Yes! The continue to sound like complete idiots… but did she have the authority to use the security deposit as part of the rent?!… Well since you state the security deposit can’t be used as rent and there are no damages… Are you returning the money?! Idiots

Yes, they clearly need to take a course on being a landlord, because the judge took her time and explained it to them and they didn't want to accept her explanation and showed their greediness.

Those two were greedy AF. Good for plaintiff. They still got their rent from the other tenant’s deposit and they STILL want to keep plaintiffs deposit. They keep pulling sh*t like that they’re going to be in court a lot.

@@rocknurse100 Omg! Exactly! Ugh! Greedy, GREEDY!

I was hoping she would end up with double because the letter never went out with her departing about the deposit..that really would have pissex them off and taught them a lesson..

Defendants

@@Rockydogdays 👍

There was no male plaintiff, he was the defendant

Rumor has it HBO is already in negotiations with them to broadcast it and Caesar's Palace wants to host it, they've already hyped it as "Sibling Smackdown at the Palace"

Two defendants are greedy and ignorant AF. They think everyone is as stupid as they actually are.

Not all landords are greedy and unethical.

Sickening

I strongly suspect the defendants knew FULL WELL that the plaintiff had communicated with both the building manager and the father - they just wanted to keep the deposit. It seems quite unlikely to me that they did not at least communicate with the building manager. AND even if they didn't - they DID KNOW that the place got rented - and they were only out of pocket a couple hundred dollars. They should be grateful the place rented and they didn't lose any months. They should also be grateful that the tenant didn't decide to stay and just stop paying the full rent - they did not have to go through eviction proceedings.... either way - really ungrateful landlords. I hope karma catches up with them.

@@burtonm3220 It Will if they keep this sh*t up.

They're both very thickheaded.

@@Channel-JJ and money-grubbing. 🤑🤑

They chose to rent it out cheaper. So, in my opinion they shouldn’t be allowed to keep any money

Greedy and dumb.

And I don’t think they should have even got the $200! The father okayed her leaving early. He didn’t make the $200 a stipulation.

In the future I hope she learns how this family tried to play her

@JustMemesum how you present yourself is everything

@@payableondeath9091 in person is what matters, always has

@JustMemes I think the OP meant background literally. No mess IN the background of the move out pictures. Lol.

No hoarder mess in the background 😂😂😂😂😂😂 hahahahahgaga

I hope they watched this and saw how bad they made themselves look and how stupid they sounded. The plaintiff was very honest and conscientious. These idiots were so blinded by $$$ they couldn’t appreciate what she did for them. Son at the end STILL wanting another thousand more dollars from the plaintiff for the other tenant even though they kept her deposit!!! Outrageous.

I think the dad is too old to remember what he agreed with the plaintiff

There are way too many family members involved in the leasing of this apartment. WTF?

@@mysticaccy , 😀😊😄

@@rachelharper3778 , For real

@@rachelharper3778 indeed red flag

And on the next case of The People's Court

It’s kind of telling that the dad kept the ex-son in law to be the property manager and the daughter left! Probably liked him better!

@@Dennismadeacomment 👍

@@nancybez 👍

i don’t get why the father isn’t mentally there enough to be in court but is to be dealing with tenants? surely, he should either not be dealing with tenants if he’s as bad as his kids claim and never communicated about his tenant leaving to them or he can stand with his kids in court at least. it’s so odd, the defendants are assholes and had a terrible attitude esp the woman either way

If it's not worth fighting for, why didn't the defendants just give it to her then?

@@citytrees1752 they thought she had no case because they had no idea what they were doing and prob didn’t think she knew any better

@@cameronbolden5064 Thought she was as stupid as they clearly are. 🤣🤣🤣

Yet if the roles were reversed, that Karen-ass defendant would sue for $20 if she felt wronged. It's hella convenient for her to proclaim it's not worth fighting when she's the one with the money on her side.

be careful the real slim shady is always looking for people to make a buck off of 😂

*woman Or young woman at least Not “young girl “

@@Channel-JJ Shady AF. Greedy AF, too. They better let Andrew handle things or they’ll keep getting sued (and fined). $$$$$

@@rocknurse100 👍

Technically the plaintiff and her roommate could have taken advantage of the no rent requirement the government enforced during Covid. Yes they would have owed later but very hard to collect!

Plus his point was completely irrelevant. Do you see her roommate having an issue with it? They were just trying to get money any way they could. Talk about greedy and desperate

@@princessrockman9528 exactly!!! I wish the judge would have asked if they made any effort to return the deposit to the roommate before the case 😂😂

I wish he would’ve gotten it in so I could see Judge M eviscerate him.

I think it's even worst that she had to pay the $200 they are out because they chose to rent it at a lower amount! Probably rented it to a friend at the lower rate, that's not a her problem!

