FULL VIDEO AT THE END OF THIS POST
THIS RENTAL DISPUTE HAD JUDGE JUDY QUESTIONING EVERYTHING!
A Rental Agreement Goes Sideways
Imagine agreeing to rent a house.
You pay your deposits.
Then you see the house again.
It is not what you expected.
This is the situation Ms. Sims found herself in.
The Plaintiff Seeks Her Money Back
Ms. Sims is suing Ms. Hollins.
She wants her security deposit returned.
She also wants her pro-rated rent back.
Ms. Sims claims the house was uninhabitable.
She says it was in disrepair.
She also mentions dust and mold.
A hole in the roof is also part of her claim.
The Defendant's Counterclaim
Ms. Hollins has a counterclaim.
She alleges harassment.
She also claims Ms. Sims intentionally left the gas stove on.
This was supposedly to damage the property.
Agreeing to Rent the House
Ms. Sims first saw the house on April 6th.
She liked it.
It was a five-bedroom house.
Ms. Sims has three children.
She agreed to rent it from Ms. Hollins.
Ms. Hollins agreed to make repairs.
She also agreed to clean the house.
This was all to happen before Ms. Sims moved in.
The Initial Deposits
Ms. Sims gave Ms. Hollins a deposit.
It was $2,600 total.
$2,000 was for the damage deposit.
$600 was for a pet deposit for two cats.
Ms. Sims was serious about renting the house.
Ms. Hollins deposited the check.
More Money for Rent
Ms. Sims sent additional money.
She deposited another check on April 16th.
The amount was $1,027.
This covered partial rent.
It was for April 17th to May 1st.
The total monthly rent was $2,200.
The House's Condition on April 19th
Ms. Sims went to the house on April 19th.
She had already started paying rent.
She found the house in a total state of disrepair.
The lease had stated the house would be habitable.
It was supposed to be clean and in good repair.
Ms. Sims felt it was not.
Ms. Hollins' View of the Repairs
Ms. Hollins stated they painted the house.
They also cleaned the carpets.
This was between April 6th and 19th.
She believed the house was in better condition.
The Tarp on the Roof
Ms. Sims presented pictures.
They showed a tarp on the roof.
She claimed it covered a hole.
Ms. Hollins explained the tarp.
It was over a skylight.
Its purpose was to keep the house cool.
She stated it was not covering a leak.
Claims of Mold
Ms. Sims showed pictures of mold.
She pointed to mold in the kitchen.
Specifically, it was in a lazy Susan.
She also showed mold on a basement wall.
Ms. Hollins denied knowledge of mold.
She stated her pictures of the kitchen showed no mold.
Judge Judy Questions the Evidence
Judge Judy reviewed Ms. Sims' evidence.
She stated Ms. Sims had no proof of a hole in the roof.
She also said there was no proof the "schmutz" was mold.
Judge Judy was not convinced.
She stated dust and a dirty lazy Susan were not sufficient reasons.
These were not enough to break the agreement.
The Dismissed Counterclaim
Judge Judy dismissed Ms. Hollins' counterclaim.
There was no signed written lease.
Ms. Hollins had no basis for her claim.
Moving a Piano
Ms. Sims admitted to moving a piano into the house.
Judge Judy declared this constituted moving in.
This contradicted Ms. Sims' claim of never moving in.
The Lawyer's Letter
On April 22nd, Ms. Hollins received a letter.
It was from Ms. Sims' lawyer.
Ms. Sims' property was still in the house at this time.
Moving Out and Returning Keys
Ms. Sims moved her piano out on April 23rd.
She returned the keys on April 24th.
The Gas Stove Incident
Ms. Hollins' handyman found something.
The gas stove was turned on.
This was after Ms. Sims moved out.
A 911 call was made.
The fire department responded.
Ms. Hollins claimed Ms. Sims purposely left the gas on.
She believed it was to damage the property.
Judge Judy Doubts the Gas Claim
Judge Judy stated Ms. Hollins had no proof.
There was no evidence Ms. Sims turned on the gas.
Ms. Sims' piano was still in the house.
This was on the day of the alleged incident.
Judge Judy found the claim illogical.
The Verdict
Judge Judy ruled.
Ms. Sims was not entitled to any money back.
Ms. Hollins' counterclaim was dismissed.
Judge Judy stated Ms. Sims did not have sufficient reason.
She did not have a reason to break the rental agreement.
The photographs did not meet the level of egregious.
A dirty lazy Susan and dust were not enough.
A reasonable person would not have abandoned the agreement.
Watch the Full Judge Judy Case Below
See how this case unfolds.
Witness Judge Judy's sharp questioning.
Scroll down.
Press play.
FULL VIDEO
CLICK HERE TO WATCH THE FULL VIDEO
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGlPubTwqNQ
CLICK HERE TO WATCH THE FULL VIDEO
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjqebFRNMrs
