FULL VIDEO AT THE END OF THE POST
Landlord Alleges Marijuana Cultivation and Property Damage
Ms. Brockner, the plaintiff, brought a case against her former tenant, Mr. Bowie.
Mr. Bowie and his wife rented Ms. Brockner's home in 2011.
They lived there for two years.
Ms. Brockner claimed the tenants used her house to grow marijuana.
She alleged this activity destroyed the interior of the house.
She stated the damage cost thousands of dollars to repair.
Mr. Bowie strongly denied these accusations.
He called Ms. Brockner a "slum lord."
He claimed she failed to fix various issues in the house during his tenancy.
Mr. Bowie was also demanding the return of his rent.
Disputed Move-Out Dates and Initial Property Condition
Judge Judy began by establishing the timeline.
She asked when Mr. Bowie and his wife moved out.
Ms. Brockner believed it was November 12th or 13th, 2013.
She stated Mr. Bowie did not give her notice.
Mr. Bowie testified he moved out on November 10th, 2013.
Ms. Brockner said she entered the house on November 13th.
The judge then asked to see photographs of the house.
These pictures were meant to show its condition when Ms. Brockner entered.
Ms. Brockner presented photos, describing them as "before and after."
She indicated the top picture was "before" and the next was "after."
The series would progress from the outside of the house.
Initial Photos Show Debris and Damage
Judge Judy observed the initial photographs.
She noted a significant amount of "stuff" left behind.
Mr. Bowie admitted he left some junk there.
The judge described the place as looking like a "pit pen."
She pointed to garbage visible in the pictures.
Mr. Bowie explained that the garbage he left outside was supposed to be taken by her contractor.
Judge Judy interrupted, stating Mr. Bowie could not testify about what the contractor said.
She reiterated that Mr. Bowie left a lot of garbage when he moved out.
Contractor's Work Confuses Photo Timeline
Judge Judy then pointed to a specific photograph.
She noted it looked as if the house was being torn apart.
Ms. Brockner clarified this picture was taken after her contractor had entered.
The contractor had already begun assessing the damage.
Judge Judy sought to confirm that Mr. Bowie did not leave the house in that specific condition.
Ms. Brockner confirmed that was not how he left it.
She stated a previous picture showed the condition just prior to that.
She wanted to make it clear that the "torn apart" image was not the tenant's doing.
Judge Questions Mold Damage and Contractor's Report
Judge Judy pressed Ms. Brockner about the condition of the house.
She asked if the house was torn apart due to mold.
Ms. Brockner had previously mentioned mold.
The judge noted the lack of dates on the submitted pictures.
She stated she could not determine when the photos were taken.
Judge Judy then asked for the contractor's report.
Ms. Brockner provided the report, which included details on each room and invoices.
The judge specifically requested to see where the contractor addressed mold.
Ms. Brockner stated the contractor itemized each issue.
Judge Judy insisted on seeing the word "mold" in the report.
She also wanted to see where the contractor specifically addressed mold remediation.
Ms. Brockner claimed there was mold not only in the kitchen but all over the house.
Contractor's Report Lacks Mention of Mold
Judge Judy reviewed the contractor's report carefully.
She looked for the word "mold" within the documents.
She noted the report mentioned "previously missing carpet and carpet pad."
However, she could not find any explicit mention of "mold."