FULL VIDEO AT THE END OF THE POST
The Egging Incident
Candace Oliveson, the plaintiff, sued Martha Becker and her father, Jeffrey Pullman Becker.
The lawsuit concerned damages to Ms. Oliveson's house.
Martha Becker, who was 16 at the time of the incident, egged the house.
She was 18 years old at the time of the court hearing.
Ms. Oliveson's son, Alex, previously dated Martha Becker.
Judge Judy asked if the egging was related to this past relationship.
Martha Becker denied this connection.
She stated it was a homecoming prank.
She explained that many people "T.P. houses and egg houses" during homecoming.
Martha Becker admitted she was driving the car.
She claimed other people in the car threw the eggs.
Ms. Oliveson testified that 12 eggs were thrown at her house.
The incident occurred in September 2017.
It happened around 1:00 AM.
Ms. Oliveson heard the dog barking.
She went to investigate the noise.
Upon opening the door, she saw eggs covering her full pane glass door.
She stated she could not see out of it.
Immediate Aftermath and Cleaning Efforts
Judge Judy asked Ms. Oliveson what she did next.
Ms. Oliveson stated she called the police.
The police came and looked at the damage.
After the police left, she hosed down the house.
She claimed there were so many eggs.
Ms. Oliveson also stated she had to go to work two hours later.
She works as a nurse.
She mentioned that the eggs sat for 11 hours in warm weather.
This implied a delay in thorough cleaning.
Judge Judy questioned the promptness of her cleaning efforts.
Judge Judy suggested that a normal person would immediately hose down the house.
Ms. Oliveson insisted she did hose it off.
She admitted she did not have an "ecumenic cleaner" at 1 or 2 in the morning.
She believed she needed a special cleaner to remove the eggs.
Alleged Damages and Repair Costs
Ms. Oliveson claimed the eggs damaged the siding and the door.
She stated the eggs took off the finish of the door.
She presented an invoice for $4,874 for repairs.
This invoice covered the door and cleaning.
She had not yet paid for these repairs.
Judge Judy questioned the amount of the claim.
Judge Judy stated that they were not paying $5,000.
Ms. Oliveson insisted she wanted the house to look the way it did before.
She also wanted the door replaced and the cleaning done.
She wanted someone to come out and actually do the cleaning.
Defendant's Perspective
Martha Becker maintained that egging houses was a common homecoming prank.
She acknowledged that egging was "not a very good idea."
Jeffrey Pullman Becker, Martha's father, was also a defendant.
He allegedly had a conversation with Ms. Oliveson.
He reportedly promised to take care of all damages.
Judge Judy's Scrutiny of the Claim
Judge Judy expressed skepticism about the extent of the damage.
She questioned how eggs could cause nearly $5,000 in damage.
She stated that if the damage was so severe, an expert witness was needed.
The expert would explain how eggs caused such extensive damage.
Ms. Oliveson did not have an expert witness.
Judge Judy dismissed Ms. Oliveson's internet research on egg damage.
She stated that internet information was not expert testimony.
Plaintiff's Negligence in Cleaning
Judge Judy focused on Ms. Oliveson's cleaning efforts.
She stated that if eggs could not be hosed off, one should go inside.
She suggested taking something from the garage to spray and wipe it off.
Judge Judy told Ms. Oliveson that the damage was her "fault."
She attributed the damage to Ms. Oliveson's failure to take prompt action.
Ms. Oliveson argued it would not have been her fault if the eggs were not on the door.
Judge Judy agreed that the egging was wrong.
However, she reiterated that Ms. Oliveson was at fault for not remediating it promptly.
The 11-hour delay in warm weather was a key factor.
The Unpaid Invoice and Delay in Suing
Ms. Oliveson presented an invoice for repairs.
She admitted she had not paid for the repairs.
Judge Judy found this problematic for a claim of reimbursement.
Judge Judy told Ms. Oliveson to spend the $5,000 first.
Then, she could come back to court for reimbursement.
She called this a "gamble" for Ms. Oliveson.
The incident happened almost two years prior to the court case.
Ms. Oliveson sued "last fall."
Judge Judy asked why there was such a delay.
Ms. Oliveson stated she was told not to replace anything.
She was advised to wait for the court case to be done first.
She also mentioned waiting for the municipal judge and police to file charges.
The Verdict
Judge Judy ruled in favor of the plaintiff.
She awarded Ms. Oliveson $250.
This amount was significantly less than the nearly $5,000 sought.
The judge concluded the case.