Judge Faith – Roommate Run Off; 99 cent Brick (Season 1: Episode #84)

Judge Faith – Roommate Run Off; 99 cent Brick (Season 1: Episode #84)

Articles, Blog , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 81 Comments


ANNOUNCER: TODAY ON “JUDGE FAITH,” THIS EX-ROOMMATE SAYS HE SHOULD HAVE CHECKED HIMSELF BEFORE PAYING IN CASH. ROBERT: INITIALLY, JOHN HAD TOLD US THAT HE JUST SENT CASH THROUGH THE MAIL AND IT MUST HAVE GOTTEN INTERCEPTED. JOHN: I DIDN’T REALLY THINK IT WAS THAT BIG OF A DEAL. I DIDN’T KNOW AT THE TIME. I WAS KIND OF STUPID. JUDGE: OK, AND DO YOU DO ALL YOUR TRANSACTIONS IN CASH? JOHN: GENERALLY YES. JUDGE: THERE ARE ONLY 3 TYPES OF PEOPLE THAT DEAL IN ALL CASH: DRUG DEALERS, PIMPS, AND STRIPPERS. NOW, IF YOU WANT TO TELL ME YOU’RE ONE OF THE THREE… [LAUGHTER AND APPLAUSE] ANNOUNCER: AND LATER, JUDGE FAITH BREAKS DOWN A WALL BRICK BY BRICK. VICKY: IT LOOKED LIKE THEY HAD BEEN UNEARTHED FROM SOMEONE ELSE’S YARD OR A SALVAGE YARD. OK? ONE LOOK, I SAID, “YOU’RE NOT PUTTING THIS STUFF IN MY YARD.” JUDGE: LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION. WHAT BRICKS ARE IN HER YARD? I’M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND. ANNOUNCER: FAITH JENKINS, HER DISTINGUISHED LEGAL CAREER BEGAN WHEN SHE GRADUATED FIRST IN HER LAW-SCHOOL CLASS. SHE QUICKLY BECAME A TOUGH NEW YORK CITY PROSECUTOR AND THEN A PREEMINENT LEGAL ANALYST ON CABLE NEWS. AND NOW SHE’S THE JUDGE IN HER OWN COURTROOM. HER CASES ARE REAL, AND HER RULINGS ARE FINAL. SHE IS JUDGE FAITH. PLAINTIFFS JACOB SAXE AND ROBERT HENNEN ARE SUING THEIR FORMER ROOMMATE FOR UNPAID RENT, UTILITIES, AND DAMAGE TO THEIR VEHICLE. DEFENDANT JONATHAN HILL SAYS HE PAID THE DEFENDANTS IN CASH FOR THE BACK RENT AND NOW HE OWES THEM NOTHING. BARBARA: REMAIN SEATED AND COME TO ORDER. COURT IS NOW IN SESSION. THE HONORABLE JUDGE FAITH JENKINS PRESIDING. YOUR HONOR, WE HAVE SAXE-HENNEN VERSUS HILL. JUDGE: THANK YOU, BARBARA. JACOB SAXE? JACOB: YES. JUDGE: AND ROBERT HENNEN? ROBERT: YES. JUDGE: YOU ARE SUING THE DEFENDANT, JONATHAN HILL, FOR $4,768 YOU SAY HE OWES YOU FOR UNPAID RENT AND UTILITIES AND DAMAGE TO YOUR CAR, MR. SAXE? JACOB: YES. JUDGE: OK. AND YOU DON’T HAVE A COUNTERSUIT, RIGHT? JOHN: I DO NOT. JUDGE: OK. WHY DON’T YOU TELL ME WHAT’S GOING ON? HOW D YOU KNOW THE DEFENDANT? JACOB: WE LIVED WITH HIM FOR SLIGHTLY OVER A YEAR, ALMOST A YEAR AND A HALF. AND WE EVENTUALLY HAD TO HAVE HIM REMOVED FROM THE LEASE DUE TO NONPAYMENT ISSUES. JUDGE: OK. AND IT WAS THE THREE OF YOU ON THE LEASE? JACOB: YES. JUDGE: OK. DO YOU HAVE A COPY OF THE LEASE? ROBERT: I