The defendant know she wrong , I ain’t never seen no lady in the plaintiffs position be SO helpful & caring towards her man baby mama.. girl bye they shouldn’t even be in court
Exactly. To me the plaintiff only loaned the money because she thought the defendant was getting an inheritance. Yea it was nice of her but she took advantage & the defendant was in need so didn't ask questions n just paid whatever. Plus half her car insurance which the amount wasnt discussed or if it was to be deducted from the loan. Now what don't make sense is. The plaintiff stated she loaned her 3000 in March 27th 2009. Payments were 380 monthly which included 15%+ interest. She also stated that from 2009 to 2010, 2 yrs passed n she didn't receive her pink slip. First of all 2009 to 2010 aint 2yrs. N which she was stuttering explaining that part🤔 then if that's the case the defendant paid 380×12=4,560. But 2yrs is 380×24=9,120 but she gave her 2800 n April out her taxes. Told her she was good until October. Spent the money & didn't pay off the loan, that has been well paid off n some. She obviously paid nothing, let it incurr interest & suing for the total amount wtfff. So what happened to all the money she paid back in those 1 or 2 yrs??? Then kept the 800 & still was getting her insurance paid. Woow JM aint right for this one. She totally took advantage of the defendants situation 100%
@@blackchunleerozay3026 yeah the plaintiff did kinda take advantage, if it was me I would’ve been asking for receipts or some type of proof that she was paying as I gave her money.. people just don’t think
How the defendant is mad when the plaintiff was looking out for her broke ass!!! You owe her money & you are done!!!! *That what your get for dating a pookie!!!!*
What the plaintiff did for the defendant was admirable. She went out of her way above and beyond for her but then unfortunately got burned in the end for doing so. This is why you cannot do shit for anyone these days. Let them figure things out on their very own. Don't be a sucka for anyone..
Right I live in Ohio and let a coworker who lives in Texas borrow 20.00 to get home from the hospital. Just to find out from my supervisor that she was still in the hospital. So she lied and it’s been maybe two weeks and I have not heard from her. She will never get another dime. It was not even about the $20. Had she offered to pay it I might have said just go ahead and keep it. But that did not happen so next time she’s out.
Judge Mathis messed-up this judgment. The woman owed 3000 and had her 2800 tax refund applied to the loan. Then thru bad advice of the plantiff saying not to pay, the loan balloons back up. How did Mathis miss this? At best the defendant should only owe 500, not the entire balance again. It is like she is paying double, and she was doing right by the friendship by repaying. Like the defendant said at the end, "I am done,".
@@rhlove2355 that's why she said it ballons back up it she had used that 2800 to pay the principle the balance wouldn't be back at where it started yall don't know how simple loans work
For sure!! Everyone on the plaintiffs side but if they really listen, they would know the defendant sent a bulk payment in April from her tax check, the plaintiff told her that the check was enough to cover the payments until October, right...... NOW she's saying her last payment was in April, which isn't true. The facts weren't even checked or calculated. She took that money and used it for her own emergency and the defendant had a witness saying that she was told there wasn't another payment due til October as well. Judge Mathis doesn't listen sometimes. The defendant is soft-spoken and probably a little nervous, so she doesn't have it all together, but that does not make her a liar.
