FULL VIDEO AT THE END OF THE POST
The Rental Agreement and Initial Claims
Ms. Beckett leased her house to Mr. Black.
The agreement included an option for Mr. Black to buy the house.
The lease began in November 2012.
Mr. Black never purchased the property.
Ms. Beckett regained possession of the house in May 2016 or 2017.
Upon repossession, Ms. Beckett discovered significant issues.
She alleged Mr. Black made unauthorized renovations.
These renovations, she claimed, transformed the house into a marijuana-growing operation.
She sued Mr. Black for $5,000.
Mr. Black's Counterclaim
Mr. Black denied the renovations were unauthorized.
He claimed Ms. Beckett authorized them.
He also asserted that these renovations enhanced the value of the house.
Mr. Black filed a counterclaim for $5,000.
He stated the renovations improved the property.
Judge Judy's Initial Questions
Judge Judy asked to see pictures of the house.
She wanted to see its condition before Mr. Black moved in.
She also requested pictures of the house after he moved out.
Ms. Beckett confirmed the lease started in November 2012.
Mr. Black stated he moved out in May 2015 or 2016.
Ms. Beckett clarified she took possession on May 15, 2017, or 2016.
The Delay in Coming to Court
Judge Judy questioned Ms. Beckett about the delay.
She asked why it took a year to come to court.
Ms. Beckett explained that Mr. Black's nephew ran over her septic tank.
She said Mr. Black promised to fix the septic tank.
She waited for him to fulfill this promise.
When he did not, she began working on the house.
Making the House Livable
Ms. Beckett described the work needed on the house.
She stated she had to make the upstairs livable.
This involved redoing the wood floors.
She also mentioned there was no stove or dishwasher.
These items were missing when she regained possession.
The Septic Tank Damage
Judge Judy returned to the septic tank issue.
She asked Mr. Black if his nephew drove over it.
Mr. Black admitted his nephew did so on the last day of his tenancy.
He acknowledged his nephew broke the cover of the septic tank.
Mr. Black tried to minimize the damage.
He said, "the lady barely went up to it."
Judge Judy admonished him not to minimize the damage.
She stated, "No, you broke it."
The Extent of the Renovations
Ms. Beckett detailed the alleged unauthorized renovations.
She claimed Mr. Black dismantled three of her bedrooms.
He cut holes in the outer framework of the home.
These holes were for an agricultural system to grow marijuana.
She also stated propane gas lines were rerouted.
Gas lines were cut, and the basement was filled with gas.
Ms. Beckett emphasized the severity of these changes.
Septic Tank Agreement and Report
Mr. Black claimed they had an agreement regarding the septic tank.
He said they agreed to have someone come out.
He believed it only needed a new top and to be pumped.
He sent High Plane Sanitation to the property.
The sanitation company refused to pump it.
They provided a statement.
The statement indicated the septic tank was severely rotted.
It stated the tank had 40 years of experience and could not be fixed.
It also noted the tank had not been serviced since 2006.
Mr. Black received a text from Ms. Beckett.
She stated she had to replace the entire tank.
The Condition of the House Before and After
Ms. Beckett presented pictures of the house.
She showed pictures from before Mr. Black moved in.
She also showed pictures from after he moved out.
The "after" pictures showed no rooms, indicating three bedrooms were removed.
Mr. Black described the house as a "piece of junk" when he moved in.
He claimed his renovations enhanced its value.
Lease Terms and Septic Tank Responsibility
The property manager, Michael, was present.
Judge Judy asked him about the lease agreement.
She inquired if the lease specified tenant responsibility for septic tank maintenance.
Michael could not find such a clause in the lease.
This undermined Ms. Beckett's claim that Mr. Black was solely responsible.
The sanitation report highlighted the tank's age and lack of maintenance.
It suggested a shared responsibility for its condition.
Judge Judy's Assessment of the Septic Tank
Judge Judy acknowledged the septic tank was working when Mr. Black moved in.
She noted he, his wife, and three children used the bathroom facilities.
She stated the facilities were no longer working due to his nephew's actions.
She told Mr. Black he would not have to pay for a whole new system.
However, he would have to contribute to a new system.
Judge Judy also addressed Ms. Beckett's responsibility as a landlord.
She suggested Ms. Beckett should have been more observant.
She mentioned the need to ensure the septic tank was pumped.
This was especially true given the tank's corroded state.
The Estimate for Septic Tank Repair
Ms. Beckett presented an estimate to fix the septic tank.
She stated she did not have the money to fix it.
The tank had not been fixed since Mr. Black moved out a year prior.
Judge Judy confirmed it was an estimate, not a bill for completed work.
She reiterated that Mr. Black would share the cost.
The Verdict
Judge Judy ruled in favor of the plaintiff, Ms. Beckett.
She ordered Mr. Black to pay $2,500.
This amount represented his contribution to the septic tank repair.
The judgment reflected a shared responsibility for the issue.
Final Outcome
Mr. Black was ordered to pay $2,500 to Ms. Beckett.
The parties were excused.
Ms. Beckett expressed relief at receiving anything.
She stated she would fix the property and sell it.
She also decided to no longer engage in landlord-tenant relationships.