EVENING....SAME THING I STATED SMH

Behind every joke, there's a little truth

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

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!

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

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

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

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

😂 entitled brats like her are NEVER wrong 😂

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

They never do 🙄

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

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.

Doesn't miss a beat lol

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

Evening!

Cheers! (fellow lefty) 🇦🇺🍻🦘

Grand evening!!!

Hola

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

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.

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

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

​@@0ddddduckit'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.

My thoughts exactly!

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

@@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.

Always 😂

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

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

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?

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

@@hottuna2006 I agree 👍

@@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.

🤦🏻‍♀️

And this is why you are not a lawyer.

​@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.

@@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.

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

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

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

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

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).

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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

@@JayTheDodo SHE'S AN IDIOT

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

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.

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

​@@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.

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

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?

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.

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

@@_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.

There was no lease.

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

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"

She’s not entitled to one and you can’t enforce empty promises motivated by being nice. “I’ll give you $20.” *never does* that is not a lawsuit. Yet by your standard it would become one. He gained nothing by returning money she wasn’t entitled to so she STILL isn’t entitled to the money.

@@elvickRULES I never said the word Entitled that was you. My thing was not if she was entitled originally but he sent her a check for $1,000 as he admitted and he said to the judge that he offered her $1,000 back. It’s not about being entitled, it’s about admitting to something that you did. Rewatch it and see how many times he admits to offering her a refund. He should Never have offered it in the first place.

🤠👋🤠👋 Howdy, y'all!

You might want to look up the definitions of mail fraud and wire fraud. For starters, an act has to be illegal for it to be fraud in the legal sense. He didn’t do anything illegal, as Judge Milian pointed out. And this has nothing to do with wiring anything.

Do you even know what fraud is? Seriously.

He has no obligation to give her anything so why would he bother to send a check and not sign it? He forgot. And then realized he was being nice to an asshole so didn’t bother to send another

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

No. You are wrong. If he didn't rent it in September he can keep the 1st month rent. That's the law, you may compromise as a property manager, but that's the law.

@@hyperion6 nope not the law 😂 no possession, no rent can be collected. By law. I literally pulled up the C.A.R lease and it states that

@@hyperion6 you're thinking of if someone moved in even for 1 minute Which by the way, still isn't true, as they'd only be liable for how many days in the unit max. Not the whole month. Although there is 30 days notice required, but again, AGAIN, that's if you take possession. They never did, therefore the landlord is in the wrong to keep more then the holding fee

The check wasnt for the first month rent. It was to hold the property. She literally wrote on the check ‘to hold the house.” This would technically be a holding fee/deposit. Just because the plaintiff ‘says’ it was the first month rent, doesn’t make it true. Plaintiff knew it was a deposit, not rent. Edit: ‘’september rent to hold apartment’’ is verbatim per 2:30

@@danir6695 plantiff and defendant admitted it was only like $100-$200 for the holding deposit. The rest was merely a prepayment. Still refundable by law no matter what's written on the check. It's one thing if the landlord stuck with that as the holding deposit, he didn't and even sent money back admitting that was more then the actual holding deposit Again, landlord and judge is in the wrong here

A contract requires each side to get something. What was he getting out of it? Nothing. He was just being nice. And you can go “wait, I don’t have to do this. ✌️ “ in those cases. Unless there is a detrimental reliance. Like saying “I’ll pay half for X.” And then that person relying on you saying that pays for X even though it is otherwise not to their benefit of the person. So changing your mind doesn’t t matter there because there was detrimental reliance on your word

I really like that this case proves a litigant can lose big time. Yeah she gets the $250 appearance fee but lost a grand when she had it in her hand. By suing she forced the Judge to look at the only thing that mattered ... "the deposit is non refundable". The defendant was never obligated once she rolled the dice and sued him for the whole $1200 enchilada.