• 09/23/2025: tenants refuse to pay rents, water bills and caused house damages. Plaintiff/Landlord filed a case on 50th district court of Pontiac, Michigan. 7 days later, the plaintiff went to court to amend the original complaint to correct an typing error.

• 10/10/2025: tenants hired attorney filed an answer. The answer admits rent amount and dates owed but denies all others. The answer accuses the plaintiff of not stating type of tenancy in the complaint, thus makes re-amending the complaint and summons necessary.

• 10/13/2025: Plaintiff filed Amended Complaint to indicate that type of tenancy is month-to-month and the nature of the case is solely about non-payment of rent. The original claims for house damages were dropped for a separate case, because actual damages could not be known until the tenants moved.

• 10/14/2025: Plaintiff filed Motion for leave to file Amended Complaint: I apologized for making an honest mistake of not filing a motion for leave before submitting re-amended complaint. However, MCR 2.118(A)(2) states that "leave [to amend] shall be freely given when justice so requires."

• 10/16/2025: Defendant attorney filed Resp to Mtn to File Amended Complaint in attempt to attack the my motion.

• 10/20/2025: The court held hearing for the motion. The defendant attorney complained that my amended complaint made him change his theories of defense, thus demanded a $500 credit from me for coming to the motion hearing. The judge did not cite any law or make any explanation or state any findings but told him to draft an order, which is in direct violation of Michigan law and court rules.

• 10/24/2025: Defendant attorney’s assistant sent me an email saying the tenants had moved voluntarily. But they did not return house keys as they should. I went to the house on 10/25 to inspect: tenant’s commercial trailer was still there. I peeked throw the window and saw tenants’ bed and wardrobe and other belongings inside. I sent tenants and their attorney a notice to remove their belongings within 7 days. On Nov 01, I went back and saw no sign of anyone living there. I decided to break the door locks to gain control.

• 12/05/2025: Plaintiff filed a separate small claim case (case no. 2025-25-07298-SC), which solely deals with house damages.

• 12/19/2025: Defendant attorney submitted Order for Credit drafted by him, 2 months after the hearing date.

• 12/17/2025: Pretrial held. Defendant failed to appear. Default judgement entered.

• 01/09/2026: Defendant attorney filed Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment, claiming he or his clients were not served notice, though the court record shows contrary and he did not provide any proof except a statement.

• 02/02/2026: defendant attorney’s motion was granted.

• 04/13/2026: BENCH TRIAL TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT JUDGMENT: When evaluating the claim for unpaid pet fees, the judge said that, since the plaintiff did not take prompt action to enforce the pet fees, it was equivalent to waiver of the fees. I waved documents in hands that show the pet, the lease and my text messages demanding pet fee payments, but the judge ignored. Out of “leniency”, he granted $90 pet fee to the plaintiff, rather than the full $1110 accumulated during tenants’ 3 years tenancy. Another heated point is the unpaid rent. The tenants did not pay rent for 2 months according to the ledger. The defense attorney said his clients moved out earlier on Oct 12, without any evidence. I raised objections by pointing out that (1)the moving notice from his office shows Oct 24, (2)I went to see the house on Oct 25 and saw tenants’ belongs there, (3)I sent them a notice of removal within 7 days, (4)no keys were retuned (admitted by the defense attorney), and (5)I was forced to go to the house on Nov 01 to break the locks. My objections were ignored. Out of “leniency” (again!), the judge stroked down only half month rent and asked the defendants to pay up for days up to Oct 15.

• Upon reviewing my case, I found several defects of the trial: (1) not acting promptly in enforcing pet fees does not equate to waiver of pet fees, especially when the lease has a special clause regarding it. (2) the judge decided moving date without any evidence; (3) the amount of award to me in the proposed judgement contradicts to what the judge decided verbally at trial: the judgement says $1600 (one month rent) is awarded, not $2400 (1.5 months). The attorney intentionally or unintentionally reduced $800! Therefore, I filed a motion for reconsideration immediately, in which I state that the 3 defects above prompt this motion. I also point out that the defense attorney admits rents and due dates in his answer to the complaint.

• June 01, 2026: hearing for the motion for reconsideration was held. The hearing, instead of letting the plaintiff talk first, began with the defense attorney complaining that the motion only repeated what was discussed in the April 13 trial, which is not true. Then the judge turned to me. I said, “we should not waste time to discuss everything but focus on the facts I presented in the motion”. But I was immediately cut off by the judge. Apparently, he did not want to hear more. I thought I should be allowed to argue because I represent myself. I continued by saying that (1) the lease clause no. 29 and my text messages demanding pet fees showed that the pet fees were not waived; (2)the attorney letter, my notice of removal and not returning keys prove the tenants possessed the house until Nov 01. The judge asked me if I have evidence showing the tenants still occupying the house after the attorney’s fabricated evict date (Oct 12). I thought he meant photos. I said, “yes, I have photos. May I share the screen?” He said no. The judge seemingly became enraged because of my persistence. Seeing this, I apologized and said, “if you want me shut up, I will shut up.” The defense attorney took the chance to cut in and said “this guy wasted me so much time and caused my clients so much money. I want $900 compensation!” The judge immediately shouted “granted”! Then he told me to log off, which showed he had decided.

• Upon reviewing of the whole process, I found that: (1)I was not allowed to present evidence in the April 13 trial; (2)I was not allowed to fully state the facts in June 01 hearing; (3)the judge stepped out his boundary to grant a random money request by the defense attorney without any legal basis and due process.

• June 01, 2026: I received the proposed judgement, which reduces $800 in the total amount due me without any explanation and orders $900 to be paid to the defense attorney within 14 days without citing any law or court finding of frivolous. I decided to file objections and order court hearing transcripts for further action.

The judge is the one with authority. Don't fight him/her. Unless you want to spend many thousands of dollars on appeals. And this is not just the judge, but everyone n authority.

On my first eviction in Las Vegas, the judge mentioned from the bench that it was taking our Constable about two weeks to do lock-outs. I said, "but the statute requires the lock-out in 24 hours." The judge repeated that the Constable was taking two weeks and pointed out that I was free to sue the Constable for violating the statute. But she wisely reminded me that his Constable would do the lock-outs on all my evictions, and that perhaps I should not antagonize him.

"Perhaps you should not antagonize him." Very wise advice, that I still remember more than 20 years later.

Cutting you off and not giving you the chance to show any documentation or evidence is just what happened to me years ago.

That taught me to hire an attorney going forward.

Using simple, common sense it looks like you were not treated fairly, but...

No, I'm afraid you cannot expect justice from many judges.

Now your decision is whether it is really worth it to continue appeals or absorb the cost and move on asap.

I'm sorry you went through all that.

In the City of Los Angeles, Judges, their salary, job security and retirement is controlled by the Mayor and Housing. When I show up in court, and they City may have to correct a violation or return fines, the "City" tells the Judge if they pay out as much as 1 Cent, then that Judge will never seek the retirement age needed for vesting.