- 7 minutes ago
tele: https://t.me/TopFilmUSA1
#film#shows#usa#usashows#hot#filmhot
#film#shows#usa#usashows#hot#filmhot
Category
😹
FunTranscript
00:00Previously on Tribunal Justice...
00:02There was a major flood.
00:04The sewer in the basement backed up.
00:06I explained that we would not purchase the home
00:08unless its sewer line was clear.
00:10You are encouraged to do your own inspection?
00:13Mm-hmm.
00:13Everything was disclosed.
00:14As far as we knew, yes.
00:16You know who would be a great person if we had them?
00:18The person that you hired to do that inspection report.
00:21I don't know what he would say.
00:22Well, you know what? Let's ask him.
00:23I think we have him here as a witness.
00:51Today's case was filed in Medford, Oregon.
00:54Mr. Johnson, thank you for coming in today.
00:56Yes, Your Honor.
00:57Why don't you tell us a little bit about your background, sir,
00:59and do you own your own company?
01:01Yes, sir.
01:01I am the owner of Steadfest Plumbing.
01:03I've specialized in service work,
01:05specialty diagnostic, since 1992,
01:07and I've basically dedicated my life
01:10towards service and repair.
01:11I would like you to take a look over your left shoulder,
01:14Mr. and Mrs. Garrison.
01:15Do you recognize them?
01:16I recognize the wife.
01:19Mrs. Garrison.
01:19Mrs. Garrison, yes.
01:20Okay, and where do you recognize her from?
01:22From the service call and meeting her at her property.
01:25Okay.
01:25I don't know if you heard the testimony
01:27of the defendants a little while ago,
01:29but they had indicated there came a time
01:30where they contacted you to come to their home
01:33and to do an inspection of their sewer line.
01:36Is that correct?
01:36Yes, Your Honor.
01:37Now, Mr. and Mrs. Garrison,
01:38with Mr. Johnson standing here now,
01:41is there anything about your prior testimony
01:43concerning what his inspection found,
01:46what he told you about it,
01:49that you want to change?
01:50Well, I was there.
01:51You were there.
01:52I was there.
01:53He verbally told me there was a blockage,
01:55and he had to videotape,
01:58and I said, give us the videotape.
02:00We'd like to see it,
02:01because it was a huge estimate that he had.
02:03He wanted to tear out the bathroom down there,
02:05and he said there was some...
02:07He couldn't get through.
02:08There was some blockage.
02:09So he never told you what the findings were of his scope?
02:13I do not recall him saying anything that specific.
02:16I was, like, kind of went...
02:19After that visit, he gave us a quote
02:21to repair for $20,000 in thumb.
02:25Just so I'm clear,
02:26you're telling me that he would not show you that video?
02:29I did not see the video.
02:31Did you ask for the video?
02:32Yes.
02:33Did you show the video?
02:34We provided a thumb drive,
02:35and we mailed it to them.
02:36Perfect.
02:37Never received it.
02:38Okay, but here's my problem with that.
02:40You received a recommendation
02:41from your own broker about him.
02:43He gives you an estimate for $22,850
02:46to repair major problems with your SOAR system.
02:49It would seem to me that it's in his best interest
02:52in order for you to hire him
02:53that he show you the actual video
02:56so that you can see exactly what he's talking about.
02:59Does that make sense?
03:00Yes.
03:01Let's take a look at this video.
03:02Would you please go up to the screen
03:03so that you can help us?
03:07Let's take a look at that video, please.
03:10Here we have a protruding pipe.
03:15Someone has inserted another PVC pipe
03:18into the sewer line,
03:20which is the blocking majority of the sewer line.
03:23This is plastic 4-inch sewer pipe.
03:27Stop.
03:27So hold on.
03:28What I've circled is that the 4-inch PVC pipe
03:32blocking the sewer line of approximately 80%?
03:35Yes, Your Honor.
03:36You went in from the toilet, didn't you?
03:38Yes, Your Honor.
03:38How far away from the toilet was it
03:42that that pipe was noted?
03:44120 feet.
03:45120 feet.
03:46That's past the 12-foot mark
03:48that there was roots in the system, correct?
03:50Yes, Your Honor.
03:51And you did see those roots as well, did you not?
03:53Yes, Your Honor.
03:53We found multiple failures in the sewer line.
03:55Meaning what?
03:58Separations, protruding lines.
03:59The pipe had separated and pulled apart
04:01in multiple locations,
04:03as well as grade issues as well.
04:05And fixing the repair of this pipe.
04:08What would that entail?
04:09A large endeavor due to the location.
04:12We were able to locate the sewer line
04:14within a half-inch accuracy,
04:15and it was at the base of a very large sequoia tree.
04:18I showed her the location with the equipment
04:20at the base of the tree,
04:21and we talked about the potential sources of this pipe.
04:25Why would he lie?
04:27I believe what he's saying,
04:28but I don't recall any of that.
04:30You can come on back.
04:31Thank you very much.
04:34Mr. Garrison,
04:35you weren't there for this inspection with your wife,
04:37correct?
04:38But you did see the estimate
04:39that was provided to you by Mr. Johnson
04:41for $22,850, right?
04:44Correct.
04:45So show me in any document,
04:47email, text message, report,
04:50property disclosure statement
04:51that you provided to the plaintiffs
04:54in which you outlined
04:55just what the witness testified to
04:57up there on the screen.
04:58We did not include it
05:00because we didn't believe the bid, the estimate.
05:02So you didn't include it.
05:03That was on September 6th
05:06was the invoice for the camera.
05:08September 7th was the quote.
05:10You signed the property disclosure statement
05:13on October 2nd, 2022.
05:15And this is all you wrote
05:17with respect to a problem with your sewer line.
05:20Some roots in system
05:22will be treated with root X as recommended.
05:25That's all you told them.
05:27Why?
05:29The second part of his estimate
05:31on replacing the whole sewer line
05:33was not even close to being accurate.
05:36But secondly...
05:36Wait, wait, wait.
05:37Hold on.
05:37When you say it wasn't accurate,
05:38according to who?
05:39He didn't have to do it.
05:40When he repaired it,
05:41they didn't have to do it.
05:42He's saying things here like
05:43the bathroom will no longer be usable.
05:47It's never been usable.
05:48Right.
05:49So that threw up a red flag to me.
05:51When they came in,
05:52we had a plumbing company come in,
05:54said, look, here's what the problem is.
05:55Hold on.
05:55You know what?
05:56You contacted this company again...
05:59Yes.
05:59...on April 26, 2023.
06:02Remember that?
06:03Yes, we got that.
06:04That's about the video.
06:05Why in April 2023
06:07were you all of a sudden
06:08looking for the video
06:10of the sewer line that they did?
06:12Because the plaintiff...
06:13Sent you a letter in which she said,
06:15there is poop all in our house
06:18that we luckily found
06:21the person who did the original inspection
06:24who told us that you were aware
06:26of everything that you hid from us
06:29in the property disclosure form.
06:32Is that not what really happened?
06:33I don't know why you're attacking me,
06:34quite honestly.
06:35Are you serious?
06:36Yes, I am.
06:37You don't know why I'm attacking you?
06:38You know what, then?
06:38I got nothing further.
06:39There is no other issue in my mind
06:41as to what exactly happened.
06:42This was a reputable company...
06:44Sir, sir, sir, sir.
06:45I assume that in the 22 years
06:47that you've owned this home,
06:49you've gotten estimates for work,
06:51and do you always go
06:54with the most expensive estimate?
06:56No.
06:57Like, who does that?
06:59Coming up on Tribunal Justice...
07:02I still don't see how you've proven anything
07:05except that they didn't spend
07:06as much money as they could,
07:07and when you had every opportunity
07:10to hire your own person.
07:12It's on you.
07:18Homebuyers Melanie Dems and Marcel Shoppers
07:20are suing James and Pamela Garrison
07:22for $10,000,
07:24claiming the sellers lied
07:25about a blocked sewer line
07:26that completely flooded their basement.
07:28Garrison say they were up front
07:30about the plumbing problems
07:31and even gave the buyers a big discount.
07:34When you received the recommendations
07:37from Mr. Steadfast,
07:39the original recommendations,
07:40what else do you remember
07:41about that report?
07:42Were you taking notes
07:43and highlighting and saying,
07:45oh, my God, oh, my God,
07:46we don't want to do this?
07:47Everything he told me
07:48kind of went over my head.
07:49Because it was, you know,
07:50you're like, I don't know this and that.
07:52You said, I don't want to spend $22,000.
07:55To my mind, all you have to say is,
07:57we looked at it, it was too high.