DO. JUDGE: MAY I SEE IT? WHAT WAS THE AGREED-UPON ARRANGEMENT FOR THE RENT? JACOB: THE RENT WAS TO BE SPLIT EVENLY 3 WAYS, UH, MAKING A TOTAL OF $995 A MONTH, WHICH IS ROUGHLY $332 PER PERSON PER MONTH. JUDGE: OK. WHAT MONTH AND YEAR DID THE LEASE START? JACOB: OCTOBER 2012. JUDGE: SO, WHEN DID THE PROBLEMS FIRST START HAPPENING? ROBERT: I THINK IT WAS ABOUT FEBRUARY THAT WE STARTED RECEIVING NOTICES IN THE MAIL THAT WE HAD PAST RENT DUE, AND ME AND JAKE DIDN’T UNDERSTAND THAT, BECAUSE BOTH OF US HAD BEEN PAYING OUR RENT. JUDGE: OK. ROBERT: AND INITIALLY JOHN HAD TOLD US THAT HE JUST SENT CASH THROUGH THE MAIL AND IT MUST HAVE GOTTEN INTERCEPTED. JUDGE: OK. ROBERT: SO THEN, UM…WE TOLD HIM NOT TO DO THAT AGAIN, AND THEN HE DID THAT TWO MORE TIMES, OR SO HE SAYS. AND THAT’S WHEN WE STARTED TO GET THIS CONCERN THAT HE MIGHT BE INTENTIONALLY NOT PAYING RENTS AND TELLING US THAT HE WAS PAYING RENTS. JUDGE: OK. SO WHAT WAS GOING ON WITH YOU? JOHN: NOTHING. UM… YOU KNOW, I SENT MONEY THROUGH THE MAIL THE FIRST TIME. I DIDN’T REALLY THINK IT WAS THAT BIG OF A DEAL. I DIDN’T KNOW AT THE TIME. I WAS KIND OF STUPID. BUT AFTER THEY TOLD ME TO STOP, I ACTUALLY STARTED PAYING ROBERT TO PAY MY RENT FOR ME. I DIDN’T HAVE A BANK ACCOUNT, SO I WAS HAVING HIM– JUDGE: HOLD ON A SECOND. SO YOU’RE SAYING THAT YOU WERE SENDING YOUR MONEY. THE FIRST TIME, YOU SENT CASH IN THE MAIL… JOHN: YES. JUDGE: TO THE LANDLORD TO PAY YOUR RENT. JOHN: THAT IS CORRECT. JUDGE: AND HE DID NOT GET THE CASH? JOHN: THAT IS CORRECT. JUDGE: OK. AND YOU DON’T KNOW WHY HE DIDN’T GET THE MONEY? JOHN: NO. JUDGE: IT’S NOT BECAUSE YOU DIDN’T SEND IT? JOHN: THAT IS CORRECT. JUDGE: OK. GO AHEAD. JOHN: AFTER THAT, I STARTED PAYING ROBERT IN CASH TO MAKE CHECKS OUT FOR ME TO PAY THE LANDLORD. IF HE WAS FAILING TO PAY THE LANDLORD FROM THE CHECKS THAT HE WAS WRITING OR IF HE WAS JUST WRITING THE CHECK IN FRONT OF ME AND THEN TEARING IT UP AFTER I LEFT HIS ROOM, I DON’T KNOW. JUDGE: SO ACCORDING TO YOU, YOU OWE NO BACK RENT AT ALL? JOHN: I OWE ZERO. JUDGE: OK. DO YOU HAVE ANY EVIDENCE THAT HE WAS NOT PAYING RENT? ROBERT: YEAH. I MEAN, I HAVE A LEDGER FROM OUR LANDLORD THAT SHOWS ALL OF US PAYING RENT, AND HIS NAME IS JUST MISSED ON MANY, MANY, MANY, MANY MONTHS. JUDGE: BARBARA, WOULD YOU HAND ME THE EVIDENCE, PLEASE? AND THE LEDGER AS WELL. JACOB: IS THAT THE ONLY PAGE OF IT? ROBERT: YEAH. THAT IS. IT’S FRONT AND BACK. JUDGE: OK. SO WHAT I’M LOOKING AT NOW IS A LETTER ADDRESSED TO YOU, MR. HILL, FROM THE LANDLORD. DO YOU RECALL GETTING A LETTER FROM THE LANDLORD THAT YOU OWED $1,344 IN RENT? JOHN: