up saying, "you can't go back on your deal. you bought the bike." he -- >> judge patricia: well, yeah, that's what most people would say if they sold something, gave it to somebody, they kept it a week, they damaged it, and then they said, "i don't want it anymore." [ laughter ] >> this happened -- this happened that friday. >> judge patricia: you know, i mean, you drove the bike after you had it a week, correct? >> yes. >> judge patricia: you damaged it, correct? >> yes. >> judge patricia: and now you don't want the bike anymore. >> that is not correct. from the friday, i did not want that bike, and i told him he could come pick it up. >> judge tanya: so, why did you take it on a test-drive? >> well, 'cause he had tossed the title and keys in my mailbox... >> judge patricia: yeah. >> ...without me even consenting to that 'cause i didn't want it. >> judge patricia: okay. >> so, it was in my possession, yes, and about a week later,

like, we had made multiple attempts to try and contact him -- nothing. >> judge patricia: okay, so you thought, "i stopped payment. i have the bike. i have the title. i have the keys. this must be a gift!" >> no. >> judge patricia: that doesn't make any sense. >> she is my witness to this. >> announcer: "hot bench" continues in a moment. >> judge tanya: when you take the stand and you tell us that "x" is true when it turns out that "x" is not true and your story now, sir, it's unwinding. it's unraveling.

>> announcer: three judges. three opinions. one verdict. "hot bench." james wright jr. says jacob micklus owes for damaging a motorcycle he was trying to sell him. >> judge larry: were you present during this agreement? >> yes, your honor, i was. >> judge tanya: who are you? >> my name is kali wood. >> judge tanya: and what's your relationship? >> he's no relation. >> judge tanya: mm-hmm. >> he was just an 18-year-old high-school student that needed a place to stay.

my son's friend is his girlfriend, so it was kind of a friend-of-a-friend situation. >> judge patricia: okay. okay. >> judge larry: what was the agreement that you overheard between the two? >> the agreement was this. we were going to take the bike and have the mechanic look at it. we were going to give the check as part of the sale. he wanted cash. so, he took the title and the keys with him when he left. we have text messages that shows that jacob confirmed with him, as soon as the mechanic looks at it, i'll let you know. james replied -- >> judge patricia: can i see that? we all want to see that, actually. did you respond to that text message, mr. wright? >> i-i had no idea that they were getting a mechanic to check it out. >> judge patricia: before we look at it, did you respond to it? >> i don't know what text messages they're talking about. >> judge tanya: so, mr. micklus has said, "well, once that guy looks at it, i'll let you know." plaintiff -- "okay, cool." so, now does this refresh your recollection as to what the deal was? >> i didn't know a mechanic was -- i had no idea. >> and that's not true either. i have the whole text messages in between. this is before he even brings

the bike to our house. "is it okay if we have a mechanic look at it?" he responds, "yeah, man, no problem" or something to that effect. and i will say this, too. the condition of the bike -- there was no rpm gauge, there was no speedometer on it, and the clutch was broken. >> judge patricia: just a second. you know, you absolutely say it's not a problem that he has somebody look at the bike. >> yeah, that's not a problem. >> judge tanya: that may not be a problem, but here's our problem. when you take the stand and you tell us that "x" is true when it turns out that "x" is not true, then we start to think that you don't have credibility, and your story now, sir, it's unwinding. it's unraveling. >> okay, but -- >> judge larry: given the inconsistencies with the text messages and what you've told us today, now i've got some concerns about damages. did you repair the bike? >> no, sir, i didn't have the money to repair it. >> judge larry: do you have an estimate for the repair of the bike? let me see the estimate. mr. micklus, how fast were you going when you went down? >> i had just started pulling out from a stop sign, and it slid no more than 2 feet.

i more than likely was not going more than 10 miles per hour. >> judge larry: and i'll tell you where i'm going, mr. wright. i've got some issues with the estimate. we're gonna go talk about that in chambers. >> both: thank you. >> sonia: this courtroom is now in recess. >> judge larry: okay, he's lucky he didn't hurt himself. >> judge tanya: he needed a bicycle! >> judge larry: he's a novice rider. >> judge patricia: there's some damages that would occur, it looks to me, just like these scratches, from a bike falling. >> judge tanya: mm-hmm. >> judge larry: in terms of the damages, when i look at the estimate i'm going to discount the radiator, which was $651. that was the most significant portion of the estimate. >> judge tanya: can i just ask you a question? >> judge larry: sure. >> judge tanya: if you're riding a bike at 10 miles a hour, you have a sloppy fall, there's no likelihood of radiator damage? >> judge larry: doubtful the radiator's gonna be broken, and if it is, you can always have it plugged. you don't need to replace it, so my thought is discount the radiator, discount the battery. that brings us to a total of $284.92, so --