07:58I didn't read it carefully.
07:59I wasn't sure we needed all of that.
08:00It's on you.
08:01I still don't see
08:03how you've proven anything
08:05except that they didn't spend
08:06as much money as they could
08:07on a house they were trying to sell
08:09before they gave you discounts on it.
08:11And when you had every opportunity
08:14to hire your own person,
08:16maybe they made a mistake,
08:17but that does not mean
08:19that they are liars and fraudsters.
08:21May we respond?
08:23This is a bit like saying,
08:25I didn't know I went through a red light.
08:27No, it's not.
08:28No, it's not.
08:29Because the person
08:30who goes through a red light,
08:32red, yellow, green,
08:33it's pretty straightforward.
08:34This is a multi-page report
08:36that made recommendations.
08:37And I'm sorry,
08:38let me ask you something.
08:39So when you had your house in Pasadena,
08:41if somebody came in to do work
08:42and they said, you know what,
08:44you need $50,000,
08:45you guys were like, yes, absolutely.
08:46We better do this.
08:47Of course not.
08:48Of course not.
08:48I get multiple.
08:49Of course not.
08:50The most I see now
08:52is that they had a list of recommendations.
08:54And you know what?
08:55Mr. Steadfast is steadfast.
08:58Maybe if they'd done what he said,
09:00it would have worked.
09:02Coulda, shoulda, woulda.
09:02That does not make them fraudulent.
09:05You want a response?
09:06I want you to hear.
09:07Yes.
09:07Well, I'm going back to,
09:08our real estate agent told us
09:10that this plumber was a good company.
09:12So I had no reason
09:13not to believe the invoice
09:14and the notification
09:16or note that the rest of the line
09:18was camera'd.
09:19There's no reason
09:20that I shouldn't believe that.
09:22Us too.
09:23But apparently that is not the case.
09:24And I didn't find that out
09:26until there was a backup
09:27and I happened to have met Mr. Johnson.
09:29You said something very important
09:31and I heard what you said
09:32under your breath.
09:33Repeat what you said.
09:34I said us too.
09:35We believed it.
09:35You believed it.
09:36So maybe they hired somebody
09:38who didn't do as great of a job.
09:40That's why purchasers
09:42should do their own inspections.
09:44I just don't see anything
09:46intentional to deceive.
09:48I believe the invoice
09:49and I had no idea
09:50that Mr. Johnson
09:51from Steadfast Plumbing
09:52was on the property.
09:53Had I known that
09:55and there was an 80% obstruction
09:56from the invoice
09:58that they paid for a video,
10:00$265,
10:01plainly states,
10:02whether it's over your head or not,
10:04but there's 80% obstruction
10:06in the sewer line
10:08long before we made
10:09an offer on the house.
10:11So they made a mistake.
10:13That's a simple sentence.
10:14Maybe they made a mistake.
10:15To be over their head.
10:16Maybe they made a mistake
10:17but you can't sue a seller
10:19because they were negligent
10:21or careless
10:21or didn't do all
10:22of the inspections.
10:23That's why it is recommended
10:25that you do it.
10:26I don't have anything else.
10:28I have questions of you, sir.
10:30Yes, Your Honor.
10:30Because knowing
10:31what we all know now,
10:32I'm wondering myself,
10:33like how long does it take
10:35for something to back up
10:37where the obstruction
10:38is 120 feet from the home?
10:40How many flushes?
10:42How many, like, you know,
10:43that's really, I'm curious,
10:44how does that happen?
10:45What happens?
10:46It just depends on
10:48how much material
10:49can move through
10:50that passageway.
10:51It will slowly drain
10:52through that.
10:53It doesn't present as fast.
10:55So if you're seldomly
10:57flushing the toilet,
10:58that sewer line
10:58will hold a tremendous
10:59amount of water
11:00and it will slowly seep down.
11:02So even if they had
11:03an idea, for argument's sake,
11:05that there was
11:05a blockage down there,
11:07if they believed
11:07that they treated
11:08these roots,
11:09would they have
11:10a reason to believe
11:11that it might take
11:12another 22 years
11:14for something to back up
11:16as it did with them?
11:17I'm just curious.
11:19Correct.
11:19So they would have
11:20had a problem
11:21with the obstruction.
11:21And we don't know
11:22how long that piece of pipe,
11:24there's chances
11:25that that pipe could have
11:26moved and spun over time.