YES, I DO. JUDGE: OK. AND WHAT DID YOU DO WHEN YOU RECEIVED THIS LETTER? JOHN: I GOT $1,500 IN CASH TOGETHER, AND I HANDED IT TO ROBERT. ROBERT: THAT IS NOT TRUE. JUDGE: DID HE GIVE YOU $1,500? ROBERT: NO, HE DID NOT. JUDGE: OK. DO YOU HAVE PROOF THAT YOU GAVE HIM CASH? JOHN: I DO NOT. JUDGE: BECAUSE I HAVE PROOF THAT YOU OWE $1,500 IN BACK RENT, AND SO WHEN YOU COME INTO COURT AND YOU TELL ME, “OH, I PAID IT “ALL IN CASH, JUDGE, I PAID IT ALL IN CASH” AS A WAY TO SORT OF CIRCUMVENT THE FACT THAT I’M GOING TO ASK YOU, “DO YOU HAVE PROOF OF,” AND YOU’RE GONNA SAY, “NO, BECAUSE I HAVE CASH.” THAT’S A LITTLE CONVENIENT. JOHN: IT DOES SEEM A LITTLE CONVENIENT. HOWEVER, I TRUSTED IN THEIR FRIENDSHIP. WE WERE FRIENDS AT THE TIME. JUDGE: SO YOU TOOK $1,500 IN CASH–YOU TOOK $1,500 IN CASH AND GAVE IT TO HIM AFTER YOU RECEIVED THIS LETTER? JOHN: YES, MA’AM. JUDGE: OK. SO YOU TOLD ME BEFORE THAT YOU MISSED AUGUST, SEPTEMBER, AND OCTOBER. WHEN DID YOU PAY THAT MONEY BACK? JOHN: AS SOON AS I WAS ABLE TO. I BELIEVE THAT WAS IN EITHER LATE OCTOBER OR EARLY NOVEMBER. JUDGE: AND YOU PAID THAT BACK IN CASH, ACCORDING TO YOU? JOHN: YES. JUDGE: AND WHO DID YOU GIVE THAT TO? JOHN: I GAVE IT TO ROBERT. JUDGE: OK. AND DO YOU DO ALL YOUR TRANSACTIONS IN CASH? JOHN: GENERALLY YES. JUDGE: WHERE DO YOU GET THE MONEY FROM? DO YOU HAVE A BANK ACCOUNT? JOHN: NO, MA’AM. JUDGE: OK. HOW IS IT POSSIBLE THEN, IF YOU PAID THEM BACK RENT FOR AUGUST, SEPTEMBER, AND OCTOBER, WHY IS IT THAT IN FEBRUARY, JUST A FEW MONTHS LATER, YOU OWE ANOTHER $1,400 IN BACK RENT? JOHN: I DON’T KNOW. JUDGE: SO YOU DON’T KNOW WHY YOU OWE BACK RENT, BUT YOU JUST SHELL OUT $1,400 IN CASH TO HIM TO GIVE TO THE LANDLORD? JOHN: LIKE I SAID, I TRUSTED THEM. THEY WERE MY FRIENDS. NOW THEY’RE JUST SLUGS AFTER MY MONEY. JUDGE: I WANT YOU TO ANSWER THE QUESTION THAT I’M ASKING. YOU SAY YOU DON’T KNOW WHY YOU OWE $1,400 IN BACK RENT, BUT YOU WENT AND GOT $1,400 IN CASH, AND YOU GAVE IT TO HIM TO PAY THE LANDLORD? JOHN: THAT IS CORRECT. JUDGE: WHY WOULD YOU DO THAT IF YOU DON’T KNOW THAT YOU OWE BACK RENT? JOHN: LIKE I SAID, MAYBE I TRUST TOO EASILY. JUDGE: BECAUSE YOU’RE NOT TELLING ME THE TRUTH, SIR. YOU’RE NOT TELLING ME THE TRUTH, AND YOUR LIES ARE STARTING TO CATCH UP WITH YOU. [APPLAUSE] JUST SO YOU KNOW, IN YOUR ANSWER TO WHY YOU DON’T OWE FOR BACK RENT, YOU NEVER SAID THAT YOU PAID. YOU SAID THAT WHEN YOU MOVED OUT, THEY AGREED TO FORGIVE YOUR DEBT. JUST SO YOU KNOW. OK? [LAUGHTER] THAT’S WHAT YOU SAID IN YOUR ANSWER. I KNOW IT’S HARD FOR YOU TO KEEP IT STRAIGHT. BECAUSE, LET ME TELL YOU, WHEN YOU TELL