FULL VIDEO AT THE END OF THE POST
The Car Purchase and Initial Agreement
Ms. Lau and Mr. Pierce appeared before Judge Judy.
They were a couple in 2017.
They had one child together.
Ms. Lau had a car, a 2002 Jeep Liberty.
She wanted to trade it in.
The car was too small for their combined family.
Mr. Pierce also had children from a previous relationship.
They decided to get a larger SUV.
Ms. Lau stated she wanted a car for herself.
She did not want it for the family.
She traded in her old car.
The new car was purchased in May 2017.
Both Ms. Lau and Mr. Pierce are on the car loan.
The car is titled and registered only in Ms. Lau's name.
Judge Judy noted this detail.
The Separation and Car Possession
The couple separated in November 2017.
Ms. Lau left the house.
Mr. Pierce took possession of the car.
Ms. Lau claimed Mr. Pierce took the keys from her.
She stated he took the car away from her.
Judge Judy asked how he got the car if Ms. Lau left.
Ms. Lau explained they lived together.
She left the house.
Mr. Pierce remained with the car.
The Dispute Over Car Payments and Credit
Ms. Lau stated Mr. Pierce was supposed to take care of the car.
She claimed he was late on payments.
Her credit was being affected.
Mr. Pierce stated he has been making payments on the car.
He also claimed he paid for the car insurance.
His insurance company is Allstate.
Judge Judy noted the risks of unmarried couples buying assets together.
She stated that intertwining finances can lead to problems.
Unpaid Taxes and Registration Issues
Ms. Lau stated there were taxes due on the car.
She went to register her car.
Her payment was used to pay off registration taxes for the SUV.
She claimed Mr. Pierce was supposed to pay these taxes.
Mr. Pierce lives in Connecticut.
Cars in Connecticut are registered every two years.
Ms. Lau stated the unpaid car tax was $3,000.
Judge Judy asked what the taxes were for.
Ms. Lau said they were for the car Mr. Pierce was driving.
Mr. Pierce claimed he could not register the car.
He stated the title was in Ms. Lau's name.
He believed only a judge's court order could remove her from the title.
He said he could not do anything with the vehicle.
Judge Judy disagreed with this assessment.
She stated it is very easy to register a car.
She said all he had to do was pay the money.
Contradictions Regarding Car Usage
Ms. Lau claimed Mr. Pierce took the car without her permission.
However, she did not report the car stolen.
Judge Judy pointed out this contradiction.
She asked Ms. Lau if she gave him permission to use the car.
Ms. Lau hesitated to answer directly.
Judge Judy concluded that Mr. Pierce was using the car with her permission.
This was based on Ms. Lau not reporting it stolen.
Mr. Pierce claimed the car had been parked since 2017.
Ms. Lau disputed this.
She stated he was driving it for his job.
Judge Judy expressed disbelief about the car being parked for so long.
The Back-and-Forth Relationship
The couple's relationship history was complex.
They officially broke up two months after getting the car.
Ms. Lau lived with Mr. Pierce until November 2017.
She moved out in December 2017.
They got back together in May of an unspecified year.
They broke up again in July of that same year.
Ms. Lau moved out again in August 2018.
During this time, Mr. Pierce allegedly promised to remove Ms. Lau from the loan.
He also promised to pay for the car.
Judge Judy's Assessment of the Situation
Judge Judy acknowledged the difficulty of the situation.
She stated she could not force Mr. Pierce to remove Ms. Lau from the loan.
She reiterated that both parties were on the loan.
If Mr. Pierce stopped making payments, both would be pursued.
Ms. Lau confirmed her credit was being affected by late payments.
Judge Judy emphasized the lesson.
She stated people should not buy cars together when not married.
She also advised against taking out loans together when not married.
She called it a very good lesson.
The Outstanding Tax Amount
The court identified the exact amount of outstanding car tax.
The amount was $1,286.67.
This was for the Ford Explorer.
This amount was due for unpaid car tax.
It was Ms. Lau's responsibility as the registered owner.
Judge Judy clarified that Mr. Pierce had the car.
The Verdict
Judge Judy issued a judgment for the plaintiff.
The judgment was for $1,286.67.
This amount was for the outstanding car taxes.
Mr. Pierce was ordered to pay Ms. Lau this amount.
Judge Judy stated that Mr. Pierce would pay the $1,286.67 to register the car.
However, he would not get the registration directly.
The registration was in Ms. Lau's name.
Ms. Lau would have to cooperate with him.
She would receive notification from the state of Connecticut.
Ms. Lau claimed all notifications were sent to Mr. Pierce's house.
She said he never notified her about anything.
Judge Judy suggested Ms. Lau go to motor vehicles.
Final Outcome
The case concluded with the judgment.
Mr. Pierce was ordered to pay Ms. Lau $1,286.67.
This covered the unpaid car taxes.
Judge Judy highlighted the financial risks for unmarried couples.
She called the situation "ridiculous."