She claimed Ms. Duncan would not open her books.
Judge Judy emphasized that without proof, the defendant could not make such a statement.
She clarified that stating Ms. Duncan lived in a remodeled trailer was fine.
However, adding "with your donations" was not acceptable without evidence.
Lack of Home Visits
The defendant also accused Ms. Duncan of adopting out 30 dogs without home visits.
Judge Judy asked the defendant how she knew this.
The defendant admitted she did not know.
She stated it was what "we were" referring to.
The judge pointed out that without knowing, the defendant could not make such a claim.
Ms. Duncan's Witnesses
Ms. Duncan brought two witnesses.
Dana Diedel was a foster parent for Ms. Duncan's rescue.
Ms. Diedel fostered two dogs.
Joanne Benson-Haffer was another foster parent.
Ms. Benson-Haffer fostered six dogs.
Both witnesses confirmed they fostered dogs for Ms. Duncan.
They also testified that Ms. Duncan's rescue paid for vet bills.
Contradictory Statements About Closure
Ms. Duncan claimed the defendant's defamatory post caused her rescue to close.
However, the defendant presented a Facebook post from Ms. Duncan.
In this post, Ms. Duncan announced the closure of her rescue.
She stated the reason was her husband's cancer.
The post explicitly said the closure had "nothing to do with the post that you may have seen."
Judge Judy confronted Ms. Duncan with this contradiction.
The judge asked which statement was the truth.
Ms. Duncan then stated she closed the rescue because she lost all her supporters.
Judge Judy pressed her on this.
The judge asked if her Facebook post about her husband's cancer was a lie.
Ms. Duncan denied it was a lie.
Damages and Credibility
Judge Judy explained the importance of proving damages.
She noted that lying about her husband's cancer was a serious matter.
Ms. Duncan reiterated that her husband did have cancer.
She maintained that the rescue was going downhill and she was losing supporters.
The judge acknowledged the complexity of the situation.
She had already determined that the defendant should not have made certain statements.
These statements would lead to compensation for Ms. Duncan.
However, Ms. Duncan was seeking a significant amount of money.
To receive a large award, she needed to prove damages.
The Defendant's Lack of Proof
The defendant had accused Ms. Duncan of criminality.
She claimed Ms. Duncan used tax-free money to remodel her trailer.
The defendant also suggested Ms. Duncan used funds to visit friends and neighbors.
Judge Judy noted the defendant had no proof for these accusations.
The defendant admitted she never made a formal request for Ms. Duncan's books and records.
The judge emphasized that accusing someone of criminal behavior without proof is wrong.
The Verdict
Judge Judy found that the defendant had defamed Ms. Duncan.
Specifically, the accusation about remodeling the trailer with donations was defamatory.
The defendant had no proof for this claim.
The judge stated that people must be more careful about what they write.
She reiterated that some statements were acceptable.
For example, "flipping dogs" was an opinion.
Stating Ms. Duncan lived in a remodeled trailer was also acceptable.
However, adding "with your donations" without proof was not.
The Award
Judge Judy awarded Ms. Duncan $500.
This amount was for the defamatory statement regarding the use of donations for her trailer.
Ms. Duncan had been seeking $5,000.
The judge stated that the award was minuscule compared to what Ms. Duncan wanted.
The judge concluded the case.