12:21 "I'm just conplexed" 😂😂😂 When you're perplexed and confused at the same time.

The plaintiff has the light on but nobody is home he looks completely lost

All the plaintiff needed was a professional roofer to testify. I'm a carpenter and I would have been able to tell that judge when wood gets burnt and shows alligator burn patterns its strength is compromised. I would have ordered that wood replaced not sister. Don't hire that contractor again. Where I live that work would have been failed inspection.

The way the plaintiff said "fahthuh" and "lumbah" I knew he was either from Boston or a Mainer. I'm a Mainer, and he sounds like one too 😂

The issue is the smell of burnt lumber. It never goes away.

Watch this case with your favorite alcoholic beverage. Every time one of them answers with"Ahhhhhh...." take a drink. By the time the case is over, you won't care!

No one would want that burned wood to remain there.

I feel like the plaintiff puts on 2 different shoes in the morning.

At 5:46 Surely when wood has been that badly burned and has a crocodile effect, it is no longer structurally safe to bare the weight of the whole roof, it is no longer wood, it is charcoal. And the smell will be there forever, the judge is an idiot, the contract clearly indicated 'remove burned wood' so the defendant was in breach of contract, he didn't remove the burned wood, so how on earth did the plaintiff lose his case?...

Contractors today are always finding loop holes to take the money and go.

The plaintiff didn't know what he needed. What I learned is to have a consultation with 2 or 3 people without my own perspective of what's needed. Compare notes. Email follow-up questions after the estimates and description of work. Clarify everything in writing that I don't understand. Then, hire the one who is the most descriptive in what will be done. Whew! This was a great lesson.

Burner? I didn't even know her

These days a guy buys a hammer and a saw then they call themselves a contractor? A handyman at best. After owning a few houses I have learned a lot about repairs.

Chile the literal roof is on fire, he don't need no water let the.....LOL. 🤣

To replace those beams and do the work that the plaintiff was expecting would have been tens of thousands of dollars. There's tons of work that goes into that like structural support for that section of the lower part of the house while you cut out the old beams for replacement. The burn on the wood is surface burn and marrying new wood to it will be as strong, of not stronger, than the original.

Call your witness, Now? LOL.

For 12 Grand bet not be no burnt wood left on my roof if I'm paying that amout

12:21 Oh bless him.. did he say “just complexed” instead of perplexed?

She defended her husband subconsciously 😂😂

It brings new meaning to the song "Burning down the house". 😂

This doesn't seem fair, if the contract says 'remove burned wood' then the burned wood should be removed o_0

The defendant is a Jack the Lad , imagine leaving burnt wood in the roof.

Plaintiff wasn't swift enough to sue.

12000 bro put some new wood up

Do you have professional evidence? ‘House smelled like burnt wood’ yeahhhhhhhhhh

She's always saying how she comes from a family of contractors. How can she not know what sistering wood means?

Wait.....solar panels can make your roof catch on fire?

Definitely don’t understand how anyone would wanna live in a house with major fire damage. This case is insane. She knew he wasn’t that educated in his situation.

The plaintiff said, "aww" when he lost the case😂😂😂

Hand gestures for him to come to her then says " I haven't called up up yet why are you coming up ? "🙄

He should've tried to get back that extra 2,000 dollars that he paid him since the defendant only needed 2,000 dollars rather than 4,000 dollars

I would not allow burnt wood on my roof, nobody will buy it.

The judge was the expert in other cases remember her dad is a contractor which means she's a contractor!😂

The plaintiff is very tall and very confused.

You don't ever walk into people's court and sue for contractors work without proof. Her family business was contract and she knows how the work goes. Good ruling because he could've easily gotten proof from the new guy if he wasn't being shady.

I felt awful for the plaintiff. He should have brought witnesses and or affidavits from city inspectors, other contractors to state that leaving the charred wood inside the roof was not structurally sound and needed to be removed.

Why is his dumpster still there a year later???

both these dudes look weird as hell

def - Car 54 where are you ? ooh ooh plaintif's stereo eyes - who's he lookn at?

Burned 2x6s must be replaced.

Contractors put in writing the scope of the work, then cut absolutely every corner they possibly can. I have never seen an exception.

The Plaintiff has Mr Marianis eyes, ya know the car guy that was in here twice he is a Philadelphia or New Yorker and so so cool.

