MovieChat Forums > Hot Bench (2014) Discussion > Are the judgements on the show legally ...

Are the judgements on the show legally binding?

posted 8 years ago by clubkid13
20 replies | jump to latest

I read somewhere that people who are legitimately suing each other in a real court of law get approached by the producers of the show and ask if they're willing to have their case televised on this show. Having said that is the judgement by the three judges legally binding? Or is it just an arbitration settlement but there's no one to actually enforce the judgment? Often I wonder if the people who lose the decisions on the show just walk out and laugh and say oh well it's not like I have to actually follow through with the judgement, it's not like it's legally binding.

[–] LittleBrother55 8 years ago

My understanding is that the court's decisions are indeed final and binding-- the parties agree to submit to what amounts to private arbitration. Some TV court shows, like "Judge Judy" IIRC, actually explain how the awards are made in a fine-print blurb during the credits. I can't remember offhand what the terms are, but payouts aren't purely voluntary.

Since all of the litigants are compensated one way or another, perhaps the losers who blow off the verdict are just happy that they're not entirely out of pocket for the entire amount stated in the award.

The question of how TV courts enforce these agreements is a good one. I refuse to believe that it's left to "the honor system", or that behind the scenes it's made clear that the verdicts are unenforceable if the loser doesn't feel like honoring the agreement. That would be as much of a scandal as those old rigged quiz shows in the 1950s! If the losers could just blow off the verdict, it wouldn't be long before the ticked-off, screwed winners made a righteous colossal stink about it. I know I would!

I'd be interested to see any information about whether a TV court had to follow up with uncooperative litigants. If they do legally agree to respect the terms of the arbitration/"trial", which is a contractual arrangement, I'm sure there are legally enforceable consequences for non-compliance.

What I notice about "Hot Bench" litigants, even more than other TV courts, is how most of the losers still don't get it, and still think they were in the right even when it was painfully obvious that they were as wrong as two left shoes.

[–] cujokay 7 years ago

I refuse to believe that it's left to "the honor system"..

I know People's Court actually pays the judgements. I'm sure that's not the only show that does so. I only know that for sure because years ago, a neighbor of mine was on the show. The show bought her airline tickets (her daughter went as a witness), put them in a hotel for the night and paid for dinner that night & breakfast the next morning. She won the case and she received a check from People's Court a couple weeks later.

[–] cujokay 8 years ago

I doubt it as "Judge" Bakman is not even a real judge.

[–] Tiffany1567 8 years ago

Actually, he is.

29 // Navy Vet

[–] cujokay 8 years ago

Actually he's not. Patricia DiMango is the only one that has sat on the bench. Both Tanya & Larry are arbitrators. Tanya obviously has more pull since Larry NEVER gives the verdict. Have you not noticed that? Verdicts are read by DiMango or Acker. There's a reason for that.

What does it matter? If you like him; you like him. Why do you care what others think. I'm lost...

[–] Tiffany1567 8 years ago

He is a judge and a lawyer, simple google search.

It has nothing to do with liking him, because I think he is the most annoying, but I am not going around making up crap because I dislike him. I like facts hon.

29 // Navy Vet

[–] cujokay 8 years ago

I didn't make up anything and I'm not your hon, sweetie.

[–] cujokay 7 years ago

He is a judge and a lawyer, simple google search.

It has nothing to do with liking him, because I think he is the most annoying, but I am not going around making up crap because I dislike him. I like facts hon.

Bakman nor Acker have ever been judges. They're arbitrators. The only JUDGE that sat on a bench is Patricia DiMango so there's that.

It's funny you speak of Google searches when it's obvious you didn't do one on this subject. I did not make up or create the history of Bakman. I did an ACTUAL Google search and that is the info that came up.

You do know that I'm not the only person on the internet telling this story about your precious Judge Bakman, don't you. I'M SORRY. I understand that you feel he's been given a raw deal. I don't know the man and have no reason to make up stuff about him.

I hope when all is said and done, it comes out that people unjustly defiled his name. Would you PLEASE add the link that says he's a judge? That would be very helpful.

I like facts too, sweetie!

[–] mcolby-125-523976 7 years ago

Actually he's not. I'm surprised he still has his license with all the stuff he has done.

[–] cujokay 7 years ago

Actually he's not. I'm surprised he still has his license with all the stuff he has done.

Tiffany 1567 is OBSESSED with "Judge" Bakman. Look at any thread on here and she is defending him to the enth degree. I'm not kidding. For some reason he needs to be defended even though it's been shown that he is incompetent to sit on the bench but even more incompetent to handle his life.

Here you go:

http://www.ripoffreport.com/r/Larry-Bakman/Los-Angeles-California/Larry-Bakman-Hot-Bench-Law-Offices-of-Larry-M-Bakman-Abusive-Domestic-Violence-Tax-Evad-1202275

Tiffany 1567 is going to have a fit!

[–] mcolby-125-523976 7 years ago

I noticed that which is why I commented. Does he have a daughter named Tiffany by any chance? Oh wait, it has to be a girlfriend or other relative since his children probably dislike him for abandoning them and not supporting them.

[–] cujokay 7 years ago

I noticed that which is why I commented. Does he have a daughter named Tiffany by any chance? Oh wait, it has to be a girlfriend or other relative since his children probably dislike him for abandoning them and not supporting them.

lol! He's been so absent in his kids' lives that he may not even remember their names!

[–] cujokay 7 years ago

Actually he's not. I'm surprised he still has his license with all the stuff he has done.

Tiffany doesn't see it. He's blinded her with science.

[–] DanaShelbyChancey 7 years ago

Some will be happy and some not, because Larry Bakman has been replaced with Michael Corriero on Hot Bench.

I haven't heard yet why, if Bakman chose to leave, or was replaced without his input.

Gee Woodle, Space Kadoodle!

[–] cujokay 7 years ago

Bakman has already left. The new guy started November 1st. Of course they didn't address it on the show nor did I expect them to.

[–] mcolby-125-523976 7 years ago

When it was announced he was leaving they released a statement that said something like "Mr. Bakman is leaving to return to his very busy law practice". Sounds like they probably gave him the opportunity to resign with dignity or be fired, which is usually what happens even in corporations.
I doubt with everything that has come out about him he has people pounding on his door to represent them.

[–] jewelsb129 7 years ago

Cujokay, you're just a little bit psycho. Also, it's the "nth" degree, dear. Do a crossword puzzle for a change, lol. You sit there and give that poor girl "permission" to like Bakman but keep pestering her and spamming this thread with your antics. Be careful, your age is showing. Grow up and learn some netiquette.

[–] DanaShelbyChancey 8 years ago

ACKER: The show is binding arbitration. So, I'm an arbitrator. I wasn't a judge before the show. Larry (Bakman) and I are both lawyers. Patricia (DiMango) was a judge before she came on, and the cases we get are real, of course, and the decisions, it's binding arbitration.

This is from an interview with Tanya Acker. From the horse's mouth.

Gee Woodle, Space Kadoodle!

[–] cujokay 7 years ago

This is from an interview with Tanya Acker. From the horse's mouth.

I'm glad she addressed it. I like both her and Judge DiMango.

[–] PaladinNJ (20308) 6 years ago

In order to appear on any of these "judge" shows you have to legally dismiss your case in the courts and sign a waiver agreeing to the judgement without right of appeal.
On most of these shows a fund is set up as part of production costs from which the judgment is paid. The remainder of the fund is split between the two "litigants".