Being a Stickler

[@hadley407]

The way the plaintiff laughed when Judge Milian asked if her parents were more aggressive than her tells us that her parents were indeed calling and harassing the defendant and I completely understand why he didn’t send they check!

[@Ze_Moose]

Behind every joke, there's a little truth

[@mistiinseattle]

lol I can't believe she is so entitled. He was incredibly nice to offer her anything back lol. She still does not get it ... sad example for her daughter

[@msfranklin2650]

EVENING....SAME THING I STATED SMH

[@akairiyahiko2602]

Plaintiff really thought she was getting her money back. Better get that $1000 back from your uncle

[@mx-wg5nn]

When she doesn’t provide the rest of the text or acknowledge the phone call about speaking badly to him….you know she’s hiding what she did wrong. They have a whole family of entitled people which is sadly the reason she thought it was a good idea to bring her daughter and show her how it’s done. It’s sad, honestly.

[@Ze_Moose]

She should've waited for the check and "played his game."

[@righttoouropinionthanks4710]

True! & why didn’t JM ask to see her phone so she could read the messages herself?? She normally asks to read litigants phones directly, but she didn’t in this case?? Wish she would be more consistent & not look shady doing stuff like this!

[@MusicTennis]

She's not shady. She didn't need to look at the phone because it's all prior to the case being filed by the plaintiff. The deposit was non-refundable. That's the only legally binding agreement that was made. @@righttoouropinionthanks4710

[@MusicTennis]

The plaintiff is the one playing an outrageous game of "hold the place for me ... take it off the market for a month then whoops I change my mind gimme my money back".@@Ze_Moose

[@donnabethea8164]

She probably didn’t want to embarrass her in front of her daughter

[@nrobo7692]

She said she was done playing games???. Not realizing It was his game she had to play. She was harassing him for money shes was lucky to get back. She really thought she had the upper hand.. A little patience and knowing what cards your holding goes a long way

[@hottuna2006]

Some people are too stupid to realize they're playing from a postion of weakness.

[@David-wo9un]

It seems from the interview in the hallway, the plaintiff still thinks she was right; I don’t think she learned anything.

[@Sasha-71]

😂 entitled brats like her are NEVER wrong 😂

[@mzfancy4767]

​@@whyxx-xb4uxFor u to post this same ignorant comment under multiple posts, ur inner misery shows clearly.

[@deemcgriff4196]

They never do 🙄

[@kaylatube9214]

Plantiff is so pathetic. She refuses to accept that she's in the wrong. Soooo entitled!!

[@frankgiuliano380]

She is a wolf in sheep's clothing. I could just imagine the real person..

[@birdie2010]

The plaintiff seems entitled and doesn’t want to understand what a deposit means glad she lost

[@billmoran3219]

She even stated he only asked for a $200 dollar deposit, and that was her reasoning as to why she felt he took advantage of the situation.

[@vvelasco54]

Doug was savage at the end 😂

[@Bird-xr1qz]

Doesn't miss a beat lol

[@perfectlyimperfect9129]

He definitely doesn't sugar coat !! Why I love him !!

[@Everykneebows]

If someone messes up in court Doug is there to make sure they know it😂

[@michaellynch3087]

Profoundly odd the plaintiff pursued this case in court.

[@hottuna2006]

No one's ever told her no. The exit interview tells me she's still going to be learning the hard way.

[@MusicTennis]

Odd indeed plus it proves that litigants can actually lose big time on this show. She does get $250 to appear but lost the balance because she sued.

[@ElsaFriost]

I am so glad because she does sound like she could be very nasty

[@keishaallison3278]

Love my daily dose of people court 🥰

[@frankgiuliano380]

Unfortunately.. this is not real life in any major city... the landlord would lose, and be fined double. Landlords can't win in NY. Tenants have "rights" - the right not to pay rent for over 2 years, the right to destroy your property, the right to destroy your life, your family and your income. Same in every major city in America and Canada. that is why we are declining.. that is why we have 25 million homeless.

[@LawsonPatterson]

After an entire month of trying to screw this guy and get my money back, I just got tired of it….lol

[@madmaxofspokane1691]

At 1st, it was looking like the defendant was being shady. But after all of the details came out, it was easy to see that the plaintiff didn't have a legal leg to stand on.

