FULL VIDEO AT THE END OF THE POST
Long-Standing Neighbors, Recent Tensions
Mr. Newell and Mr. Tesmar found themselves in Judge Judy's courtroom.
Their dispute centered on a damaged fence.
Mr. Newell, the plaintiff, had lived in his home for 30 years.
Mr. Tesmar, the defendant, had owned his property for six years and lived there for about 12.
Prior to the fence incident, difficulties already existed between the two neighbors.
The Night of the Party
The incident involving the fence occurred in June of 2015.
Mr. Newell claimed Mr. Tesmar hosted a party at his house.
He alleged that this party directly led to the damage of his fence.
Mr. Newell recounted waking up around midnight or 12:30 AM.
He heard a loud party at Mr. Tesmar's house.
The noise level steadily increased.
Mr. Newell got up and opened his bedroom window screen.
His window was only 15 to 20 feet from the property line fence.
He observed smoke coming from a fire pit on Mr. Tesmar's property.
Flames Erupt
Suddenly, the flames in the fire pit shot up to six feet high.
Mr. Newell saw a man standing directly on the other side of the fire pit.
He believed this man threw gasoline into the fire.
The sudden ignition lit up the man's face.
Mr. Newell described it as being "like a photo."
He could clearly see the man.
Police Involvement
Mr. Newell decided to call the police.
He initially thought he called around 12:30 AM.
He later clarified it was closer to 1:30 AM or 2:00 AM.
Judge Judy reviewed the police report Mr. Newell provided.
The report indicated police were dispatched at 2:38 AM.
They arrived at the scene at 2:56 AM.
Mr. Newell claimed the police came twice that night.
He stated that people were still at the party during the first police visit.
However, the police report he possessed stated no one was there upon arrival.
Mr. Newell did not have a report for the first police visit.
He suggested the first visit might have been a drive-by.
Discovering the Damage
A couple of days after the party, Mr. Newell noticed damage to his fence.
He described the damage as a warped panel.
He subsequently spoke to Mr. Tesmar about the fence damage.
Mr. Newell sought $1,100 for the repair.
Mr. Tesmar's Account of the Party
Mr. Tesmar confirmed he had a party.
He admitted to having a fire in the fire pit.
He stated his guests arrived after the bars closed.
This was between 12:00 AM and 1:00 AM.
He acknowledged that his guests had been drinking before arriving.
Mr. Tesmar also admitted that the fire in the pit did get larger later in the evening.
However, he claimed he did not know which guest poured the inflammatory substance.
He had four guests in total.
Defendant's Denial of Fire Damage
Mr. Tesmar disputed that the fire caused the fence damage.
He described the fence's condition as a "mild bowl."
He attributed this to Mr. Newell's wife.
Mr. Tesmar claimed she climbed on the fence.
He said she used a bench as a backrest against it.
He also mentioned dirt pushing against the fence.
Mr. Tesmar argued that if the fire was as intense as Mr. Newell claimed, his nearby guest house with vinyl siding would have been damaged.
He believed alcohol thrown on a fire would only create a "plume," not significant damage.
Fence Condition and Evidence
Mr. Newell presented photographs of the fence.
The pictures showed warpage ranging from 0.5 inches to 2 inches.
He also provided an estimate to fix the fence.
Mr. Tesmar pointed out a bench leaning against the fence in pictures.
He also mentioned dirt pushing against it.
Judge Judy asked about the specific panel in question.
Both parties confirmed it was the middle panel.
The Counterclaim
Mr. Tesmar also presented a counterclaim against Mr. Newell.
His counterclaim concerned property lines and the placement of Mr. Newell's dock.
The properties shared lake access.
Mr. Tesmar stated that Mr. Newell's dock was connected to his property.
He claimed Mr. Newell was "overtaking his area."
Both properties were in the same subdivision.
They were located across a road from the lake.
Neither Mr. Newell nor Mr. Tesmar owned the lakeside property directly.
They owned a percentage of it.
Mr. Newell stated his dock had been in the same spot for 30 years.
He also mentioned owning two deeded access points.
This entitled him to two spots on the lake.
Mr. Tesmar alleged that Mr. Newell moved his dock.
He claimed this prevented him from parking his boat.
Judge Judy's Questions on the Counterclaim
Judge Judy questioned the nature of the shared lake access.
She asked if the town had jurisdiction over dock placement.
Mr. Tesmar indicated he had contacted various authorities.
He stated that no one had taken care of the issue.
He believed town enforcement should address the dock placement.
The Verdict
Judge Judy dismissed Mr. Tesmar's counterclaim.
She stated that if the dock placement was against the law, the town needed to handle it.
She then addressed the fence damage.
Judge Judy ruled in favor of Mr. Newell.
She ordered Mr. Tesmar to pay Mr. Newell $1,100 for the fence.