FULL VIDEO AT THE END OF THE POST
The Initial Complaint and Insurance Claims
Mr. Schleg, the plaintiff, brought a complaint against his neighbor, Mr. Selenia.
Mr. Selenia is the defendant in this case.
The dispute involved a water leak from Mr. Selenia's apartment.
This leak allegedly caused damage to Mr. Schleg's apartment.
It also affected common areas of their building.
Mr. Schleg lives on the first floor.
Mr. Selenia lives on the third floor.
There is another unit between their apartments.
Mr. Schleg's insurance company, Columbus, paid for the damage to his apartment.
This payment covered the interior of his unit.
Mr. Schleg then performed additional work.
This work was done not only to his apartment but also to the common area outside his unit.
He believed this common area was also affected by the leak.
Defendant's Initial Denial
Mr. Selenia initially denied that the leak originated from his apartment.
He claimed in his answer that the leak did not come from his unit.
He stated he would bring a plumber as an expert witness.
This plumber would testify that the leak did not come from his unit.
Judge Judy noted this initial denial.
She later confronted Mr. Selenia about this statement.
The Leak's Origin and Discovery
The first day water was found coming down was July 27, 2015.
The water came from Mr. Selenia's apartment into Mr. Schleg's apartment.
Mr. Selenia was informed about the leak.
He said he would call a plumber.
On July 28, 2015, Mr. Schleg went to Mr. Selenia's apartment.
The leak was still continuing.
They called the insurance company from Mr. Selenia's unit.
Pictures were taken inside Mr. Selenia's apartment.
On July 31, 2015, additional water was still coming down.
It was determined that Mr. Selenia's washing machine drain was malfunctioning.
This malfunction caused "gray water" to leak.
Visual Evidence of the Leak
Mr. Schleg presented several pieces of evidence.
He had a video taken on July 27, 2015.
This video was from Mr. Selenia's apartment.
It showed a leaky valve.
Another video was taken on July 31, 2015.
This video had a timestamp.
It showed water continually coming down from Unit 207.
Unit 207 is on the second floor, directly above Mr. Schleg.
A third video was taken on July 28, 2015.
This video was from Mr. Schleg's unit.
It clearly showed water damage.
Mr. Schleg also presented pictures.
These pictures were taken in Mr. Selenia's apartment in 2015.
They specifically showed the washer/dryer area.
Moisture Readings and Judge Judy's Warning
Mr. Schleg also provided a moisture meter reading.
This reading indicated high moisture levels.
Judge Judy reviewed the evidence.
She specifically looked at the videos.
She warned Mr. Selenia about his initial denial.
She told him to think twice before standing by his original claim.
She reminded him that he had family and children.
She suggested he would not want to look foolish if the evidence proved otherwise.
Mr. Selenia's Contradiction and Admission
Mr. Selenia initially claimed the leak did not come from his unit.
He had stated this in his answer to the complaint.
However, in court, he acknowledged that the 2015 leak did come from his apartment.
This admission contradicted his earlier written statement.
Judge Judy highlighted this contradiction.
She noted that his insurance company had accepted liability.
This acceptance indicated his responsibility for the leak.
The Dispute Over Common Area Work
The core of the remaining dispute focused on the common areas.
Mr. Schleg claimed Mr. Selenia verbally approved additional work.
This work included asbestos removal in the common area hallway.
This hallway was outside Mr. Schleg's unit.