[@elvickRULES]

Uh. Where lol. It was obvious she’s entitled from the start.

[@mnelson2008]

"He was playing games from the beginning." She's truly delusional.

[@frankgiuliano380]

Playing games.. really.. he held the place for 2 months!

[@maggiemay590]

She's so entitled so glad the uncle won , stomping roaches

[@cosmo6180]

Wowww, she said she waited the whole mth of October to receive the second check b4 she took it to court, she never called or texted to ask about the check, a mth isn’t very long to wait. For 1000 I would’ve been a bit more patient, especially knowing he didn’t legally have to give it back. Maybe (since she’s so entitled) she thought she had every right to get that money back and didn’t need to wait for it.

[@billmoran3219]

Surprised she didn’t say he owes her interest on the money

[@panamafernandez4641]

She didn't wait, she was calling & harassing. She thought he wouldn't be able to prove that she did that so she denied it.

[@ACleverFinesse]

Doug is hilarious😂

[@dunkinjunkie5868]

Always 😂

[@YarnCrafts4lefties]

Evening all to the first watch club!

[@peekaboots01]

Evening!

[@jasonharris1636]

Cheers! (fellow lefty) 🇦🇺🍻🦘

[@nuleafonlyfe04]

Grand evening!!!

[@beautifulandlvly]

Hola

[@supportvawa2213]

Good evening!.....too hot to cook - blue corn chips and avocado for dinner again.....

[@MusicTennis]

The plaintiff came in thinking she'd easily win $1200 on PC but she didn't. So there is something to lose on this show.

[@jaynehogue2459]

Oh does the entitlement never end

[@faznout]

For what reason did she have to bring her daughter to court? Usually in these type of situations Judge Judy always asks "does the child have any information pertaining to this case? Cause if they don't I'd like for them to wait outside"!! Judge Milian almost never ask for the children to wait outside. Maybe with her new show she'll do that from now on.

[@n3k0rrrb]

She's gonna do a new show?? That's cool, I had no idea (:

[@16MedicRN]

​@@n3k0rrrbit's called People's Justice or something like that. Supposed to start in October. MM wasn't as big on sending kids out as Judge Judy.

[@dunkinjunkie5868]

My thoughts exactly!

[@mamathemeat]

Why does it matter if her kid is in there it’s not criminal court…. Judge Judy only does that when it’s something harmful for them to hear

[@16MedicRN]

@@mamathemeat are you a mother? If so, are you aware that every single thing that comes out of your mouth as well as those coming out of others is heard? She heard all kinds of stuff about her mom, her grandparents without understanding the context of any of it. If your not a mother, it shows.

[@andrewvelonis5940]

That's what a deposit is for.

[@frankgiuliano380]

we have the largest under - educated population in the WEST.. this plaintiff proves that we have no educational system. Definition of the word "Deposit" -harvey?

[@CJ37.125]

Children should not be allowed in the courtroom unless they’re an eyewitness or apart of the case.

[@KennuhWayne]

Why not? The civics of our legal system could be very educational to a child.

[@Mocharocks9966]

He should’ve just said I’m not sending anything instead of getting her hopes up

[@frankgiuliano380]

the guy was new at the came of "Landlording".. best think was sell the place. it's hell out there. the people you think are nice, turn into thugs after they pay the first months rent. and the socialist city judges let them live for more than 2 years rent free... and then to get them out, the landlord is "ordered" to pay moving expenses.. what a country.

[@somebodywatchin]

Great judgement! Playing games?!?! SHE’s the one who doesn’t get it! Geez!

[@mikieanthony777]

Not signing the check is a very old trick to buy time. He didn't forget to sign it. Judge Mathis would have pointed that out.

[@hottuna2006]

I agree, but not being patient cost her $1K. She didn't realize she was in a position of weakness and overplayed her hand.

[@hyperion6]

He could just tell to them from the beginning to go... themselves, no refunds. What's the point of doing tricks, what would he gain by buying time?

[@mikieanthony777]

@@hyperion6 , he felt they were entitled to $1,000 but he didn't have it so he sent an unsigned check to buy time

[@mikieanthony777]

@@hottuna2006 I agree 👍

[@hyperion6]

@@mikieanthony777I think you are right, he should ask somebody about it. I think they made him to think they are right by their entitlement, constant calls etc. He probably thought they were right the way they behaved. I am happy he sent it unsigned lol. Karma... they tried to trick him and got the same in return.