The plaintiff is dirty.. Help from the wrong ppl aint always good or genuine. To me the plaintiff only loaned the money because she thought the defendant was getting an inheritance. Yea it was nice of her but she took advantage & the defendant was in need so didn't ask questions n just paid whatever. Plus half her car insurance which the amount wasnt discussed or if it was to be deducted from the loan. Thats how u know, she either aint to sharp or she was appreciative for the help n didn't want to question this sold called help. Now what don't make sense is. The plaintiff stated she loaned her 3000 in March 27th 2009. Payments were 380 monthly which included 15%+ interest. She also stated that from 2009 to 2010, 2 yrs passed n she didn't receive her pink slip. First of all 2009 to 2010 aint 2yrs. N which she was stuttering explaining that part🤔 then if that's the case the defendant paid 380×12=4,560. But 2yrs is 380×24=9,120 &&& she gave her 2800 n April out her taxes. Told her she was good until October. Spent the money & didn't pay off the loan, which has been well paid off n some. She obviously paid nothing, let it incurr interest & suing for the total amount & spent her $800 wtfff. So what happened to all the money she paid back in those 1 or 2 yrs??? Then kept the 800 & still was getting her insurance paid. Woow JM aint right for this one. She totally took advantage of the defendants situation 100%
But she never put the money intended toward the loan and then told her she didn’t need to pay until a later date. By then she had a large interest charge plaintiff has fault here as well
I kinda understand what she was trying to say. She was suppose to put the whole 2800 on the loan and she didn't and also told her she didn't have to pay it till a later date which allowed the interest to keep growing and growing . Of she only owed a little over $3000 at the time and if the whole $2800 would have been applied like it was suppose to she would have only owed around $500
I understand what the defendant was saying.she was saying that she was making payment on time they were all good and she maybe had 500 to 600 dollars left in payments. then the plaintiff misinformed, told her she didn’t need to pay it all off just yet. I’m not sure how long the defendant waited but due to the advice she waited. a 1600 late fee was added to the loan due to the advice given to to the defendant by the plaintiff. She saying due to the advice given by the plaintiff a fee of 600,she could have easily paid off was increased to almost 2200. If not sure legally what her defense is called but I can say it does seem unfair that she have to pay a late fee inquired by advice given to her by the plaintiff.
Why do people become close and say they love each family member and then get to court and tell all the terrible things about these people they are supposed to love.
Right I always laugh when women try that crap and try to act like they actually like each other, I'm not saying men can pull it off but we don't even pretend to be friends with a husband/BF in-laws. Women don't like each other in general they don't need a man to screw that up even more. LMFAO
@@ayana188the man didn't need to be brought up I guarantee you that's why she didn't want to pay the woman the money back she never viewed her as a real friend to begin with because of how she met her, she was just using her until she couldn't anymore. The Wu-Tang guy never came up because neither of them had a problem with him. 🤷🏽♂️
It’s so sad that their relationship was damaged by this. They had such a beautiful friendship, I wish they could have resolved the situation in a way where they could still be friends
In the defendants defense why not put the whole 2800 to the loan? Why call and say you don't have to pay until october? That is the plaintiffs fault..judge was wrong to me
CHILE SHE SHOULD HAVE HUG GED THE HELL OUT THAT LADY AND APOLOGIZED FOR HER HAVING TO TAKE HER THIS FAR. SHE WILL NEVER FIND ANOTHER PERSON WHO'D HELP HER AND HER KIDS LIKE SHE DID ESPECIALLY UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES LIKE THEY WERE IN
Bc judge Mathis missed the fact that the defendants whole tax income ($2800) was direct deposited in plaintiffs acct and the plaintiff spent that on something else.. hence continuing the loan
Listening to the testimony from both sides throughout the case and putting the ending comments together leads me to believe that the plaintiff was somewhat slick and deceptive. But since the show pays the judgment, it's all good. What puzzles me is why the plaintiff had to enter into that exorbitant car loan deal to come up with $3000, or why the defendant needed it because of an eviction. That's not a whole lot of money. I heard mention of the Wu Tang Clan, but evidently none of their (or the one member's) money was flowing in either the plaintiff's or the defendant's direction.
Those title and payday loan companies will drain you. The interest is ri-darn-diculous. You get to your maturity date and then realize you’re not done because of the surprise interest added on. Then they will still repo. The plaintiff definitely hadn’t heard of that type of loan before because no way would I have put my car up especially for someone else
Anyone notice how JM was over-talking her as she was answering his question and then accusing her of being inconsistent. Next, why did he not question the woman about not applying the entire $2800 to the loan. JM is just inconsistent!
I totally understand what the defendant was saying but because she didn’t have her figures, the plaintiff won by default. If this was the peoples could, they would have calculated the interest and questioned why the plaintiff didn’t apply the payment when received. I don’t agree with this judgment 👩🏿⚖️
The defendant is still at fault because she KNEW the bill was still active and accruing interest. As an adult she knew she should’ve still paid. Regardless of what the plaintiff said.
