The Custody Arrangement
Miss Bixby rented a house from the plaintiffs in 2012.
She needed the house because she had received permanent custody of her three grandchildren.
The children's mother is Miss Small.
Miss Small is Miss Bixby's daughter.
Miss Bixby explained that her daughter had chemical dependency problems.
She felt she was better equipped to raise the children.
The courts granted Miss Bixby custody.
The children had been removed from Miss Small by the courts.
There were neglect proceedings against Miss Small.
Miss Bixby was initially a foster parent.
She was part of a kinship foster care program.
The state paid her to care for her grandchildren as a foster parent.
This arrangement began in 2012.
Miss Bixby understood that the children were not permitted to live with their mother.
Miss Small's Treatment and Visits
When Miss Bixby rented the house in 2012, Miss Small was in a treatment program up north.
Miss Small never lived with Miss Bixby at that time.
She was in separate treatment programs and halfway houses.
Miss Small completed a treatment program.
She was there for two months.
After that, she went to Grand Rapids, Minnesota.
She started a mid-level inpatient treatment program there.
She stayed for about a month.
Then, Miss Small started working.
She worked for the Grand Casino, Hinckley.
The Landlords' Complaint
The plaintiffs stated that everything was fine with Miss Bixby as a tenant before Miss Small arrived.
Miss Bixby did not deny this.
She paid her rent on time.
There were no problems.
The plaintiffs claimed problems started when Miss Small came.
They gave Miss Bixby a 61-day notice to vacate.
Miss Bixby and her grandchildren moved out.
The plaintiffs claimed Miss Bixby trashed the place when they moved out.
Security Deposit and Initial Evidence
The plaintiffs confirmed they held a $1200 security deposit.
They did not return it to Miss Bixby.
They used it for partial cleanup.
This $1200 was not part of Miss Bixby's counterclaim for pain and suffering.
The plaintiffs presented pictures of the house.
Judge Judy asked to see the pictures of the house after they moved out.
Miss Bixby claimed the pictures were taken before she had fully moved out.
She stated she came back and cleaned everything out.
She said the pictures did not count because she took her own pictures afterward.
Judge Judy asked to see Miss Bixby's pictures.
Miss Bixby did not immediately produce them.
Damage Claims and Disputed Photos
The plaintiffs claimed there were holes in the walls.
They also claimed busted-out windows.
Judge Judy noted she saw a busted-out screen in the pictures.
The plaintiffs had an invoice for construction work.
This invoice included window repair.
It also covered cleanup and removal of debris and trash inside and outside the rental unit.
The charge for this work was $750.
Judge Judy pointed out that the plaintiffs were not paying for new doors, carpet, or kitchen floor.
She focused on the windows.
She stated she only saw one broken screen in the photographs.
The plaintiffs' invoice listed "screens nine each at sixty five dollars."
Judge Judy said, "I only saw one."
The plaintiff responded, "That's the only one I photographed."
Judge Judy replied, "Well, that's too bad. That's the only one you're getting."
The plaintiff insisted they had pictures of the windows pulled out.
They claimed they couldn't get them back in.
They also mentioned the egress window downstairs was busted out.
They stated they had police reports regarding this.
Miss Bixby's Defense
Miss Bixby maintained that the house was already in need of remodeling.
She claimed she cleaned it before leaving.