[@cjtech8284]

Doug: “well, look what happened, you gave up, that’s your problem” 😂😂

[@THELOVEOFMYLIFE89]

Doesn’t matter if you disagree your loss maybe be nicer next time .

[@mountendew]

Great verdict

[@tamekadavis6641]

I'm not letting nobody hold my money.💯

[@shesit318]

Doug: Well, look what happened. See, you gave up. That's your problem. 🤦🏾‍♀️😂🤣

[@amandarivera5511]

Judge Judy says " if they agreed to pay the money" then she makes them

[@JayTheDodo]

This judge is all over the place, having watched a few cases, she's not very consistent in her judgements.

[@trulovegirl]

@@JayTheDodo SHE'S AN IDIOT

[@frankgiuliano380]

wrong.. a deposit is a deposit.. period.

[@mokkamellb6811]

her laugh type sigh saying no phone call. yeah okay i worked with enough fake ppl

[@katrinka1SF.BayArea]

Plaintiff is so hard-headed she just did not get it

[@Damnsaburna]

This was a life lesson. He had all the cards and she refused to play.

[@nql9430]

Served her right. Didn’t know the law and being cocky. Glad she lost

[@frankgiuliano380]

her thug family thought they could bully the guy.. he's a NYC guy.. didn't work.

[@michaelsirois5684]

It’s amazing how many people don’t really understand how deposits work.

[@David-wo9un]

Harvey dropping pearls of wisdom that could come from an eighth grader. If a landlord takes a property off the market and you back out, why would the landlord have in writing that you would get the deposit back? He/she just lost a months rent.

[@taurus2600]

She most definitely should have reached back out regardless if he was playing games or not!

[@MikeNelli-uq2wl]

she is gorgeous

[@wynottgivemore9274]

Nope ! Doug ,she didn't learn shit... but maybe. Hopefully her daughter explains it to her on the carride home

[@MusicTennis]

lol... Kid: "okay mommy don't you understand you had a grand in your hand but couldn't wait then gammy and gampa blew up the guys phone cuz they were mad"

[@righttoouropinionthanks4710]

What doesn’t the plaintiff understand about this whole thing & no, being nasty to someone DOES NOT HELP!? (For anyone that thinks this is the way to handle everyday life problems or situations!). The saying, “You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar” is sooo true!!! Don’t be an ass to people if you don’t want that same treatment?)

[@lukerinderknecht2982]

I'm surprised the judge didn't consider the defendant's willingness to return $1k as an agreed upon settlement, and hold him to it. I don't think Judge Judy would have had the same ruling.

[@zaiturcotte1576]

Definitely judge picks and chooses when when she enforces agreed upon settlements.

[@nyasiarowe8771]

Well like she stated she cannot enforce a legal contract based on someone “willingness “ His duty was to hold the apartment in return she paid $1200 . That’s the original contract, he offered the refund to be nice by law he did not have to

[@Catloudan]

He is not legally responsible. JJ would have been the same.

[@mikesteele05]

The issue here is he was under no obligation to settle anything. Judge Milian only rules based on settlements when someone agrees to a settlement and then wants more (for example if someone agrees to accept $500 for damage to a car but then tries to sue for $200 more because the cost to repair the car turns out to be $700).

[@hottuna2006]

A settlement requires each party to give up something and come to a compromise. Most often it's a plaintiff giving up the opportunity of being awarded bigger damages in return for a guaranteed smaller amount. The defendant gets to pay a smaller amount and not go to court and mitigate their risk of being held liable for bigger damages. The defendant in this case had no expectation of gain. What does he get for returning the money that he was legally entitled to? Those are just empty words and cannot be enforced. I promise you a million dollars. Now I take it back. Do you really think you can win a judgment based on that?

[@cdickerson8759]

Why isn't the verbal agreement (for him to give back $1K) binding? By sending an unsigned check and then ghosting, he increased the 100 bucks he normally charges to hold the unit 12 fold. He didn't honor his own contract.

[@dagnabamy]

🤦🏻‍♀️

[@hottuna2006]

And this is why you are not a lawyer.