I have to agree. I’m surprised that the judge didn’t hassle them about their father or the ex not being there since THEY are the ones who did most of the negotiating with the tenant.

That’s fair,@@kimmccormack9905

@James: It's called the non-curable disease: *Greed*

@@pchelloo Exactly. They didn't want to be made whole; they wanted to profit. Greedy and dishonest.

All they can see is $$$ in their pockets.

Well they get less money for appearing from the show if she wins.

Ya, and bring bedbugs in lol

Yes. Every single Landlord has tried to cheat me out of deposit. I had to take each one to court and won every single time.

The defendants were FOS.

Seriously, simple as 1-2-3…defendants are ridiculous!!

It was like talking to a brick wall. Nothing was getting through to them. 🙄

@@joannasmith9833 No they’re just worried about how much $ they can put in their own pockets.

That was my thought. Since when does real estate go down in value?

Because the lease had an end date and the renter didn't pay the agreed upon amount all the way to that date . So landlord lost $200. Now if its after the lease end date than you would be correct.

@@dennisroldan6224 Bullshit, the landlord is the one that rented it 100 dollars less than what he was getting, that's on him not the tenant.

Yes, because if they keep f-ing with tenants like this they’re going to keep getting sued.

Right! And if they took the other roommate that got laid off to court they would be the first to say they kept the security deposit for June rent since there was no damages. Get your story straight 🤦🏽‍♀️

@@diamond2241 they're just ridiculous. I don't even think they should've been allowed to keep the $200. Renting it for less didn't have anything to do with her.

They are both on the lease so they are jointly and severally liable for the entire rent. Landlords do this so that, if one of the roommate tenants drops the ball they can sue any or all of them collectively to recoup what is owed. While they can sue any/or all collectively they can only collect the sum owed once. That is why the plaintiff could technically be held accountable for the roommate’s half of rent, if the defendants didn’t have the roommate’s security deposit to apply to the June shortfall. You note they didn’t sue either of them for either the shortfall in the June rent, or the rents for July & August. Even though their own lease says the security deposits can’t be used for last month’s rent, that is exactly what they did with the roommate’s half since you notice they didn’t return it to the roommate. If they are going to hold the plaintiff to the no security can be applied to the rent then, in addition to sending a letter & cheque to the plaintiff outlining why they were keeping her deposit (minus what she said she would pay to offset their loss) they should have also sent a letter to the renter/roommate who left with a cheque for her security deposit back which, of course they didn’t do.

@@TravelingBibliophile she can’t be liable for the rent if you are keeping the security deposit for the rent. Once they admitted they never returned the roommates security AND admitted there was no damages.. it was over for them. No leg left to stand on. They never even tried to sue the other roommate or mentioned being damaged by her departure. They were simply just being greedy. Case closed.

@@oodief88 I agree and did not understand that either. If they would have chose to rent it for $1500 would she have had to pay $600 per month left of the lease. Why was that a cause of action? I work in property management and real estate so I’m going to have to look that up.

They didn't want to return the plaintiff's security bc they felt the rent should be paid and not come from the security. Despite that the roommate's security could and did apply. But then I doubt they wouldve given the roommate her security back either. Despite that it was rented the following month. As the female defendant states, she didn't think the plaintiff deserved it. Plaintiff has permission to break the lease. Just because they have 4 people who have zero communication between each other to determine that is ludicrous.

Pure craziness.

I’m watching PC on TV right now. Season 25 episode 22. Plaintiff and her son have matching fake eyebrows.

And they need to first learn the law.

I'm willing to believe that the dad did discuss things and it's why he wasn't present for the court case. Totally understand he's 92 but they easily could've had him appear to speak and say one way or the other.

You know what it sound like the father runs the show and trying to pass it to his kids. The kids are greedy and tried to keep the 1k for themselves

The defendants were FOS. They’re going to ruin a good thing with their absolute ignorance of the law. And greed.

Then asked how was she able to use the money on the other roommates behalf.. how is she using money if she paid her half of rent for the month of June? They are truly greedy humans. Like someone else said.. they will definitely fight over the inheritance when the time comes.

I don't think the previous tenet should be responsible for that. They decided to rent it for less. Real estate does not go down in value.

@@mexicanspec agreed BUT she had a lease for a certain amount so she has to pay. But it does make me question why they rented for less.

Yes - and it is very important for landlords and tenants to know their rights and the law.

These are the kind of kids who get parents declared incompetent so they can control their assets. Low down and greedy.

They'll be scamming their father soon if they haven't already.

Yes.

Blinded by $$$.

You said it. I imagine if one looks hard enough she can be found on at least half a dozen "Karen" videos 😂

@@Channel-JJ 😂😂😂

a greedy Ken and Karen sibling duo

Or the actual property manager.

That’s only for certain states. It’s also SOMETIMES only if it’s malicious intent according to a previous case

I love her natural look and eye brows too