The plaintiff is dirty.. Help from the wrong ppl aint always good or genuine. To me the plaintiff only loaned the money because she thought the defendant was getting an inheritance. Yea it was nice of her but she took advantage & the defendant was in need so didn't ask questions n just paid whatever. Plus half her car insurance which the amount wasnt discussed or if it was to be deducted from the loan. Thats how u know, she either aint to sharp or she was appreciative for the help n didn't want to question this sold called help. Now what don't make sense is. The plaintiff stated she loaned her 3000 in March 27th 2009. Payments were 380 monthly which included 15%+ interest. She also stated that from 2009 to 2010, 2 yrs passed n she didn't receive her pink slip. First of all 2009 to 2010 aint 2yrs. N which she was stuttering explaining that part🤔 then if that's the case the defendant paid 380×12=4,560. But 2yrs is 380×24=9,120 &&& she gave her 2800 n April out her taxes. Told her she was good until October. Spent the money & didn't pay off the loan, which has been well paid off n some. She obviously paid nothing, let it incurr interest & suing for the total amount & spent her $800 wtfff. So what happened to all the money she paid back in those 1 or 2 yrs??? Then kept the 800 & still was getting her insurance paid. Woow JM aint right for this one. She totally took advantage of the defendants situation 100%
I can say the men in that group seemed to have picked some good women. She took advantage of her kindness and even after as a woman she was still willing to say it’s a learning opportunity but it’s all love.
Nah he didn’t jus wanna hear the defendant she clearly said the plaintiff told her she didn’t have to pay until a certain time n even when she sent her money she didn’t put it towards the loan smh
The Plaintiff has been a great person to the Defendant and now that she has to pay back the Plaintiff she has animosity to her! Well she done! She’ll regret her words!
I think all she was saying was if she would’ve put the whole 2800 onto the loan and she still paid April May and June then it would’ve been paid off by now. But since she didn’t it just kept going up.
Both these beautiful ladies dated a member of the hip hop community.. and yet one is being evicted and the other has to get a predatory loan to help the other… point is black folks date for the wrong reasons and are so short sighted when I comes to dating and setting up our family lives .. I’m guilty of this so no shade intended
Judge Mathis gettin on my nerves on this one. they had already said the interest accrued everyday so she didn’t know what the balance was as of that current day and that’s messed up because she gave her her tax return and was still sued for the whole loan
Although I believe the defendant that the plaintiff didn't apply all she gave to the loan it's still the defendants responsibility to be a woman for herself and her kids. She can't even speak up for herself in court. The whole arrangement makes no sense. She used the plaintiff as a crutch. A huge price to pay to learn to be responsible for herself. No way shape or form would I be doing all that for some man's baby mama so the plaintiff gets a pat on the back for that.
They had a small claim to slight hood fame because of who they've fooled around with; good for them. Theyre still broke, so it doesn't appear to have paid off😂 she should've brought the "origino"☝🏻
hold it up so people can still buy it, giving no glory to Jesus only to self. Jesus said all who came before me are a thief and a robber and I constantly see why.
Oh nooo not "WifeNLaws" - Smh. Never heard of such. The Plaintiff is admirable for help to Defendant. All the ladies look presentable and speak well!💃🏽 However, pay the debt!!!! Don't bite the hands that help you.🤔🤌🏽
The defendant know she wrong , I ain’t never seen no lady in the plaintiffs position be SO helpful & caring towards her man baby mama.. girl bye they shouldn’t even be in court
Exactly. To me the plaintiff only loaned the money because she thought the defendant was getting an inheritance. Yea it was nice of her but she took advantage & the defendant was in need so didn't ask questions n just paid whatever. Plus half her car insurance which the amount wasnt discussed or if it was to be deducted from the loan. Now what don't make sense is. The plaintiff stated she loaned her 3000 in March 27th 2009. Payments were 380 monthly which included 15%+ interest. She also stated that from 2009 to 2010, 2 yrs passed n she didn't receive her pink slip. First of all 2009 to 2010 aint 2yrs. N which she was stuttering explaining that part🤔 then if that's the case the defendant paid 380×12=4,560. But 2yrs is 380×24=9,120 but she gave her 2800 n April out her taxes. Told her she was good until October. Spent the money & didn't pay off the loan, that has been well paid off n some. She obviously paid nothing, let it incurr interest & suing for the total amount wtfff. So what happened to all the money she paid back in those 1 or 2 yrs??? Then kept the 800 & still was getting her insurance paid. Woow JM aint right for this one. She totally took advantage of the defendants situation 100%
@@blackchunleerozay3026 yeah the plaintiff did kinda take advantage, if it was me I would’ve been asking for receipts or some type of proof that she was paying as I gave her money.. people just don’t think
Some things u just don't do for people
Got her a loan and the kids still lived with her..but yet she done and mad
She took that risk
Right😒😑
The defendant is an ingrate. The plaintiff was even gracious enough to extend a reconciliatory hand to her, and she turned it down. Wow!