[@KennuhWayne]

​@hottuna2006 It's actually a legitimate question. Several other people are posing the same question in the comments because they've seen (or believe they've seen) judges consider the new agreement as a new contract . No need to be condescending. Also, as an adjunct criminal justice professor, let me be the first to tell you that historically, lawyers don't always get it correct either. There are many examples of legal counsel being destroyed by ordinary people in both civil and criminal cases.

[@hottuna2006]

@@KennuhWayne Fair enough. I'll just say that a promise is not the same thing as an agreement in legal terms and that's why the plaintiff doesn't get the money. If you want to go into the details be my guest.

[@melissasllew2527]

​@@hottuna2006it was more than a promise. He sent a check and then agreed to send another because the first one was unsigned.

[@antdogg5041]

This what you get when you’re rude and entitled. 🤷🏾

[@lifewithdeedee3392]

Yep I agree with the judge

[@robg5509]

“Playing games”?!?! Lady you bailed on a deal and you think you’re so entitled???

[@nativeroscoe64]

Judge is right. She had $1,000 in her hand, but waited until court.

[@mercedesbardales2933]

The plaintiff really isn't getting the whole pic a deposit is non refundable unless it's in writing she'll get it back. Knock knock lady.

[@Noname-wi8xp]

Here’s something random I’ve always wondered about people’s court. When litigants are walking in, can they hear the announcers narration? Every once in a while, one giggles or makes a weird face when he says something ridiculous but other times when he does, there’s no reaction at all.

[@cbro2807]

She is clearly just used to getting her way.

[@billmoran3219]

Defendant is right, plaintiff should be going after her uncle for the money especially if she can’t afford to take that loss. Makes me wonder why the parents got involved? Could it be uncle is a deadbeat and came to his niece instead of her parents , one of whom may be uncle’s sibling , and they knew better then to help him? I mean look at the position he put her in because he changed his mind ! Should have took the thousand lady !

[@shaunlewis8484]

He owes you nothing!!!! What is it that you don’t understand

[@perfectlyimperfect9129]

You dont get to ask someone to hold a place and stop them from making $ for that time and exspect your $ back ! Doesnt work that way! And she brought a child to court ! 🙄🤨 why couldn't she let hwr uncle live with her if shes so worried about it ?! 11:21 "should have listened to my wife to begin with " 😂😅smart man , lesson learned.😂😂

[@thatsassyrepublican]

Hey there folks! ❤

[@supportvawa2213]

🤠👋🤠👋 Howdy, y'all!

[@pj2123]

He is obviously not a man of his word and had second thoughts.

[@scamchan]

He forgot to sign the check ha nice move

[@nemanjalukic2422]

If this happens to anyone you can actually ask for permission to sign their name. If they give it ,you can sign the check. Banks don't care as long as there is a signature and it's not forgery as you had permission. But make sure you save the permission.

[@golt4576]

Great call Judge M. Little missy and her family screwed up.

[@lh8956]

Now I’ve seen other cases where she would say “a new agreement was reached” (him sending back the thousand) and it should be upheld. She’s being kinda inconsistent.

[@hottuna2006]

An agreement requires both parties to uphold their end of the agreement. If the plaintiff had said give me back my money and I won't sue you and the defendant agreed, then there's a case of a negotiated settlement. Neither party made no such promises and thus there is no agreement in place. Just empty words from the defendant that can't be enforced.

[@sisipruitt]

Makes me think that this whole thing is tv.. where there are actors.. and the results are pre-authorized..😅

[@melissasllew2527]

​@@hottuna2006an agreement requires them to agree. The person who doesn't uphold their end is in breach. The plaintiff should have won because the defendant breached.

[@scooneil]

I don't understand the application of the law in this case. I've seen cases where the judge has ruled that attempts at remediation constitute a new contract/deal. The plaintiff had written proof that the wife agreed to refund the deposit, and the defendant admitted to agreeing to return $1k. At that point, wouldn't the question of the refundability of the deposit in the original deal (something that was seemingly never stated one way or the other) be a moot point? The remediation verbal contract seems like it would supercede the original verbal contract, and the plaintiff had ample proof to that agreed remediation. I think the defendant just decided that he could wait her out (the "accidentally" unsigned check and then ghosting her for a month). Bad call by Judge Milian here.

