The Verdict with Judge Glenda Hatchett: Mommy's Meltdown & Volunteer Violation

[@lauralee60]

I would sue my friend too if I left them responsible for my property..yup 100% Especially when I give them explicit instructions not to let unstable people in

[@Martha-zf7gv]

Judge is wrong. How dare you not Hold the defendant responsible.😢 How dare you

[@lauralee60]

@@Martha-zf7gv yeah..I was so confused.I hope he holds her responsible for the damage

[@JOSEPHwHAN]

Damn. He trusted his boy but his boy fell weak to puppy eyes..

[@bonniecropper9915]

In that first case the best friend knew the situation and like the guy said he likes to stir up stuff and to me likes drama. He knew what she was capable of when he let her in. It's just crazy.

[@puremotion2212]

Wow, how is it possible to trust a "friend" after she kisses your fiancé ?

[@cheikhsarr5176]

The defendant is totally responsible for the fish tank damage. He is paid to watch over it. I don't agree with the judge's ruling.

[@sherreefelstead4013]

Case #1: it saddens me when long-time friends end up in court. The plaintiff is making his bad behavior towards his girlfriend his friend's problem. For shame. Case #2: I think the plaintiff wanted to sabotage her friend's wedding and life out of jealousy or envy.

[@karenoconnor4180]

I think a normal person would sue the person that actually destroyed the fish tank .. He would have 100% won his case if he’d have gone down that obvious route 🙄

[@14kchang]

He was thinking with his hormones instead of his brain. He couldn't be bothered to pick up the phone to check in with his girlfriend and say what he was really doing.

[@inutukawana7408]

First case, total toxicity. Why were they even together 🙄 kept calling her unstable.

[@14kchang]

The judge is right in the first case: why would you want to be around a spoiled, unfaithful jerk as a friend? I don't think he deserves a good friend like the first defendant. His calm facade is just a facade. He's not the perfect gentleman he claims to be. There's a passion in his heart and like all uptight men, when he releases that pent-up passion, it's overwhelming. He's thinking, "Why can't my world be perfect the way I want it? Why doesn't it understand me? Why don't women want me?" Because I think ladies don't want him if he's a two-faced snake.

[@twilderlm2559]

Judge shld've @ least got his 500 back

[@emmytheghost627]

Thats what i was going to say, his sole purpose of being there and getting paid was to watch over the fish tank and dogs. he didn't do that. therefore his payment should be annulled. the 4000 is ridiculous and should be brought up to the gf instead

[@tjbooker9948]

2nd case. In order for her to come in the middle of them, they'd all have to be in the same bed 🥳😏

[@aliciamackie5876]

I disagree wholeheartedly with the first verdict.

[@colors5778]

He should have sued her she's the one that broke the fish tank smh he the one that drove her crazy cheating known knowing she have low self esteem that he caused so I don't feel sorry for him I hope Karma comes back and bite him🤦🏿‍♀️.😎

[@leonidasspyropoulos849]

Sorry judge, with all due respect, the defendant Jacob Jakes if fully responsible. The terms were clear, do not let her in the house. He left her alone for a long time thinking this way he is avoiding responsibility. So immature, so disrespectful. She played him with fake tears and had her way. He is 100% liable for all the damages. The agreement was 500 dollars to not let her in the house. The plaintiff is such a good person. Apparently he cannot get rid of her so technically he is not cheating. Judge you let your emotion cloud your logic and you did wrong to a good person the plaintiff.

[@twilderlm2559]

2nd sounds like Something Borrowed... but n the movie the wedding never happened / they got 2gether. That said... she kicked her friend out but kept dude who is untrustworthy. Dumb Dumb.

[@krispricediy8421]

I believe she deserved her money back in the 2nd case. If you forgave your now husband enough to still marry him. He was there for the kiss too and did not tell you. He wasn’t banned from the wedding but she was. So she should’ve gotten her money back. To condemn her alone & not him is ridiculous.

[@twilderlm2559]

Agree

[@raulcastillo2286]

I don't agree with the second verdict at all because she didn't want her best friend in the wedding because she kissed her fiance but yet it was okay for her fiance to kiss her is she still married him that was totally wrong she should have given at least the money for the bachelorette party but I think she should have gotten it all

[@philipmc8696]

I disagree with both verdicts. A partial statement should have been made on both atleast