11:27So there again,
11:29that piece of pipe
11:29could have been down there
11:30for a long time
11:31that just may not have
11:32caused as much of a stoppage
11:33until it has rotated.
11:34Look, there's no doubt
11:35that when you have
11:36the kind of problems
11:36and the mess that you have
11:37and you have something
11:38that you could remedy
11:39for a certain amount of money
11:40that it should not be done.
11:42I'm not saying that.
11:43I just, sometimes I just
11:44have an interest
11:45in knowing certain facts
11:46before I make a decision.
11:48I'm ready.
11:49I don't know if anybody else...
11:50No, I do.
11:50I just want to make sure
11:51that I get this correct.
11:52As Judge Acker said,
11:54you lose unless you can prove
11:57a clear intention to deceive.
11:59But if you can, you win.
12:01Whether or not someone
12:02charges more money
12:03or less money,
12:04whether or not you've lived there
12:0522 years and never had a problem
12:07as far as I'm concerned
12:08means nothing.
12:10The only thing that's important
12:11to me in this case
12:13are the facts and the law.
12:16Coming up on Tribunal Justice...
12:19We're not cheap people.
12:20I'm not going to back out
12:21of a deal for $20,000.
12:23But still somewhere,
12:25you did not turn
12:26that information over.
12:27And what were you thinking
12:29when you didn't do it?
12:35Melanie Dems and Marcel Schavers
12:37claim James and Pamela Garrison
12:39knowingly sold them a home
12:40with a huge sewer line blockage.
12:43The basement flooded,
12:44so they're suing for $10,000.
12:46The Garrison say they own nothing
12:48because the buyers
12:49did their own inspection.
12:50The only thing that's important
12:52to me in this case
12:54are the facts and the law.
12:56And the facts and the law,
12:58correct me if I'm wrong,
12:59can you please put up number seven?
13:01This is the $265 invoice,
13:05Ms. Garrison,
13:05that you received
13:06after the witness
13:08did his full scope inspection.
13:11Not a multi-page report
13:13that is over anybody's head.
13:15It is a one-page piece of paper
13:19that says pipe is approximately
13:2280% restricted
13:24with protruding pipe entry.
13:27You read that, correct?
13:28I've read that, yes.
13:29And sir, you read that, didn't you?
13:31Probably, yes.
13:32Yep.
13:32And then let's take a look
13:34at the seller's disclosure,
13:36number 11,
13:37which was a month
13:39after you were told
13:41about an 80% obstruction.
13:43System is functioning.
13:45Some routes in system
13:46will be treated
13:47with route X as recommended.
13:49I want you to tell me
13:50why you didn't include
13:52that other information
13:54so they would know
13:55exactly what you knew
13:57regarding the 80% obstruction.
13:59Because I just want to preface this
14:01by saying this.
14:01My first line of questioning
14:02to you, ma'am,
14:03was, and you were very clear,
14:05there was no other information
14:06that you were provided
14:07that if there was another reason
14:09for the obstruction
14:10besides the routes,
14:11you would have put it
14:12in the report.
14:12You didn't put it
14:13in the report
14:14because you had no information
14:15that there was an obstruction.
14:17And now that you know
14:18he showed up
14:19with evidence
14:20that you cannot refute,
14:21that you were aware
14:22that there was an 80%
14:24obstruction in the pipe,
14:25my question to you is,
14:26why didn't you just tell
14:27that to the plaintiffs?
14:28You never saw the videotape.
14:29Bah-ha!
14:30I have nothing further.
14:31I do.
14:32When you bought the house,
14:33did the toilet work?
14:34Because you made note
14:35in your complaint
14:36that all kinds of things
14:37went wrong.
14:38You had to buy
14:38new AC units,
14:40furnaces,
14:41new ducting,
14:41there were all kinds
14:42of problems
14:42that you took issue with
14:44that you'd gotten credit for.
14:46Now, I want to read
14:47the plain language of this.
14:49When you moved
14:49into the house,
14:50you said it was around
14:51January,
14:52and then it was when?
14:53Four months later.
14:54Yes.
14:55So when you moved in,
14:56the system was functioning,
14:57was it?
14:58That's correct.
14:59I have nothing else.
15:00Yeah, I do.
15:00So no AC units,
15:03problem with hot water heaters,
15:05boilers,
15:06and it was based upon
15:07those problems
15:07that my understanding,
15:08correct me if I'm wrong,
15:10was that you demanded
15:11a credit.