I had a sofa fire. You will get sniffs of the fire periodically for years. Mine wasn't even damaging like this.

You would never leave exposed burnt timber like what was shown its just not good building practice.In saying that the guy spent $2000 of the $4000 on the shingles and by the time he paid his men and got the bin etc it would of been square.

plaintiff seems off

How is he perplexed he had no proof. The only proof was that someone came in gutted it and redid it. He has no proof that something was actually wrong previously

Why didn’t the plaintiff hire an engineer

Has Doug ever been slugged by at litigant or defendant before? Just asking for a friend. He really comes across as arrogant at times. This case would have been resolved to the complainants satisfaction if he had just come in with proof that the charred wood was unsound. If permitted, as he stated, all he had to do was call for an inspection. Judge comes from a family of contractors and knows something or conferred with some one about the situation. She possible felt it might have been unsound, but the litigant needed proof. She can't interject her opinion into something of this nature. May not be acceptable to some, but doesn't mean it's unsound. Plaintiff shoulda sued the solar panel company instead for the arcing that caused the fire to begin with. I doubt it costs 7K additional to replace charred rafters. Either way, he got screwed. 1.) from firing the first guy 2.) from hiring the second guy. 3.) Not asking for an inspection in between. I had a fire, my adjuster called it a total loss. Just tear it down and rebuild,. You will never get rid of this smell. Ranch on a full basement. My living room and dining room completely burned thru and everything fell into the basement and smoldered and saturated with water. demolished the house, kept the land.

Of course burned wood with that pattern is damaged and weak. Look it up common sense. He hired them to remove and replace burned wood and do a roof. I think the defendant noticed the plaintiff wasnt that bright about that stuff and took advantage of him. The less he spends on materials and labor the more he pockets.

She is 100% wrong. Her interpretation is wrong and the Plaintiff did not explain himself properly. 1) Not because there was a fire that meant all the preexisting wood was burnt if there was lumber not burnt that was rotted the defendant could sister in new lumber. 2) The contract clearly stated that the contractor was going to remove ALL burnt wood . 3) Removal of the burnt wood was not for structural integrity, but to remove the burnt wood odor from the building. 4) I think she was biased in favor of the contractor .

Never compete with false narratives that people have about you. Don’t try to prove them wrong. Allow God, time, and fruit to fight your battles for you. Be quiet. Stop worrying. Do not fear. Get in the presence of God. Get to work. Be great.😊

What would be the point in putting taking out burnt lumber if it wasnt for him to take it out the man had a fire thats the entire reason he hired him, I completely disagree with the judge here! I think the defendant totally lied.

I'm just "complexed." 😬🐌🐌🙉🙉 I know it isn't relevant to this case but, I want to want know if the "complexed" Plaintiff sued the company that installed the solar panels. The Plaintiff probably got a cut-rate deal on that as well. 😉

You were cutting corners. But at least you were put on social media as a swindler. The owner put up money he wasn't holding back. You have to replace burnt wood because it loses it's strength. It made sense. Judge too quick to judge! She rattles away and the proof is in his testimony. This is why I don't like watching her she talks like a frustrated woman.

No meeting of the minds

It wasn’t about the job that was being done was unsafe he had in the contract to remove burnt wood! That should be enough. The contractor wasn’t fulfilling the contract. It’s not about safety. It’s about what was expected. I think he is getting hosed. That contractor knew what that guy wanted he tried to save money. I don’t blame him, but there’s a consequence to your action.

The plaintiff is a dullard. The defendant is incompetent and a thief.

12:09

Douglas clam down 😂😂

I thought she was a contractors daughter

He should have gone to judge Judy!

6:45 / " Raw Wood " is a tree in the forest . A 2x4, a 6x6 or a sheet of plywood is a processed or a manufactured wood product . How could anything be worded more clearly if the magistrate doesn't know the difference between raw wood and processed wood .

Let’s go 🎉🎉🎉🎉

She is 100% wrong.;

I was born the day before a lunar eclipse.

Having a home can be extremely expensive, particularly when things go wrong as it did in this case but it's still better than renting an apartment. You should expect to have problems at some point when owning a home.

The judge totally screwed up this one. The contract stated remove burned wood! And he didn’t 🤦‍♀️