FULL VIDEO AT THE END OF THE POST
The Dog Adoption and Prior Incident
The case before Judge Judy involved a dispute over a dog attack.
Ms. Holmesie, the defendant, had adopted a dog approximately two and a half years prior to the court date.
The judge asked about a prior incident involving Ms. Holmesie's dog.
Ms. Holmesie initially stated that the prior incident happened before she adopted the dog.
She claimed she did not have the dog when that incident occurred.
The judge asked for the year of the incident.
Ms. Holmesie responded that she did not know.
The plaintiff's side indicated they had a copy of the incident report.
Judge Judy requested to see the incident report.
Questioning the Muzzle Requirement
Judge Judy then questioned Ms. Holmesie directly.
She asked if Ms. Holmesie adopted a dog knowing it was required to be muzzled when out.
Ms. Holmesie asked if she could explain.
Judge Judy granted her permission to explain.
Ms. Holmesie stated that when she adopted the dog, she was told it did not do well in a family setting with five children.
Judge Judy interrupted, stating she wanted to know if Ms. Holmesie was aware of the muzzle requirement.
Ms. Holmesie denied being aware of any muzzle requirement when she adopted the dog.
She reiterated that she adopted the dog about two and a half years ago.
The Defendant's Explanation for Muzzling
Judge Judy then asked Ms. Holmesie to explain the circumstances under which she found out the dog required a muzzle.
Ms. Holmesie claimed she "just decided to put a muzzle on him."
Judge Judy immediately dismissed this explanation as "ridiculous" and "baloney."
Ms. Holmesie insisted it was the truth.
She stated she decided to keep a muzzle on the dog because she did not want anyone cutting her dog.
Judge Judy again called this "baloney."
She stated that she is 76 years old and has owned many dogs, but never muzzled one "just in case."
Ms. Holmesie then brought up her insurance background.
She claimed she had seen many claims and stories related to dog incidents.
Judge Judy's Disbelief
Judge Judy found Ms. Holmesie's explanation highly improbable.
She summarized Ms. Holmesie's claims.
Ms. Holmesie claimed she did not know the dog was ordered to be muzzled when she adopted him.
Then, later, she "just so happened to think" it was a good idea to muzzle her dog.
Judge Judy asked if Ms. Holmesie expected the court to believe this story.
Ms. Holmesie maintained it was the truth.
Judge Judy firmly stated, "That's baloney. That's baloney, Miss Homsey."
Ms. Holmesie continued to insist it was the truth.
Reviewing the Incident Report
Judge Judy then began reading from the incident report.
The report was dated March 23, 2017.
This date was significant because Ms. Holmesie had adopted the dog approximately two and a half years prior to the court date.
This meant the March 23, 2017 incident occurred after Ms. Holmesie adopted the dog.
The report detailed a prior biting incident involving the dog.
This directly contradicted Ms. Holmesie's earlier claim that she did not have the dog when the prior incident happened.
It also contradicted her claim that she was unaware of any prior biting incidents after adoption.
Contradictions Regarding Prior Bites
Judge Judy pressed Ms. Holmesie on the prior biting incident.
Ms. Holmesie had initially stated the dog bit before she adopted it.
She then claimed she "just decided to put a muzzle on him" due to her insurance background.
Judge Judy pointed out that the incident happened after Ms. Holmesie adopted the dog.
This revealed a significant inconsistency in Ms. Holmesie's testimony.
Judge Judy stated, "You're going to pay all of her bills."
She also informed Ms. Holmesie that her counterclaim would be dismissed.
Defendant's Protest and Further Lies
Ms. Holmesie protested, stating, "She never asked me."
Judge Judy dismissed this, saying, "I don't care."
Ms. Holmesie tried to interject again.
Judge Judy firmly told her, "Listen to me."
Judge Judy then accused Ms. Holmesie of lying at least twice.
She stated Ms. Holmesie lied about the dog having no history of biting once she adopted it.
The judge confirmed that the dog had bitten before.
She also stated Ms. Holmesie lied when she claimed she had no knowledge of that prior to adoption.
Judge Judy's Final Assessment of Credibility
Judge Judy reiterated Ms. Holmesie's inconsistent statements.
Ms. Holmesie claimed she had no knowledge of the dog's biting history when she adopted it.
She then claimed she decided to muzzle the dog simply because she was in insurance and thought it was a good idea.
Judge Judy concluded that "All those things, all those things were not truthful."
She emphasized that if someone chooses to have a dog that bites, they must pay for the consequences.
The Verdict and Award
Judge Judy ruled in favor of the plaintiff.
She awarded the plaintiff $3,000.
Ms. Holmesie's counterclaim was dismissed.
Ms. Holmesie reacted by saying, "That's not right, your honor."
She also claimed the plaintiff "came to arrest me."
Judge Judy simply stated, "I have to claim dismissed. We're done."
The parties were then excused from the courtroom.
Post-Verdict Reactions
The plaintiff described the incident as "totally traumatic."
She thought her dog had been killed.
She also feared the defendant's dog was about to attack her in front of her three-year-old child.
The plaintiff expressed hope that this would not happen to another person.
She described being involved in a dog attack as "the most powerless feeling."
The plaintiff was "beyond thrilled" that justice had occurred.
She was glad that all the dogs were okay.
She also thanked Judge Judy.