@@sussieasempapa6787 right bet her witness won't do all of that
GOD has been so good 😅
How the defendant is mad when the plaintiff was looking out for her broke ass!!! You owe her money & you are done!!!! *That what your get for dating a pookie!!!!*
😅😅😅😅love your statement 😅😅😅
They love pookie
@@blackestknightx8881 THEY meaning whom?
@@sereneamani1713 stop asking stupid questions. You know exactly WHO I'm talking about
WuTang members are pookies??
Either Someone is uninformed. Or I misunderstood.
Wu-tang clan ain’t nothing to f-k with 😂
I guess
😂😂
😂😂😂
😂😂👐🏾
🤣🤣🤣
Yikes that judgement SUCKED 😮
3 damn stacks after you already paid her 2000?
Why wouldn't the entire 2800 go to the loan?
Method man is my favorite too JM 😂❤
Mines too ❤
What the plaintiff did for the defendant was admirable. She went out of her way above and beyond for her but then unfortunately got burned in the end for doing so. This is why you cannot do shit for anyone these days. Let them figure things out on their very own. Don't be a sucka for anyone..
I'd say choose your friends wisely
Right I live in Ohio and let a coworker who lives in Texas borrow 20.00 to get home from the hospital. Just to find out from my supervisor that she was still in the hospital. So she lied and it’s been maybe two weeks and I have not heard from her. She will never get another dime. It was not even about the $20. Had she offered to pay it I might have said just go ahead and keep it. But that did not happen so next time she’s out.
Agreed!
Judge Mathis messed-up this judgment. The woman owed 3000 and had her 2800 tax refund applied to the loan. Then thru bad advice of the plantiff saying not to pay, the loan balloons back up. How did Mathis miss this? At best the defendant should only owe 500, not the entire balance again. It is like she is paying double, and she was doing right by the friendship by repaying. Like the defendant said at the end, "I am done,".
Remember it was a loan with interest.
@@rhlove2355 that's why she said it ballons back up it she had used that 2800 to pay the principle the balance wouldn't be back at where it started yall don't know how simple loans work
So she paid double for that loan.
Waaay more
That's how most loans do ppl
“Let’s get 2 this Lie” 😂😂😂
The plaintiff was lying what did she do with the money.
Happy Saturday y’all
The defendant is ungrateful, you could've went to the shelter.
I believe the defendant
I kind of feel like the plaintiff was lying…
For sure!! Everyone on the plaintiffs side but if they really listen, they would know the defendant sent a bulk payment in April from her tax check, the plaintiff told her that the check was enough to cover the payments until October, right...... NOW she's saying her last payment was in April, which isn't true. The facts weren't even checked or calculated. She took that money and used it for her own emergency and the defendant had a witness saying that she was told there wasn't another payment due til October as well. Judge Mathis doesn't listen sometimes. The defendant is soft-spoken and probably a little nervous, so she doesn't have it all together, but that does not make her a liar.
