FULL VIDEO AT THE END OF THIS POST
THIS EXCUSE DID NOT GO WELL IN COURT!
A Recording Studio Burglary Leads to Court
Imagine setting up your dream recording studio.
Then imagine it all stolen.
That is what happened to Mr. Bird.
He is the plaintiff in this case.
He is suing the defendant, who is his landlord.
Mr. Bird rented a space from the defendant.
He operated his recording studio there.
His equipment was stolen in a burglary.
Mr. Bird believes the defendant is responsible.
He claims there was a lack of security.
The Lease Agreement Takes Center Stage
Judge Judy asks about the rented space.
It was 320 square feet.
Mr. Bird rented it on July 25th for August 1st.
Judge Judy asks to see the written lease.
She wants to find any mention of security.
Mr. Bird admits there is nothing in the lease about security.
He points to a clause about damage and destruction.
Judge Judy quickly dismisses this.
That clause is for fire or structural defects.
It has nothing to do with security.
The Burglary and Lack of Insurance
The burglary happened on August 23rd.
Mr. Bird confirms his equipment was very expensive.
Judge Judy asks why he didn't have insurance.
She specifically asks about renter's insurance.
Mr. Bird explains he tried to apply for insurance.
His agent said it would be difficult.
He was still shopping for insurance.
He also felt safe in the building.
He says the defendants pointed out 24-hour active surveillance.
Judge Judy states that feelings are not enough.
Insurance is for protecting property.
She says if he relied on surveillance, it should be in the lease.
Mr. Bird did not think anything would happen.
Judge Judy reiterates the purpose of renter's insurance.
The Key Issue and Changing Locks
Mr. Bird complains that other tenants' keys could open his unit.
He claims to have video evidence of this.
Judge Judy is unimpressed.
She says the first thing she does in a new place is change the lock.
She suggests most people do this.
Mr. Bird states they were "unallowed to change our own lock."
Judge Judy asks where that is written in the lease.
Mr. Bird cannot find it.
He admits it might have been a verbal comment.
He says he heard it from another tenant after the incident.
Judge Judy emphasizes that if it's not in the lease, it doesn't exist.
The Defendant's Revelation About Cameras
Judge Judy asks the defendant about security.
She asks if they had a security system.
The defendant says no.
She asks if they had a working camera.
The defendant says no.
She asks if they pointed out cameras to Mr. Bird.
The defendant denies this.
She asks if they ever had working cameras.
The defendant says no.
Mr. Bird interjects, saying they have pictures of cameras.
The defendant confirms this.
Judge Judy wants to see them.
The defendant shows pictures of cameras.
These cameras overlook the parking lot and main entrance.
There is also a sticker about 24-hour surveillance.
Then comes a surprising admission.
The defendant states these are "non-working cameras."
They are for deterring burglars.
She compares them to signs that say "protected" or "secured."
Judge Judy clarifies if they are just for show.
The defendant confirms this.
She states they never told any tenant they had video surveillance.
Mr. Bird says that's what "sold me on renting this unit."
Judge Judy's Final Thoughts on Responsibility
Judge Judy tells Mr. Bird she cannot help him.
She says it's not the defendant's fault.
It's the burglar's fault.
She reminds Mr. Bird he should have had insurance.
Mr. Bird feels the defendant should be liable.
Judge Judy explains legal consequences.
She says the defendant is not legally responsible for a burglary.
Unless there was active negligence, like leaving a door open.
Mr. Bird claims they entered his unit without permission sometimes.
Judge Judy asks if he is suggesting they burglarized his premises.
Mr. Bird says he doesn't know who would.
Judge Judy stresses the importance of insurance for theft.
She says Mr. Bird was smart to ask his broker.
But not smart enough to get insurance before moving in.
Mr. Bird states his broker wouldn't cover a recording studio.
He says he was still shopping for insurance.
Judge Judy cuts him off.
She says she cannot help him.
She states the defendant is not responsible.
Mr. Bird had the opportunity to protect his property.
He could have put in adequate locks.
He could have had adequate insurance.
She says it was his responsibility.
He has not shown the defendant was negligent.
Mr. Bird mentions the defendant didn't respond to his texts.
Judge Judy again says she cannot help him.
Watch the Full Judge Judy Case Below
See how this case unfolds.
The details are quite revealing.
Scroll down.
Press play.
FULL VIDEO
CLICK HERE TO WATCH THE FULL VIDEO
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSoWjE1GO6Q