[@elvickRULES]

There is no remediation. It’s literally a one sided deal. “Can I have my money back even though I’m not entitled to it?” “Okay” What does he get from that deal? Nothing. So he can change his mind.

[@elvickRULES]

Also wait her out for what she wasn’t entitled to anything back whether he waited 1 second or 50 years. He was always going to be right. And she admitted she didn’t contact him again at all about the check so he didn’t ghost her. They both just moved on but she wanted money so went to sue instead of contact him again.

[@scooneil]

There was remediation. As I said in a post further down, he received two things-- 1: The ability to rent/sell the house a full three weeks (not sure why the judge kept calling it 2 weeks, as it is exactly 3 full weeks from the 11th to the 1st) before he would have under their previous arrangement. And 2- he agreed (and admitted) to placing a value ($200) on the time that he had already held the apartment, which is why he was returning $1k rather than the full $1200. She wasn't entitled to anything UNTIL he agreed to that remediation, which I think he felt that he was forced into by his wife agreeing to a full refund. If he had said "no, my wife was mistaken" then he could have stuck to his guns, but he brokered a new deal. They kind of ghosted each other, but he was the one from whom action was expected (ie: sending a new check), so her "ghosting" is more "waiting." Either way, the law was on his side...until it wasn't by his own doing when he negotiated the remediation. @@elvickRULES

[@chrissyplus5730]

i find it funny how sometimes actions equal new contract and other it don't

[@GigiRulesTheRoost]

she didn't deserve the deposit back. The guy should not have promised anything. I'm glad he won

[@ericachitwood2465]

Hmmm. He said in open court he agreed to remit 1000 back to her. She accepted. Why is this not considered a contract, or a verbal modification of the original contract-esp since the original didn't prohibit modifications. I think the judge missed this one.

[@KayB-l5h]

The plaintiff can talk all quiet but the defendant didn't lie. She was a little sassy but controlled in court. That attitude is what cost her the 1k. She jumped the gun based on what she thought she was entitled to.

[@frankgiuliano380]

Harvey. A refundable deposit! then what's the purpose of the deposit? and you are an attorney..?

[@lauraanne5175]

Why isnt what the wife said "we will return your money" considered a contract

[@G-PAT]

Hello from Connecticut 😎

[@supportvawa2213]

Mountain Maryland.....still in the 90s every day.....I had a little heat exhaustion a few weeks ago and am still recovering.....

[@georgehiotis]

In common law societies there is the concept of contractual pre-eminence you should not have to go to law school to know about this, it should be taught in high school.

[@Queenofbeautiful]

Plaintiff is wayyyy to entitled! If she would’ve been patient MAYBE he would’ve signed the check & resent it AGAIN even though he had no obligation!

[@thatsassyrepublican]

Easy peasy case. So oblivious 🙄 she did a great job of providing all the evidence for the defense. Lowkey I felt a bit bit bad for her lol

[@chinocambo1226]

LOL look at dude in the back high af 9:43 😑😂

[@projectionv.accountability1010]

I disagree- I think she does seem like she can be nasty. She comes across as arrogant and entitled, and that's exactly the type to be "nasty". I believe she was smart enough to not text it... it would have been awesome if he brought phone records. Definitely a correct judgment.

[@keithkemp3008]

She was just not getting it !!! Not the sharpest tool in the shed

[@ChanelArmai]

And she still don’t get it smh.

[@lindaburger2695]

she testified it was a deposit to hold the house from the beginning so how can the plaintif claim it was rent?

[@14kchang]

Study your lease, have your attorney review your lease to make sure you don't trip over yourself.

[@lorirogers9304]

There was no lease.

[@14kchang]

@@lorirogers9304 True. That's why you should always lay out all your closing documents in writing. Otherwise, it's all loosey-goosey.

[@tbecker97204]

Well, NOW she knows about *"Deposits"* (She should-a taken the $1000 bucks!)

[@amandabrown6565]

I thought since he said he would that was an agreement. Yes he legal didn't have to BUT when he agreed to AND sent the check that wasn't signed and then agreed to send another one wouldn't that be an agreement!?

[@34stzoo]

I don’t understand when he agreed to return the thousand dollars. Isn’t that a verbal contract?

[@suga722]

Sent a check that wasn't signed he was playing gamesss

[@kellywilliamson2187]

She is beautiful.

