FULL VIDEO AT THE END OF THE POST
The On-Again, Off-Again Relationship
Miss King and the defendant had an on-again, off-again relationship for several years.
They were living in a house owned by the defendant at the time of their breakup.
Miss King stated that she stayed in the house with his permission after he left.
The defendant denied giving her permission to stay.
She claimed he came home that night and assaulted her.
Property Disputes and Protective Orders
Miss King was subsequently put out of the house.
The house was in the defendant's name.
She claimed that when she returned weeks later, after a protective order against her was lifted, her property was gone.
She stated he cleared out the entire house.
The defendant filed an ex-parte temporary order of protection against Miss King.
This meant he went to court alone to get the order.
Miss King claimed he filed eight such orders.
She stated she filed one protective order in 2009.
The defendant claimed Miss King took some of his property.
He also claimed she had been harassing him.
The Car Purchase Controversy
Miss King claimed she purchased a car in September 2013.
She used her own settlement funds for the purchase.
The car cost $4,200.
The car was titled in both her name and the defendant's name.
She presented a check for $4,690 from September 2013.
This check was made out to the defendant.
The defendant claimed he purchased the car before Miss King received her settlement.
He stated the $4,690 check was for other purposes.
He claimed $3,500 was for a lawyer for a child custody battle.
He also claimed $1,100 was for clothes he had advanced her.
Judge Judy Questions the Check
Judge Judy asked the defendant about the $4,690 check.
She asked if he had evidence of paying the lawyer $3,500.
The defendant stated he gave the lawyer a money order for $3,500.
Judge Judy questioned why he used a money order when he had a bank account.
She stated that nobody with a checking account goes to buy a money order to pay a lawyer.
The defendant insisted he bought the car.
He claimed Miss King did not even know about the purchase.
Judge Judy asked him to show proof of the car purchase.
He said he could show proof in a different manner.
He admitted he did not have what Judge Judy was asking for at that moment.
The Car Title
Judge Judy asked the defendant if he had the title to the car.
He responded that he had the title.
He claimed the title was with his lawyer.
Miss King stated she had a copy of the title.
Judge Judy told the defendant he had two choices.
He could either sign the car over to Miss King.
Alternatively, Judge Judy would notify the Department of Motor Vehicles in Illinois.
She would order them to transfer the title to Miss King free and clear.
Judge Judy stated she did not believe a word he said.
She emphasized that proving funds for the car was crucial.
The defendant then mentioned refinancing the car.
He said they refinanced the vehicle.
Judge Judy stated that refinancing was a different story.
She said if Miss King bought the car and they refinanced it together, that would be fine.
The Engagement Ring Dispute
The engagement ring also became a point of contention.
Miss King claimed the engagement ring was pawned by both of them.
She stated it was pawned for $300.
She alleged the defendant used the money for phone bills.
Miss King had the pawn ticket.