One Wet Mess

The plaintiff says she was wiped out after Hurricane Sandy, and everything from the apartment she rented was gone. The plaintiff had to move out. The defendant promised to return the security deposit, but the check was short, so the plaintiff is suing. The defendant argues the plaintiff left a bunch of her wet belongings behind, so the defendant believes she had every right to withhold some money. The defendant is countersuing for the cost to remove the belongings.

Subscribe to our channel:

#PeoplesCourt #RealityTV #Court

[kylejohnson]

That’s her boyfriend! He almost grabbed her waist at the end

[sherreefelstead]

The way the defendant's male friend stood behind her at the end in a protective stance like that, tells me he is more than just a friend. I agree with the plaintiff in this one.

[PlugJh]

10:55 yup that’s definitely her boyfriend! What friend goes to grab his friend by the waste? He caught himself before he did it though

[catherinesisk]

The defendant has no pictures no receipts and JM is just taking their word for it.

[missagoins]

They didn't want judge to know they're bf gf?

[Nevaeh]

Some landlords will find any reason to keep even just a portion of a security deposit, which is why it's important that tenants take detailed pictures before moving their belongings in and after they move everything out. I would recommend sending the landlord those pictures too.

[mommolette]

Wait, look how her "friend" is hugged up on her!! At the end😮. They lied

[kimberlyadorno]

JM really screwed this one up! 1. Their hesitation when asked if they were dating was a dead giveaway they were! 2. First, the plaintiff's "witness"(boyfriend) said it took his crew 4 hours to finish the job. Then, when asked why it was so expensive, it suddenly was 5-6 hours🙄 3. Anyone in this situation could ask their friends to lie and testify on their behalf. The defendant didn't have visual proof(photos) of what was left behind. She had no paper trail of actually paying for the removal(check or receipt). Neither she nor her "witnesses" could articulate what was actually left behind. A mattress, some chairs, and carpet doesn't take 4 hours and certainly doesn't take 5-6 hours to remove! That scammer landlord got away with the plaintiff paying to remove all of the debris the hurricane caused. I so hope Karma visited everyone in this situation who contributed to the plaintiff losing her money!

[Pinkblueflowerlady]

She should have gotten her grandson to take pictures for her then she would had her proof of them lying…

[vivianpatton]

There's going to b mold even F the place is vacant . I think the landlady is lying.

[Fluffyzk]

I think JM got this one wrong, the landlord had no proof that she paid her boyfriend $600 to clean up, she always asks the landlord if they have receipts on what they pay for on damages the tenant has done. I felt sorry for the plaintiff 😢

[tnandes]

So this is not what I thought.
So the defendant has no pictures of what she left behind, lies saying she paid movers ( her boyfriend) no prove.
But the plaintiff still had to pay...
Something is wrong here

[monicasmith]

He's definitely her man!!! He's standing right on top of her

[pickleasaur]

This verdict aint sitting right with me. When she admitted that was her BF after the plaintiff told Milian, I felt that they were being hella shady.

[tamekamccrayhayes]

Such liars. And the judge was disgusting in this case

[kimricautumn]

Why isn't Judge Milian letting the plaintiff talk? She didn't even let her finish her story.

[sph]

I agree with the comments; judge usually goes back-and-forth between the litigants in fact even asks them to respond to what was said by the other side. But she cut the plaintiff off during her initial story and never let her speak again.

[lajames]

They're 3 witnesses who are all of her friends... what a ruling

[simpleman]

I usually agree with the judge but I don't on this one. I believe that's her boyfriend and he didn't charge her no 600 bucks. BAD Verdict. I've watched this again and this was definitely the wrong call she had no evidence of anything

[mikae]

The plaintiff is correct. She's required to do a move out inspection with government assistance. We are required to verify no damages were evident after moving out as well as pre move in. Subsidies will not pay if they have not completed checklist items.