[@gan-ban6083]

Plaintiff just comes off as mean.

[@arianefr78]

This is the earliest I have ever been, it's only been 8 minutes...

[@ashleyschellinger6052]

Surprised she didn’t allow the $1000 since he agreed to it and there was proof he did. She has in other cases before. I think that’s why she went forward with suing cause of that “promise”. But In general it’s dumb to think she would get it back in first.

[@elvickRULES]

The only way it’s legally enforceable is if there’s detrimental reliance. I do think JM has pushed a few deals just because someone said even though there was no reason to but she’s inconsistent.

[@_Some0nerandom_]

Why would she get money back he held the apartment for her for a month missed out on clients it’s a deposit go back to school you can’t be sued for a promise like the judge said he was being nice which he didn’t have to because the family was rude all bets off

[@ashleyschellinger6052]

@@_Some0nerandom_ she shouldn’t get the money back but I’ve seen it many times that if a promise to give back the money is there in writing then the judge has given it back for that reason alone.

[@maryelaine-blinstrubchambe6083]

I love Doug!!!❤

[@joanec4247]

She "f"-ed up.

[@williamapps5564]

Simple case….deposits are non-refundable

[@chuck9380]

The plaintiff is lying like a rug

[@nyekapage7045]

The guy was prettty kool but i would have signed the check since he wanna play i would have said he gave me permission via phone 😂😂😂 wouldn't even be in court got cha😂😂😂

[@lillianwilliams5510]

The landlord seems like he knew he hadn't signed that check He knew exactly what he was doing. I don't think, he ever intended to give her any money back. When he said,if she had acted nice, so what he is saying, he was going to be hard to deal with, if she didn't do as he demanded. I dare say he has refused to return other money to others. Once a lease,contract is signed, for anything it can be difficult to cancel. STUDENTS GET CAUGHT IN A LEASE AND LATER FIND THE HOUSING IS .NOT SAFE OR HAS PROBLEMS, ETC.AND CANT GET OUT OF THE LEASE. SO MANY LEASES HAVE NUMEROUS CLAUSES THAT PROTECT THE LANDLORD. This may have been a rerun because this defendant was on other cases,of being sued as a bad landlord. What,I don't understand, was he renting an apartment or selling a building. Was this a condominium?

[@shaunlewis8484]

She should have been thrown out! Ridiculous!!!

[@maxinef6654]

The defendant purposely didn’t sign the check. 😂

[@essflem]

How is that new check not a new contract? If you look at the post office case with the jewelry, the text messages after the fact made it a new contract.

[@hottuna2006]

A contract requires each party to give up something (duty) in return for something else (consideration). And both parties must of course mutually agree to it What would the consideration for the defendant be for returning $1K?

[@hyperion6]

A contract requires each party to give something and get something else you want in return. That is what a contract is, verbal or not. We don't have a new ontact here, what is he getting from it? We have a promise. There is no law that forces somebody to keep a promise lol.

[@scooneil]

The defendant received two things--1, it releases the hold on the apartment so that he can immediately put it on the market to sell or rent to someone else. 2, it defines the compensation he receives for having held it for the couple of weeks* that he did ($200). It's a new contract. * Did it drive anyone else nuts that the judge kept saying it was two weeks before September 1st? August 11th is 3 full weeks before September 1st. @@hottuna2006

[@mr.unbothered]

ha ha ha ha!!! Thats what she get!!!!!!

[@christianakalaitzi1645]

Apartment Karen really thought she would get her money!

[@blkcubwhtbear5361]

Wow princess is entitled

[@TB-jx4qn]

Plantiff brought her daughter for sympathy points

[@MusicTennis]

lol .. there's been a lot of comments from overly sensitive people that mom shouldn't have brought the child. Why not? It's not a murder trial and she can teach the child about the mistakes that were made. Don't blow up someones phone because you're mad. Bad grandma! 😁

[@TB-jx4qn]

@@MusicTennis why do you care what I post. That long comment 💤

[@MusicTennis]

Oh good you read the whole thing @@TB-jx4qn

[@hyperion6]

It's his fault. He should stop talking to them when she and her family started showning entitlement about the money. This is how you deal with these kind of people. They don't understand about kindness and compromise. They think it's weekness of the other party. And he should sue them for harassment if they kept calling him.