FULL VIDEO AT THE END OF THE POST
The Stolen Car Claim
Miss Giles, the plaintiff, sued Miss Egan, the defendant.
Miss Giles sought $700 and $900.
She also requested punitive damages.
The dispute centered on a car Miss Egan allegedly failed to fix.
Miss Giles claimed her car was stolen after being with Miss Egan for repairs.
Car Purchase and Loan
Miss Giles bought the car in May 2017.
She paid $14,000 for it.
She made a down payment of $1,000.
This left a $13,000 loan.
Judge Judy asked if she had full insurance on the car due to the loan.
Miss Giles confirmed she did.
The Car's Disappearance
Miss Giles stated her car was stolen.
She reported it stolen to the police.
Judge Judy asked if she collected on the insurance.
Miss Giles said she did not.
She explained that the transmission went out.
Because of this, she was not driving the car.
Therefore, she did not pay the insurance.
Judge Judy pointed out this was a significant problem.
Miss Giles had a contract to pay the insurance.
She had a $13,000 loan on the car.
Judge Judy stated that Miss Giles "stiffed the bank."
Miss Giles insisted she was still paying on the car note.
Financial Claims and Damages
Miss Giles was suing for $700 and $900.
The $900 was for the defendant not fixing her car.
She also sought punitive damages for losing her car.
Judge Judy asked Miss Giles to show her all payments made on the car.
This included payments for January, February, March, and April of the current year.
Miss Giles stated her monthly payment was $298.
She claimed to have the payments for March and April.
She also mentioned having messages about when Miss Egan received her car.
Inconsistent Payment Records
Judge Judy reviewed a document Miss Giles provided.
The document showed a statement from February.
It indicated $773.89 was due in February.
Miss Giles made a payment of $350 on February 9th.
She claimed she paid extra in February because she was behind.
Miss Giles stated she was not "months behind."
She admitted she might have been a couple of days behind.
She also mentioned paying half of a previous month.
Transmission Failure and Bank Communication
Miss Giles stated the car's transmission went out in March.
She said she spoke with the bank about it.
Judge Judy interrupted her, stating she did not want to hear what the bank told her.
Judge Judy noted that, according to both Miss Giles and the defendant, no one knew where the car was.
Miss Giles claimed her car went missing "last Monday."
Judge Judy suggested it was possible the car was repossessed.
Miss Giles denied this, stating it was not repossessed.
She reiterated that she spoke with her bank in March.
This was because the transmission stopped working in early March.
The Extension Agreement
Miss Giles claimed the bank granted her an extension.
She presented a document as proof.
Judge Judy examined the document.
It was an agreement signed on March 31st.
According to Judge Judy, this agreement indicated Miss Giles' payment would be due on April 1st.
Miss Giles disagreed with this interpretation.
She insisted her payment was due on May 1st.
The document stated the regular payment would be due on April 1st, 2018.
It also stated payments would continue monthly until August 1st, 2023.
The agreement also contained a clause.
It would be revoked if not signed and returned by February 12th.
This contradicted the March 31st signing date.
Conflicting Insurance Claims
Judge Judy returned to the issue of insurance.
Miss Giles initially stated she did not pay insurance because the transmission was out.
She later claimed she had insurance when she gave the car to Mr. Egan in the middle of March.
She presented a document as proof of insurance.
Miss Giles explained that after Mr. Egan took her money, she could not pay her car insurance again.
She said she had to save money to get her car fixed.
Judge Judy pressed her on whether she had insurance or not.
Miss Giles maintained she had insurance when she gave her car to Mr. Egan in March.
The Lawsuit Filing Date
Miss Giles stated she filed her lawsuit on April 1st.
She reported her car stolen on April 16th.
This meant the lawsuit was filed before the car was reported stolen.
Judge Judy highlighted the discrepancy in the payment due date.
Miss Giles insisted her payment was due May 1st.
She claimed the bank gave her April and she was supposed to start her first payment in May.
Judge Judy's Doubts
Judge Judy expressed her dissatisfaction with the case.
She told Miss Giles she was not buying her story.
She noted Miss Giles had a bigger problem than the $700 she gave for a new transmission.
Her bigger problem was the $13,000 owed to the bank.
This was especially true if she did not have insurance when she was supposed to.
Judge Judy pointed out that if Miss Giles had insurance in March, she would have had it in April.
If the car was stolen while insured, the insurance company would reimburse her.
Miss Giles maintained the car was not repossessed.
Case Dismissal
Judge Judy decided to dismiss the case without prejudice.
This meant Miss Giles could refile her case in small claims court.
Judge Judy reiterated that she was not buying the story.
She suggested that perhaps someone in small claims court would.