>> judge patricia: and that's for damages that we can all agree... >> judge larry: $285. >> judge patricia: ...would've caused by a bike falling to the ground. >> judge larry: the bottom line is, do you want to assess something in addition for him taking the bike when he really didn't have permission. >> announcer: "hot bench" continues in a moment. closed caption is provided by... i wish my allergies would let me take you home. the power of allegra relieves your toughest indoor and outdoor symptoms fast and stays strong for 24 hours. stop suffering. start living. it gives you options based on your budget -- it's a piece of cake. i was told there would be cake. get a free quote at progressive.com. >> announcer: three judges. three opinions. one verdict. "hot bench." introducing band-aid brand comfort sheer bandages. our most stretchable sheer bandage ever. they're 50% more stretchable, so they fit snug to protect even tough spots from dirt and germs. 'cause band-aid stretches with me! band-aid brand. we've got all your wound care needs covered.

feet...tiptoeing. better things than the pain, stiffness, and joint damage of moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis. before you and your rheumatologist decide on a biologic, ask if xeljanz is right for you. xeljanz (tofacitinib) is a small pill, not an injection or infusion, for adults with moderate to severe ra for whom methotrexate did not work well. xeljanz can relieve ra symptoms, and help stop further joint damage. xeljanz can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections and cancers have happened in patients taking xeljanz. don't start xeljanz if you have any infection, unless ok with your doctor. tears in the stomach or intestines, low blood cell counts and higher liver tests and cholesterol levels have happened. your doctor should perform blood tests before you start and while taking xeljanz and routinely check certain liver tests. tell your doctor if you have been to a region where fungal infections are common,

and if you have had tb, hepatitis b or c, or are prone to infections. tell your doctor about all the medicines you take. one pill, twice daily, xeljanz can reduce ra pain and help stop further joint damage, even without methotrexate. ask about xeljanz.

even without methotrexate. and you're eligible for san medicare, area anthem blue cross can help you get a great plan at a great rate! our new medicare advantage plans pay for many of the costs original medicare doesn't. so you can focus on other important decisions. anthem plans help protect you from high medical costs. and, we've built stronger partnerships with trusted local doctors and hospitals, to bring you special benefits like... ...dental and vision, prescription drug coverage, plus free memberships at participating gyms. now's the time to switch! if you live in san francisco county, there are new plans with zero-dollar monthly premiums available this year. plans also include zero-dollar preventive care. the medicare enrollment deadline for san francisco is december 7th. so call anthem today at 1-844-331-7996 to learn more or to schedule an in-person meeting.

>> judge patricia: i think we can sum this case up by saying this is what not to do... >> [ laughs ] >> exactly. >> judge patricia: ...when you sell a motorcycle. so, we're finding judgment in favor of the plaintiff for $285 'cause that's the damages we believe were caused by the bike hitting the ground by him. everything else, we did not find attributable to this incident, and that's our verdict in favor of the plaintiff -- $285. thank you. >> sonia: this courtroom is now in recess. >> announcer: "hot bench" continues in a moment. and on the next "hot bench"...

>> i don't think it's fair but better than nothing. >> the bike just kind of jumped and went, and before i could pick up any speed, i laid it down because i knew i wouldn't be able to control it. >> well, he wouldn't even meet me when i went to go pick it up. >> i'm new to buying bikes, so i didn't really know what i was doing. >> never take a check and always >> never take a check and always have a bill of sale. -- captions by vitac -- www.vitac.com captions paid for by cbs television distribution ( siren wails ) ( pop music playing ) ♪ when you're ready ♪ ready, ready, ready

♪ come and get it ♪ get it, get it ♪ when you're ready, come and get it ♪ ♪ na na na na ♪ na na na na na na na ♪ ♪ when you're ready, come and get it ♪ ♪ na na na na... female announcer: it's a great big world and it can all be yours. here and only here. ♪ come and get it.

>> announcer: roommates at war. >> [ english accent ] it was disaster the minute he walked in. he's having a party at the house without even talking to me about it. >> he would make degrading remarks to me in front of my friends. >> announcer: and they're exposing everything. >> judge patricia: you said he's a nudist. >> he is a nudist. >> announcer: "hot bench." judge tanya acker. judge larry bakman. judge patricia dimango. three judges. three opinions. one verdict. >> judge patricia: we've reached our decision. >> announcer: in a court of law, it's called a "hot bench." 23-year-old kyle rieman is suing his former roommate, mark gunner, for his security deposit and personal property. >> judge patricia: thank you, ever