FULL VIDEO AT THE END OF THE POST
The Initial Purchase and Quick Breakdown
Damon Nugent and Ms. Nugent, a couple, purchased a used 2009 Volkswagen Passat.
They bought the car in May 2018.
The purchase was made from Tough Imports, a car dealership owned by Mr. Victor Johnson.
Mr. Nugent stated they paid $5,845 for the vehicle.
He also claimed they were paying extra for repairs.
Just two weeks after the purchase, the car stopped accelerating.
The couple informed Mr. Johnson about the issue.
They brought the car back to him for repair.
Disputed Dates and Repair Delays
Mr. Nugent testified that the car was returned to Mr. Johnson in the first week of June.
This was two weeks after the May 24th purchase date.
Mr. Johnson, however, recalled the car being returned a month later.
Judge Judy pointed out that as a business person, Mr. Johnson should have a record of the exact date.
Mr. Johnson admitted he did not have a record of the precise date the car was brought in.
The car then underwent a lengthy repair process.
The plaintiffs described a "back and forth" where the car was fixed but then broke down again.
They stated it took five months to fix the car.
This extended delay made them suspect something "shady" was happening.
Loaner Cars and a Growing Family
During the repair period, Mr. Johnson provided the couple with loaner vehicles.
Initially, he gave them an Acura.
In November 2018, the Nugents had a baby.
They requested a four-door loaner car for their new family.
Mr. Johnson then provided them with a Volkswagen Jetta.
The couple continued to use this Jetta as their primary vehicle.
Discrepancies in Payment Records
Mr. Nugent claimed they paid $5,845 for the car, including a $1,500 down payment.
He presented a written statement from Victor Johnson.
This statement, signed by Mr. Johnson, confirmed the $5,845 payment amount.
Mr. Johnson initially stated he only dealt with Damon Nugent for the purchase.
He claimed he did not recall Ms. Nugent signing any paperwork or checking her credit.
However, he later admitted that Ms. Nugent started coming to pay the car note.
He also had bank statements showing her card payments.
Mr. Johnson stated he only saw four payments made by the couple.
He did not remember the total amount they paid.
Judge Judy reminded him that as a business owner, he should have precise records.
The Missing Contract and Repossession Claim
Mr. Johnson claimed he deleted the contract from his system.
He stated he "repode" the car and "washed it off."
The plaintiffs denied that the car was repossessed.
They continued to possess the loaner Jetta.
Mr. Johnson also continued to demand payments from them.
This created a contradiction in his testimony.
Fuel Pump Issues and Unfound Records
Mr. Johnson claimed the car's issues were due to the plaintiffs putting the wrong type of gas in it.
He stated he had to replace the fuel pumps.
He claimed he ordered these parts from Volkswagen.
Judge Judy asked for the bills for these original parts.
Mr. Johnson admitted he could not find the purchase records for the fuel pumps.
He stated, "That is the only thing I couldn't find was the actual purchase of the pumps."
Judge Judy's Scrutiny of Mr. Johnson's Business Practices
Judge Judy expressed skepticism about Mr. Johnson's record-keeping.
She questioned his inability to provide exact dates and payment records.
She also questioned his claim of having nothing to do with Ms. Nugent initially.
This was contradicted by his later admission of her making payments.
Judge Judy found it hard to believe that Mr. Johnson would allow the couple to drive loaner cars for an extended period with only a few payments.
She stated, "I don't believe you, sir."
She added, "I don't believe at all, sir, that you allow them to keep the price."
The Loaner Car's Fate
The plaintiffs had been driving the Jetta loaner car for approximately one year.
According to Mr. Johnson, they had made only three or four payments since May 2018.
Judge Judy found this claim incredible.
She stated, "You didn't sue them."
She also noted, "You didn't repossess the car."
She concluded, "I'm telling you that I don't believe you, so I'm going to notify motor vehicles that they should transfer this title to them."
The Verdict and Outcome
Judge Judy ruled in favor of the plaintiffs.
She ordered the Department of Motor Vehicles to transfer the title of the Volkswagen Jetta to the Nugents.
The claim was dismissed.
The Nugents expressed relief at the outcome.
Mr. Nugent stated he was glad to be done with business with Mr. Johnson.