The plaintiff is dirty.. Help from the wrong ppl aint always good or genuine. To me the plaintiff only loaned the money because she thought the defendant was getting an inheritance. Yea it was nice of her but she took advantage & the defendant was in need so didn't ask questions n just paid whatever. Plus half her car insurance which the amount wasnt discussed or if it was to be deducted from the loan. Thats how u know, she either aint to sharp or she was appreciative for the help n didn't want to question this sold called help. Now what don't make sense is. The plaintiff stated she loaned her 3000 in March 27th 2009. Payments were 380 monthly which included 15%+ interest. She also stated that from 2009 to 2010, 2 yrs passed n she didn't receive her pink slip. First of all 2009 to 2010 aint 2yrs. N which she was stuttering explaining that part🤔 then if that's the case the defendant paid 380×12=4,560. But 2yrs is 380×24=9,120 &&& she gave her 2800 n April out her taxes. Told her she was good until October. Spent the money & didn't pay off the loan, which has been well paid off n some. She obviously paid nothing, let it incurr interest & suing for the total amount & spent her $800 wtfff. So what happened to all the money she paid back in those 1 or 2 yrs??? Then kept the 800 & still was getting her insurance paid. Woow JM aint right for this one. She totally took advantage of the defendants situation 100%
@blackchunleerozay3026 Thank you
@@blackchunleerozay3026The plaintiff is dirty, but she put her car up for the defendant AND took care of her children for 3 months. 🤦🏾♀️
@@blackchunleerozay3026The other woman was paying the loan herself to the company. The $2000 was paid through cashiers check. Listen again.
But she never put the money intended toward the loan and then told her she didn’t need to pay until a later date. By then she had a large interest charge plaintiff has fault here as well
I would never in this lifetime. She doesn't realize how much she cares about her obviously.
Baby daddy should have gave her the money to keep a roof over his kids head
I kinda understand what she was trying to say. She was suppose to put the whole 2800 on the loan and she didn't and also told her she didn't have to pay it till a later date which allowed the interest to keep growing and growing . Of she only owed a little over $3000 at the time and if the whole $2800 would have been applied like it was suppose to she would have only owed around $500
I understand what the defendant was saying.she was saying that she was making payment on time they were all good and she maybe had 500 to 600 dollars left in payments. then the plaintiff misinformed, told her she didn’t need to pay it all off just yet. I’m not sure how long the defendant waited but due to the advice she waited. a 1600 late fee was added to the loan due to the advice given to to the defendant by the plaintiff. She saying due to the advice given by the plaintiff a fee of 600,she could have easily paid off was increased to almost 2200. If not sure legally what her defense is called but I can say it does seem unfair that she have to pay a late fee inquired by advice given to her by the plaintiff.
Don’t forget she said she used the money for something else too.Which means she never replaced what she spent
@@soultalk_shaimaat2023idk how the judge that that part slide.
Agreed with your analysis!
Totally agree
Detrimental reliance should have been the defendant's case...
So she told her to stop paying but charged extra wow that's new where is the child support
Why do people become close and say they love each family member and then get to court and tell all the terrible things about these people they are supposed to love.
Sometimes it does help their case but I agree 😂
2 people that dated the same man WILL NEVER GET ALONG 😂
Not necessarily true in all cases.
They did but ol gurl owed money. They said nothing about the man
Jada and wills ex wife did 🤣😂😂😂
Right I always laugh when women try that crap and try to act like they actually like each other, I'm not saying men can pull it off but we don't even pretend to be friends with a husband/BF in-laws. Women don't like each other in general they don't need a man to screw that up even more. LMFAO
@@ayana188the man didn't need to be brought up I guarantee you that's why she didn't want to pay the woman the money back she never viewed her as a real friend to begin with because of how she met her, she was just using her until she couldn't anymore. The Wu-Tang guy never came up because neither of them had a problem with him. 🤷🏽♂️
Judge Mathis flirting again 🙄 😅😅where's his wife again???😅😅😅
Okay he know he will flirt in a minute
He jokes around I wouldn't say flirting because he is true to his. 😊
I was waiting and thought judge Mathis would call them wife in Law
Thanks so much.
YOU OWE YOU PAY DONT TAKE IT TO COURT PERIOD!!!
It’s always the people that actually owe the money that be having funky attitudes. Next time let her figure it out.
They have the defendent's witness in the the thumbnail instead of the defendant. I guess because she shouted out Judge Mathis' book lol.
😂🤣🤣🤣😂😂😂😂😮💨
It’s so sad that their relationship was damaged by this. They had such a beautiful friendship, I wish they could have resolved the situation in a way where they could still be friends
Unappreciative!!!
