Hot Bench

A tenant claims he moved out due to an increasingly uncomfortable living situation and is seeking his security deposit. His former landlord fires back, alleging that the tenant broke house rules, hogged shared spaces and raked up the utility bill. Was this a justified departure or just dramatic?

A woman bolts from her new rental after three days, claiming her landlord ate her food and then snapped at her! He claims it's a simple misunderstanding and her discounted rent is non-refundable. When food fights meet flaky agreements, the judges decide who's really out to lunch.

A contractor says his subcontractor took the money, stalled on the job and tried to "mow down" the debt with a stolen lawnmower. The subcontractor blames bad weather for the delays, claims the mower settled the score and insists he didn't know it was stolen. Listen as the judges decide who's building the truth, and who's just paving over problems.

She insists she was a tenant. He claims she was a freeloader who moved herself in. An apartment fire pushes their feud to the breaking point, leaving them both homeless. Now it's up to the judges to resolve this scorched dispute.

A father and son claim they bought a car through a payment app, found it in awful condition and got stiffed on the refund. The seller insists he was upfrront and claims the payment app is the real problem. When an online deal sparks real world drama, the judges must take the wheel.

A tenant blames late rent on job loss and now accuses his landlord of theft, lies and making a bogus police call. Meanwhile the landlord claims the tenant trashed her home and threatened her with a knife! Watch as the judges cut through the accusations and find justice.

A homeowner claims her neighbor's pit bulls damaged her fruit trees and cost her income. The neighbor fires back claiming her dogs were always leashed and never even stepped foot on the property! When tree damage meets territorial tension, it's up to the judges to sniff out the truth.

A buyer claims he was left dead in the water after purchasing a boat engine that wouldn't fire up. The seller argues the sale was "as-is" and claims the buyer sank any refund hopes by dismantling the motor. It's left to the judges to decide who's charting the truth and who's drifting off course.

A student claims his scuba instructor vanished before completing his certification training. The instructor claims he paused for mental health reasons, has a "no refund" policy and offered options to finish the training until the student allegedly became hostile. Watch the judges plunge into who really caused this to go off the deep end.

An ex-couple battles after a father says he entrusted his child's mother with holding money, only to claim she spent it. She claims the money was given for their child, and he only wants it back because she's seeing someone new. Is this a case of financial trust or romantic fallout?