FULL VIDEO AT THE END OF THE POST
The Dispute Over a Book Bag
The case involved a dispute between a plaintiff and a defendant.
They shared a six-year-old child.
The plaintiff claimed the defendant damaged her car.
The defendant denied the specific claim for that day.
The incident occurred on May 23rd.
The plaintiff went to the defendant's house.
She intended to retrieve their son's book bag.
Plaintiff's Account of the Incident
The plaintiff stated her son left his book bag at his father's house.
She went to the defendant's home to get it.
Upon arrival, she honked her horn.
She said she did this to alert the defendant.
She claimed his phone blocked her number.
She then exited her car.
She took a crowbar from the back of her car.
She stated this was for her own protection.
She then approached the defendant's car.
She saw the book bag inside.
She retrieved the book bag.
Inconsistent Statements
Judge Judy questioned the plaintiff's sequence of events.
The plaintiff initially said she honked, then saw the book bag, then retrieved it.
Her written complaint stated she took the book bag out first.
Then, according to her complaint, she started honking the horn.
Judge Judy read directly from the plaintiff's complaint.
The complaint stated, "When I got to his car, I noticed our son's book bag in the back seat. So I grabbed it. I then began honking his car horn."
The plaintiff tried to explain this discrepancy.
She suggested she might have "messed up" her phone.
Judge Judy noted the English was clear in the complaint.
The Crowbar and Fear
Judge Judy asked about the crowbar.
The plaintiff claimed she was afraid.
She said the defendant had "drug addicts" in his house.
She feared ten women might "jump" her.
Judge Judy questioned why she would go there if she was so afraid.
The judge suggested the plaintiff was "looking for trouble."
The plaintiff insisted she was not afraid of anything.
She maintained the crowbar was for protection against multiple attackers.
Defendant's Perspective and Harassment Claims
The defendant claimed the plaintiff harassed him.
He stated she honked her horn outside his house.
He said this disturbed his neighbors.
The plaintiff admitted to honking her horn.
She claimed it was only for a short time.
She said it was to get his attention.
The defendant stated the plaintiff continued to drive around the block.
He said she honked her horn on multiple occasions that week.
Child Support and Visitation
Judge Judy inquired about child support and visitation.
The defendant stated he pays $300 a month for child support.
He also claimed to send groceries.
Judge Judy dismissed the groceries as irrelevant.
She asked if the $300 payment was court-ordered.
The defendant initially said no.
The plaintiff interjected, stating it was court-ordered.
The defendant then confirmed it was court-ordered.
The plaintiff claimed he "barely paid anything" for the first four years.
Judge Judy told the plaintiff it was her fault for not taking him to court sooner.
Judge Judy asked why there was no regular visitation order.
The defendant claimed he hadn't needed one.
He said the plaintiff always let him see their son.
He stated he sees his son periodically.
He said the plaintiff drops their son off at his mother's house.
He gets to see him for short periods there.
Defendant's Prior Actions
Judge Judy asked the defendant about kicking the car.
The defendant denied kicking the plaintiff's car on this specific day.
However, he admitted to kicking it on prior occasions.
He explained he did this due to her harassment.
Judge Judy emphasized that kicking a car is not an appropriate way to deal with a problem.
She told him he could not kick her car.
She stated it was clear from his admission that it was something he did.
Car Damage and Repair Estimates
The plaintiff presented car damage estimates.
The estimates totaled $3,400.
This amount was for repairs, excluding a paint job.
Judge Judy examined the estimates.
She noted some damage was not on the hood.
This contradicted the plaintiff's claim that the defendant jumped on the hood.
Judge Judy's Assessment of the Plaintiff's Actions
Judge Judy told the plaintiff she had no reason to be at his house that day.
She believed part of the incident resulted from the plaintiff's "overt hostile acts."
The judge acknowledged the defendant should not have taken it out on the car.
However, she implied the plaintiff's actions contributed to the situation.
The Verdict
Judge Judy ruled in favor of the plaintiff.
She awarded the plaintiff $1,700.
This amount was half of the estimated repair cost.
Final Instructions and Outcome
Judge Judy advised the plaintiff to find someone to fix her car for $1,700.
She told the plaintiff to "watch your temper."
She stated the defendant did not want to be her boyfriend anymore.
She noted he had other girlfriends.
Judge Judy told the plaintiff she had no reason to drive around his house.
She also said the plaintiff had no reason to be anywhere near him.
The plaintiff stated she did not want the defendant at the moment.
Judge Judy reminded the plaintiff she "picked him" 14 years ago.
She concluded that having a child with him was the "second dumbest thing" the plaintiff did.
The case was concluded.