Salon Turned into a Storefront Church! | Part 4

Jill claims Erica left her salon because she got a better deal somewhere else!

The Original! There’s only ONE Judge Judy. Visit our website for where to watch, weekdays.

#JudgeJudy

[scottmcwave]

“Brian down the street wants me and he wants me bad”😅

[alvarosalandy]

As I see it, you cannot have "independent contractors" renting spaces you cannot have a "staff" meeting. Furthermore, you cannot deduct "rent" from the work of those independent contractors.

[jpbaley]

Too bad Judy didn’t pick up on the “I was taking it off your rent.” In other words, the defendant wasn’t being paid by the women of the church as they were paying the plaintiff. The plaintiff was probably skimming money off the top of that arrangement. The stylists working in the salon are independent contractors. The plaintiff has NO staff. Both that reprehensible preacher and plaintiff are running a huge scam. Defendant should call the cops.

[jamesr]

The salon owner was probably trying to evade taxes by inviting a a not-for-profit church into the premises.

[markc]

These older cases are interesting and the hairstyles amazing!!

[susanelaine]

I would NOT want to go into a place populated with ex inmates and addicts. What if one decided to follow me home or rob me after I left the shop?? Women should be safe, and that was not a safe environment!

[HossainSiddiqui]

How a salon for women can accommodate criminals coming out of jail? The judgement should have gone for the defendant without considering any other things. The contract was void when the plaintiff allowed the men on the premises.

[jennifer_mertens]

She said the Defendant "ran in" and told her the business down the street wanted her. It sounded as if the Defendant had already left and returned to "brag". What difference does it make that the Defendant got a better deal elsewhere? She still left because of the "ministry". Plus, the Plaintiff asked the Defendant, "How soon can you be out?", while arguing. I agree with the Defendant that the Plaintiff in effect told her to leave. I think the award of 5 months rent is a bit steep.

[miriamkivlehan]

JJ should run a series titled 'Where are they Now?'

[Sara.Rose.]

Sadly JJ is wrong again! The moment your employer allows inmates into a business, people should have the right to break the contract because the terms changed. I side with the defendant in this one

[L.Spencer]

What if Brian had charged her more? Would it show she wanted to get out of there so badly that she would even pay more rent?

[idharudhar]

The contract was for leasing a space at a hair/ nail salon business. Once the hair salon business turned into something else, the business environment changed and with that the contract was broken by the hair salon owner. Doesn't matter whether the lady that does nails got a rental at higher or lower price.
Did it occur to JJ that if the men/church was not brought into the business, the nail lady might never have looked for another space or talked to Brian down the street. She could have spoken to Brian after her first year lease was over, but the fact that she did it after the church got mixed into business is telling.
Wrong Judgement again by JJ.

[chitown]

The plaintiff changed the terms of the contract. JJ should stay consistent in her rulings. Maybe she got a better deal but bringing in former prisoners is no different than a roommate bringing in a boyfriend or girlfriend to stay. It is unfair to the original people that leased spaced especially when you are bringing religion into the picture. The gaul of the plaintiff and the supposed minister.

[frigidreal]

I would have never gone back to a place where they are ministering to other people. Not a salon...

[Christina-hjhh]

The church should’ve been doing that business in their church. Why move part of the services into the salon? Also, interesting that the plaintiff said that she is the one who asked the pastor to set up in her salon. She was definitely doing it for a tax break.

[WarGrowlmon]

OF COURSE she bettered her situation!!! ANYTHING is better than that situation!!!

[alexajones]

I’m sorry but the combination of the ex felons/addicts plus religion would be enough to lose clients who aren’t comfortable with either, and not paying the tech for her services but “taking it off her rent” is simply not good enough.

[teamdawson]

This is clearly a case of separation of Church and Nails

[Akasha]

The plaintiff broke the conditions of the contract by having the Mission work out of the salon. It doesn't matter of she had a "staff" meeting and they said it was ok to have the men be there - just like the defendant who said they discussed after signing, that if someone wasn't happy, they could just say that and leave without penalty on the contract. JJudy should have wisely dismissed both cases. (being that the defendant found lower rent elsewhere)

[marcanderson]

I might be a bloke, but I know this much about women - they don't go to salons like this one just for their hair and nails. It's a social thing for them where they can yabber on about girlie stuff without having to worry about what men might think or do, and they certainly don't go there to get religion rammed down their necks. Because of that, I fully believe it was costing the defendant some clients.