the plaintiff: janet from rochester, new york. goddamn it, my sister looks fly: all white outfit topped by a cream colored blazer, hoop earrings, curly weave, ACCORDION OF TRUTH.
the defendant: randell from rochester, new york. big and tall, a little smattering of facial hair, a maroon sweater vest over a shirt and tie.
the complaint: janet says she dated randell despite the fact that he is eleven years younger than she is, he maintains that they were nothing more than friends. they got this old middle school biology teacher who does the intro saying when he cheated she “kicked him to the curb,” and i’m fucking screaming. JUST SAY BROKE UP, MORTIMER. she lent him $500 and he never paid her back.
what does she want: $500 for an unpaid loan
how it went down: janet has known randell for 12-13 years, and they dated despite her being leery of him due to their age difference. is 11 years a lot of years when you are 35+ years old? that’s a real question. i’m 39 right now, and if a 50 year old wanted to date me i’d be like “yo, saddle up.” on the flip side, would i date someone 28? probably not, but that’s mostly because i don’t want to explain why my rain-indicating knee is preventing me from going outside today. janet says randell showed her a lot of respect and was very gentlemanly to her, so she agreed to date him. then he had a baby with another woman while they were together, and i’ll be right back i just gotta go find my reading glasses so i can look up “gentleman” and “respect” in the dictionary i keep next to my recliner.
janet let the baby slide and they continued their relationship, but then randell had another baby ( ! ) and she finally broke up with him. wait, but then after the breakup they were friends with benefits. janet wyd?! man i wish i could sprinkle some of this aquarian ambivalence on people who need it. i am bad at absolutely everything except walking away from a bad situation. what is the benefit of fucking this particular friend, babe? he doesn’t have time for sex, he’s got two small children who you didn’t give birth to to earn a living for!
randell says that they never really had a romance, that “friends with benefits” is closer to the truth of their relationship for the entire time they’ve known each other. when greg asks why, randell says it’s because janet was “fiery” and when she doesn’t get her way she’ll “spazz out on you.” listen, i’m not victim blaming, but nobody is spazzing on anybody in a true ~friends with benefits~ situation, because what is there to get mad about? you come over, i stick my hand in your pants while we both watch tv in silence, then the next day you drop me off at the grocery store because it’s raining and i don’t feel like waiting for the bus: that’s what friends do! but if i get off christian mingle dot com because i think we’re in a serious relationship and you turn up on my doorstep one day with a bundle of joy the stork just dropped off at your crib then guess what, bro? I’M SPAZZING OUT.
the ruling: janet lent randell $500 on march 27, and he promised to return the money on april 19. she says he talked to her every single day right up until the day the money was due then disappeared on her. she called him on the 19th and said, “hey, what’s up, you got my money? today’s the 19th so today is payday,” and he flipped out and said she was being disrespectful. man, i hate bill collectors, too. randell told janet he didn’t have her money because he has bills to pay (welcome to the club, sir) but he could spare fifty dollars. i believe what she did next was, uhh how do you say it?, oh yeah: SPAZZ THE FUCK OUT. put a zero on that fifty dollars, friend, because that’s what the fuck you owe her! janet says the last time she asked him to pay her back he replied “take me to court!” that is a threat that i, too, like to make, because most of the time people won’t do it. clearly janet is not most people.
randell claims that he tried to pay janet a portion of the money he owed her, and she refused it then cussed him out because she wanted the entire amount she was owed. he then said he wasn’t going to pay her because she’d cussed him out, which is not a legal defense even though it probably should be. randell asks “how many people want to pay somebody who cursed them out?” and judge mathis is quick to respond “if you paid her her money on time, you wouldn’t have got cussed out!” ain’t that the fucking truth. JUDGMENT FOR THE PLAINTIFF.
did uncle greg say anything fucked up to anyone: “your friendship wasn’t enough, or your benefits weren’t enough, otherwise she wouldn’t be suing you!”