FULL VIDEO AT THE END OF THE POST
Family Ties and Business Needs
Ms. Sanders, the plaintiff, brought a case against her cousin by marriage, Mr. DePina.
Mr. DePina is her nephew through marriage.
Ms. Sanders has been married for two years.
She and her husband have been together for 14 years.
This means she has known Mr. DePina for 14 years.
Ms. Sanders owns a furniture and consignment store.
Her store shares space with King's Appliances.
She also manages King's Appliances as a favor for the shared store space.
Mr. DePina worked as a delivery driver for King's Appliances.
He also helped Ms. Sanders with furniture deliveries.
He used King's Appliance's truck for these deliveries.
An Emergency Situation
A critical situation arose for Ms. Sanders.
On September 25th, her nine-year-old son needed emergency surgery.
This required her to leave her business.
Her business was small and could not afford employees.
Closing the store would hurt her business.
She asked Mr. DePina for help.
She asked him to cover her store.
She also offered him her car.
The car would allow him to get to and from work.
It would also help her business stay open.
The Driver's License Question
Ms. Sanders stated she had asked Mr. DePina about his driver's license previously.
She asked him when King's Appliances was interested in hiring him.
She approached him with the opportunity to be a delivery driver.
She asked him if he had a driver's license.
He responded, "yeah, no problem."
Based on this, she believed he had a license.
She did not ask him again about his license when she gave him her car.
Mr. DePina had been working for King's Appliances for about a month.
He would sometimes ride with Ms. Sanders to work.
He also occasionally took the bus.
He was hired by her to be her driver for her consignment shop.
He was also a driver for King's Appliances.
The Impoundment
On September 27th, Mr. DePina was driving Ms. Sanders' car.
He was pulled over for running a red light.
The car was impounded.
Mr. DePina informed Ms. Sanders about the impoundment.
He told her the officer said she could pick up the car on Monday.
However, this was not the case.
Ms. Sanders had to go through a phone interview.
This interview was to validate the car's impoundment.
She then had to pay fees to retrieve it.
The Defendant's Claim
Mr. DePina submitted a written answer to the court.
In his answer, he stated he told Ms. Sanders he had a restricted license.
He claimed this restricted license only allowed him to go to and from work.
He wrote that Ms. Sanders was "fine with that because she was in a jam."
He believed he had a restricted license at the time.
He later found out his license was suspended.
The suspension was due to an old DUI that he had not addressed.
Judge Judy Questions the License Status
Judge Judy questioned Mr. DePina about his written answer.
She read his statement aloud.
"I told her I had a restricted license that only allowed me to go to and from work."
She asked him if he made these things up.
Mr. DePina initially claimed he believed he had a restricted license.
He then admitted he had "no license" at all.
Judge Judy pointed out the contradiction.
She stated he lied in his answer.
Mr. DePina denied lying.
He said he believed he had a restriction at the moment.
Plaintiff's Perspective on the License
Ms. Sanders shook her head at Mr. DePina's claim of a restricted license.
She stated she would not think that would come up in conversation.
She said she had never asked anyone if they had a restricted license.
She assumes people have a license if she sees them driving.
Her initial question about his license was for King's Appliances.
She had already been informed he had a license.
Therefore, she did not ask him again when she needed his help.
Financial Hardship and Avoidance
Ms. Sanders presented receipts for the impound fees.
These receipts were taped to the bottom of a document.
She also presented a document she assumed was from the officer.
She stated she never received a ticket for running the red light.
Her car was eventually retrieved and was at home.
Ms. Sanders stated that Mr. DePina changed his phone number three times.
Her husband tried to reach him each time.
They could not get ahold of him.
She said this caused a major financial hardship on her family.
She and her husband did not require large sums of money from him.
They would have been happy with $20 or $50 here and there.
She considered him family.
However, he never tried to reconcile the situation.
Judge Judy's Ruling
Judge Judy addressed Mr. DePina directly.
She stated he is not supposed to drive a car without a license.
Mr. DePina acknowledged this.
Judge Judy mentioned the DUI.
She stated that if he gets a DUI, he is supposed to take care of it.
She charged Mr. DePina for the plaintiff.
The amount awarded was two thousand four hundred and thirty-eight dollars.
The Aftermath
Mr. DePina expressed his feelings after the ruling.
He stated he was just trying to do a favor for a family member.
He felt they would have never treated their family like that.
He acknowledged that things happen.
He claimed he contacted them several times.
He said he left voicemails.
He felt he could have come through and compensated them financially for his mistake.
Ms. Sanders and Mr. DePina are now estranged.
They do not talk anymore.
Mr. DePina concluded by saying, "don't do business with family."