15:12For those problems.
15:12For those problems.
15:13Those problems.
15:14Because they never told you
15:15about the 80% blockage
15:18because they knew
15:19that if they told that to you,
15:21you would either,
15:22a walk,
15:22or two,
15:23demand another $22,000 credit,
15:26which they didn't want
15:27to give you.
15:27As far as I'm concerned,
15:28there is no justification
15:29for them failing to tell you
15:32everything about that system
15:33that they knew from him.
15:34Yeah.
15:35No way.
15:36Could not be more angry.
15:37What do you guys have to say?
15:38No, I'm just joking.
15:39Can I just...
15:41Can I ask you
15:43a very quick question?
15:45Is there any version of this
15:47where you could have
15:48withheld this information
15:50assuming that you knew
15:51there was an obstruction
15:51where your motives
15:53were not to be fraudulent
15:55and deceitful?
15:55We acted in good faith
15:57the whole way.
15:57We thought it was repairing.
15:58Judge, we're not cheap people.
16:01I'm not going to back out
16:02of a deal for $20,000.
16:03But still somewhere,
16:05you did not turn
16:07that information over.
16:08And what were you thinking
16:10when you didn't do it?
16:11Can you just give me that?
16:14I don't think they believed
16:15the bid was so outrageous
16:16that we thought...
16:17So you really withheld
16:18the information
16:19because you thought
16:19the bid was too high
16:21and you thought
16:21you would have had
16:22to go with him?
16:23Ridiculous, not too high.
16:24Okay.
16:25Thank you very much.
16:26We're going to retire
16:26you to deliberate.
16:28The court is now in recess.
16:29Parties will be recalled.
16:39The issue in the case
16:40is whether the plaintiffs
16:41can prove that the defendants
16:42committed fraud
16:43by concealing known defects
16:45with the water line.
16:46And all of the evidence,
16:48as far as I'm concerned,
16:49the credible evidence
16:49is that they did.
16:50They cherry-picked information
16:52from the report
16:54provided to them
16:55by the plumber witness
16:56who came in
16:57regarding roots
16:58and root X
17:00as the only things
17:02that were wrong.
17:03Cherry-picked them.
17:04And they left out
17:05anything useful
17:07in that property disclosure form
17:10involving
17:10the damaged sewer pipes,
17:13the 80% blockage,
17:15the recommendation
17:15to replace and repair
17:17the damaged pipes
17:18and the necessary permits.
17:20When she answered my question
17:21in the beginning
17:22before she knew
17:23that witness was coming in,
17:24she could not have been
17:25any more clear.
17:25The only thing
17:26we were led to believe
17:27regarding a problem
17:28with the sewer pipe
17:29was the roots.
17:31That was it.
17:32And when he walked in,
17:33she and her husband
17:34knew the jig was up.
17:35It doesn't make any difference
17:37whether or not his quote
17:39was $22,000 or $22 million.
17:41It makes absolutely no difference
17:43because that subsequent plumber
17:45who did this video scope,
17:47that was a month and a half
17:49after they already had information
17:52that there was an 80% blockage
17:53in that pipe.
17:54That was after they already filled out
17:56the property disclosure form.
17:58They made a material omission.
18:00These plaintiffs had to deal
18:01with other people's poop
18:03in their house.
18:05I just don't see how anyone
18:07looking at those facts
18:08could say anything other than
18:09it was fraud.
18:10I can tell you how.
18:12Tell me.
18:12I can tell you how
18:13because first off,
18:14these plaintiffs
18:15had every opportunity
18:17to get their own inspection
18:18and they did at the outset.
18:19So they were put on notice
18:20that it was an old house
18:21with some defective sewer issues.
18:23Point two in time.
18:25Mr. Steadfast
18:26inspects the property,
18:27makes some recommendations
18:28and there's no reason
18:30why they should just assume
18:31everything that he's saying
18:32is true.
18:33I know that he came in
18:34as a great witness,
18:35but they're entitled
18:36to look to get
18:37a second estimate.
18:38Now, when you look
18:39at their disclosures,
18:40they don't say
18:41everything is fine
18:43in the sewer.
18:44It's brand new.
18:44They say it is functioning
18:46and the plaintiffs
18:47even acknowledged
18:47that the sewer problems
18:49did not happen
18:50for four months.