In the defendants defense why not put the whole 2800 to the loan? Why call and say you don't have to pay until october? That is the plaintiffs fault..judge was wrong to me
Right
Rule #1 Never loan more than you can afford to lose. 😊
CHILE SHE SHOULD HAVE HUG GED THE HELL OUT THAT LADY AND APOLOGIZED FOR HER HAVING TO TAKE HER THIS FAR. SHE WILL NEVER FIND ANOTHER PERSON WHO'D HELP HER AND HER KIDS LIKE SHE DID ESPECIALLY UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES LIKE THEY WERE IN
Hello JUDGE MATHIS. I hope you can make some sense out of this case. I hope they can work it out🎉😊
The judge was wrong on this one
why you say that?
Bc judge Mathis missed the fact that the defendants whole tax income ($2800) was direct deposited in plaintiffs acct and the plaintiff spent that on something else.. hence continuing the loan
@carllumpopo4188 Wrong you missed that daily interest is accruing. A balance sheet proves the balance.
Welp hopefully she’s also done being late with her rent too. ‘No good deed’ but step-mom still did good to help her out like she did. That’s love.
Wife in laws 😂
These women were doing to much , now look when dealing with each other funds & no funds !
I'm here My Beloved Favorite Judge ***ASHAY ***
Red man wasn’t WuTang…
Exactly but Redman was 🥶 enough to fit n there doe
It’s always the people who owe money and lose their case that be the maddest
Judge was wrong.
Listening to the testimony from both sides throughout the case and putting the ending comments together leads me to believe that the plaintiff was somewhat slick and deceptive. But since the show pays the judgment, it's all good. What puzzles me is why the plaintiff had to enter into that exorbitant car loan deal to come up with $3000, or why the defendant needed it because of an eviction. That's not a whole lot of money. I heard mention of the Wu Tang Clan, but evidently none of their (or the one member's) money was flowing in either the plaintiff's or the defendant's direction.
Those title and payday loan companies will drain you. The interest is ri-darn-diculous. You get to your maturity date and then realize you’re not done because of the surprise interest added on. Then they will still repo. The plaintiff definitely hadn’t heard of that type of loan before because no way would I have put my car up especially for someone else
Is it just me or does the defendant favor JM's wife?
It’s definitely just you 😂
Yea I can see it
The defendant should be ashamed of herself. The plaintiff didn’t have to do anything for her. She has no obligation to do anything for her!
Anyone notice how JM was over-talking her as she was answering his question and then accusing her of being inconsistent. Next, why did he not question the woman about not applying the entire $2800 to the loan. JM is just inconsistent!
JM always trying to make it about him!! Just preside over the case sir!!!
We dont wanna hear about your background or anything!!
Some people do.
It's his show.
We have a choice.
Watch or not.
I choose Watch..
Happy Tours Africa is following you from Uganda
The defendant ain't💩
I totally understand what the defendant was saying but because she didn’t have her figures, the plaintiff won by default. If this was the peoples could, they would have calculated the interest and questioned why the plaintiff didn’t apply the payment when received. I don’t agree with this judgment 👩🏿⚖️
Plaintiff is WRONG!!!!
Sounds like the defendant should’ve only had $200 left to pay since the plaintiff didn’t give her back the 800
That's what I got from it too
The defendant is still at fault because she KNEW the bill was still active and accruing interest. As an adult she knew she should’ve still paid. Regardless of what the plaintiff said.
The plaintiff is dirty.. Help from the wrong ppl aint always good or genuine. To me the plaintiff only loaned the money because she thought the defendant was getting an inheritance. Yea it was nice of her but she took advantage & the defendant was in need so didn't ask questions n just paid whatever. Plus half her car insurance which the amount wasnt discussed or if it was to be deducted from the loan. Thats how u know, she either aint to sharp or she was appreciative for the help n didn't want to question this sold called help. Now what don't make sense is. The plaintiff stated she loaned her 3000 in March 27th 2009. Payments were 380 monthly which included 15%+ interest. She also stated that from 2009 to 2010, 2 yrs passed n she didn't receive her pink slip. First of all 2009 to 2010 aint 2yrs. N which she was stuttering explaining that part🤔 then if that's the case the defendant paid 380×12=4,560. But 2yrs is 380×24=9,120 &&& she gave her 2800 n April out her taxes. Told her she was good until October. Spent the money & didn't pay off the loan, which has been well paid off n some. She obviously paid nothing, let it incurr interest & suing for the total amount & spent her $800 wtfff. So what happened to all the money she paid back in those 1 or 2 yrs??? Then kept the 800 & still was getting her insurance paid. Woow JM aint right for this one. She totally took advantage of the defendants situation 100%
I can say the men in that group seemed to have picked some good women. She took advantage of her kindness and even after as a woman she was still willing to say it’s a learning opportunity but it’s all love.
