Asbestos removal was also done on the second floor.
Mr. Schleg stated Mr. Selenia said, "Whatever needs to be done, have it taken care of. You're going to be helping me in this matter."
Mr. Selenia later changed his stance on this approval.
He denied responsibility for the common area damage.
He claimed Mr. Schleg called for the work without his permission.
Mr. Selenia also asserted that the common area was not wet.
Plaintiff's Justification for Common Area Work
Mr. Schleg explained that the common area work was necessary.
He stated that to remove the wet material and asbestos, they had to go into the common area.
They had to take out part of the wall in the common area.
He implied this was a direct consequence of the leak.
He paid $2,07.91 for the abatement company.
This cost was for the hall repair.
Defendant's Counter-Arguments on Common Area
Mr. Selenia maintained that the common area was not damaged.
He accused Mr. Schleg of calling the company without his permission.
He claimed Mr. Schleg told Sir Foote to come.
Mr. Selenia stated his lawyer discovered Mr. Schleg called them to do it on his own.
He also mentioned that his company came down the day before and found the hallway dry.
Mr. Selenia suggested Mr. Schleg, as the president of their HOA, was taking advantage of homeowners.
He called Mr. Schleg a liar regarding the wetness of the common area.
Judge Judy's Assessment of the Common Area Claim
Judge Judy questioned Mr. Selenia's claim that the common area was not wet.
She found it illogical for someone to cut up a common area for no reason.
She implied that Mr. Schleg would not create dust and mess for fun.
She stated that the plaintiff does not appear to be a "nut."
She challenged Mr. Selenia's assertion that the hallway was dry.
She asked why Mr. Schleg would have an incentive to do this work if it wasn't wet.
The Verdict and Outcome
Judge Judy concluded that the leak clearly came from Mr. Selenia's unit.
She noted that his insurance company accepted liability.
This made him responsible for the damage caused by the leak.
Regarding the common area, Judge Judy sided with Mr. Schleg.
She found it credible that the common area was affected by the leak.
She believed the work done in the common area was a direct result of the leak.
The court ruled in favor of Mr. Schleg.
Mr. Selenia was ordered to pay Mr. Schleg $2,07.91.