18:52That disclosure is accurate.
18:54They said system
18:55is functioning,
18:56which was true.
18:57Some roots in the system
18:59will be treated
18:59with root X
19:00as recommended.
19:01That is true.
19:02So I do not think
19:04that they've proven
19:04by clear and convincing evidence
19:06that these defendants,
19:08that they intended to do it.
19:09I think they maybe
19:10made a mistake.
19:11That's all I see.
19:12How do you look past
19:13the 80% blockage?
19:14It's in a one-page document.
19:15It's in the inspection report
19:17from a credible plumber
19:18who they got
19:19from their own broker
19:20and they conveniently
19:22omit that.
19:23How is that justified?
19:24I think that when you're
19:25looking at why they didn't
19:26take these recommendations
19:27to suggest,
19:28oh, we're not going to do it
19:29so we can conceal
19:30this problem in this house,
19:31I just don't buy it.
19:32I think the disclosures
19:35are true.
19:37The system was functioning.
19:38We also know
19:39that the system
19:40was 80% blocked
19:41and it lasted for four months.
19:42Why didn't these plaintiffs
19:43do another inspection?
19:44They knew they were
19:45buying an old house
19:46and there was a flood.
19:47Because they had a reason
19:48to believe that they could
19:49rely on the reports
19:50that were given to them.
19:51And I'm torn between
19:53wanting to find a way
19:55without saying
19:56that there was a fraud.
19:57You can't.
19:57So you either have to say
19:58they committed fraud.
19:59They absolutely committed fraud.
20:00Well, that's where I'm having
20:02a problem calling people frauds
20:05in a situation where I think
20:06that they were happy
20:08to rely on the report
20:09where he said
20:10we went in 12 feet,
20:11we kind of cleared it,
20:12we'll use some Rudex
20:13and it'll clear it out.
20:14And they were probably thinking
20:15it's going to take another 22 years
20:17for the blockage to occur
20:18so we don't have to say anything.
20:19See, that's what I think
20:21happened here.
20:21However, since there is
20:23no other way to get out
20:24of reimbursing these plaintiffs
20:25for their out-of-pocket loss
20:27without saying that
20:28these people committed a fraud...
20:30You have to say it.
20:31You do.
20:31You have to say it.
20:32That's the point.
20:32You have to say it.
20:33I don't want to say it.
20:35I'll say it.
20:36You know, I know.
20:36I don't want to have to say
20:38they committed a fraud
20:39but I'm going to have to
20:39side with Judge Levy.
20:41Well, I'm a strong dissent.
20:46Court is back in session.
20:47All parties are reminded
20:48that you're still under oath.
20:49Thank you, Cassandra.
20:50You're welcome.
20:50All right, well,
20:51we have deliberated
20:52and we've reached a verdict.
20:54It is not unanimous.
20:56If it were up to Judge Acker,
20:57she does not believe
20:58that the plaintiffs
20:59have met their burden
21:00of establishing fraud
21:01on the part of the defendants.
21:04Judge DiMango
21:05doesn't like the idea
21:07of calling the defendants fraudsters.
21:10But she and I
21:11are in the majority
21:12because I have no problem
21:13telling the defendants
21:14that what makes you a fraudster
21:16is that you fail to include
21:17in the property disclosure form
21:19information that you were
21:21specifically provided
21:22by your expert
21:23and as a result of that omission,
21:25this entire sale went forward
21:27only to end up months later
21:29with the natural consequences
21:31of that omission,
21:33which was your poop
21:34in their basement.
21:36And that is why
21:37it is the judgment
21:38of Judge DiMango and I
21:39that the Stems
21:41and Mr. Shoppers
21:42that you have met your burden.
21:44Judgment is in your favor
21:45for the amount of $10,000.
21:47Thank you both.
21:59We are not frauds.
22:00We did not do this intentionally.
22:02I found out that they knew it
22:03and I couldn't be more angry.
22:04They're being ridiculous.
22:06We'd already given them
22:07$35,000 to fix things.
22:10You would really like it
22:11to not be a pig
22:12with lipstick on it.
22:13I want them to be happy
22:14with the home.
22:15We've fixed everything.
22:16We know we're good
22:16for the next 30 years.
22:18Have you been scammed?
22:19Let the majority rule
22:21in your favor
22:21on Tribunal Justice.
22:24Find us on social media.
Comments