That lady who owes the $$$s is quite ungrateful.
Man … the defendant is a big much and didn’t deserve that type of support from essentially a stranger!
They Got along Great when the Money Was Flowing. Problems Didn’t come up till the Money Stopped
kids with RAPPERS and no money!!!! goes to show that rapper's are broke
The plaintiff pawned her car for the defendant...and this is the thanks she gets?
Strong black woman right there
Does anyone know which Wu Tang member she's talking about? cause I couldn't find out any info on that
😂 I just look it Tyre is the dude who played ODB smh how thy considered that as 2 women having a baby by Nevermind smh It's all abt ratings I forgot🤣
Nah he didn’t jus wanna hear the defendant she clearly said the plaintiff told her she didn’t have to pay until a certain time n even when she sent her money she didn’t put it towards the loan smh
Wu tang Clan ????😅😅😅They all signed blood sacrifice contracts .
Weirdo
The Plaintiff has been a great person to the Defendant and now that she has to pay back the Plaintiff she has animosity to her! Well she done! She’ll regret her words!
The Shaolin and the Wu Tang could be dangerous
How?
@@beb5407 lady please
12:04 The defendant is done and said love is love! You sound ungrateful 🤦🏾
SHE DIDN'T HAVE TO MENTION THAT TARIQ WAS A MEMBER OF THE WU TANG CLAN.
I think all she was saying was if she would’ve put the whole 2800 onto the loan and she still paid April May and June then it would’ve been paid off by now. But since she didn’t it just kept going up.
They had tooooooo much going on why she couldn’t get her on shyt
Both these beautiful ladies dated a member of the hip hop community.. and yet one is being evicted and the other has to get a predatory loan to help the other… point is black folks date for the wrong reasons and are so short sighted when I comes to dating and setting up our family lives .. I’m guilty of this so no shade intended
JM got this one wrong
Always kind of sad when polished folks have no money saved.
8:51 😂😂😂
I’m sorry I’m with the defendant she was paying that and a portion of insurance so it’s clear she wasn’t trying to get over
So this is what happens to groupies after the glitz n glamour is over…
Only in America!!! Conflict over a rapper.
THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH A RAPPER!!! OPEN YOUR EARS 😂
Not ex-wives
Judge Mathis gettin on my nerves on this one. they had already said the interest accrued everyday so she didn’t know what the balance was as of that current day and that’s messed up because she gave her her tax return and was still sued for the whole loan
Who is their babys' dad?
😬😬
Although I believe the defendant that the plaintiff didn't apply all she gave to the loan it's still the defendants responsibility to be a woman for herself and her kids. She can't even speak up for herself in court. The whole arrangement makes no sense. She used the plaintiff as a crutch. A huge price to pay to learn to be responsible for herself. No way shape or form would I be doing all that for some man's baby mama so the plaintiff gets a pat on the back for that.
Tresla v Trenelle
I just want to be the first to comment..and I'm glad it's n🚫t ghostface killer..cause that's my baby ❤
Ghost has a slew of kids too 😂😂😂
@@supremeclientele1356a slew 😅😅
@@supremeclientele1356 lol that grown .
They had a small claim to slight hood fame because of who they've fooled around with; good for them. Theyre still broke, so it doesn't appear to have paid off😂 she should've brought the "origino"☝🏻
👐🏾🐝
hold it up so people can still buy it, giving no glory to Jesus only to self. Jesus said all who came before me are a thief and a robber and I constantly see why.
I don't understand what you're saying. What scriptures are you alluding to?
Oh nooo not "WifeNLaws" - Smh. Never heard of such. The Plaintiff is admirable for help to Defendant.
All the ladies look presentable and speak well!💃🏽 However, pay the debt!!!! Don't bite the hands that help you.🤔🤌🏽