THE TRUTH, YOU DON’T HAVE TO THINK ABOUT WHAT YOU’RE GONNA SAY ALL THE TIME WHEN YOU JUST TELL THE TRUTH. OK? HOW LONG DID MR. HILL LIVE IN THE APARTMENT WITHOUT PAYING RENT, THE NUMBER OF MONTHS? ROBERT: I WOULD ESTIMATE IT TO BE AT LEAST 9. JUDGE: WAS HE EVICTED, OR DID HE LEAVE VOLUNTARILY? JACOB: IT BECAME APPARENT THAT HE WAS NOT PAYING RENT NOR WAS HE ABLE TO PAY RENT NOR DID HE SHOW ANY INTENT TO BEGIN PAYING RENT AGAIN. SO WE REQUESTED THAT OUR LANDLORD HAVE HIM REMOVED FROM THE LEASE. JOHN: THESE MEN ARE HERE TO PAINT ME AS A VILLAIN, AS A DEADBEAT, AND AS A PERSON WHO CAN’T HANDLE HIS OWN SELF. LOOK AT HIM. HE LOOKS LIKE A– JUDGE: I’M GONNA TELL YOU RIGHT NOW. STOP POINTING. ROBERT: IT DOESN’T MATTER WHAT I LOOK LIKE. I PAY RENT. JUDGE: THERE ARE ONLY 3 TYPES OF PEOPLE THAT DEAL IN ALL CASH: DRUG DEALERS, PIMPS, AND STRIPPERS. NOW, YOU WANT TO TELL ME YOU’RE ONE OF THE THREE, WE CAN HAVE THE CONVERSATION, BUT IF NOT, YOU’RE NOT TELLING ME THE TRUTH. JOHN: I’M SORRY, MA’AM. I COULDN’T… I COULD NOT HEAR YOU. JUDGE: OH, YOU HEARD ME. [LAUGHTER] ANNOUNCER: COMING UP ON “JUDGE FAITH,” THE DEFENDANT HAS TROUBLE STEERING THE TRUTH. JUDGE: WHAT HAPPENED? JOHN: NOTHING. JACOB: THAT… JOHN: MAYBE THAT DAY, SOMEONE CAME ALONG AND SAID, “OH, THIS IS A NICE CAR “IN A CRAPPY NEIGHBORHOOD. I’M GONNA MESS IT UP.” JACOB: WHY? WHY WOULD THAT BE A THOUGHT PROCESS? ROBERT: THAT’S WHAT THEY DID. JUDGE: I’M GONNA GO BACK TO YOUR ANSWER AGAIN, BECAUSE I THINK YOU’RE HAVING MEMORY PROBLEMS AGAIN. ANNOUNCER: AND LATER… KENNETH: SHE CALLED HOME DEPOT AND STOPPED ME AND MADE ME COME BACK AND TAKE THE ROCKS BACK TO HOME DEPOT. JUDGE: SO YOU DIDN’T BELIEVE THAT THE BRICKS CAME FROM HOME DEPOT? VICKY: THE BRICK WAS NOT PACKAGED CORRECTLY. THEY DO NOT SEND THEM OUT LOOSE LIKE THAT, AND THEY DEFINITELY DON’T– THEY DON’T SELL DIRTY OLD BRICKS LIKE THAT. ANNOUNCER: PLAINTIFFS JACOB SAXE AND ROBERT HENNEN ARE SUING THEIR FORMER ROOMMATE FOR UNPAID RENT, UTILITIES, AND DAMAGE TO THEIR CAR. DEFENDANT JONATHAN HILL CLAIMS HE’S ALL PAID UP ON RENT AND HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE DAMAGE TO THE CAR. JUDGE: WHAT ELSE ARE YOU SUING FOR? JACOB: DAMAGE TO MY VEHICLE. JUDGE: TELL ME ABOUT THAT. JACOB: I GOT A PHONE CALL FROM JOHN ASKING IF HE COULD MOVE MY CAR SO HE COULD PARK IN THE GARAGE AGAIN. JUDGE: WERE YOU GUYS FRIENDS AT THIS POINT, OR YOU’RE NOT SPEAKING VERY MUCH? JACOB: NO, I WAS ON SPEAKING…POSITIVE TERMS WITH THE DEFENDANT. ROBERT: I JUST WASN’T. JUDGE: YOU WEREN’T? ROBERT: NO, NOT AT ALL. JUDGE: BECAUSE YOU WERE JUST FED UP. ROBERT: YEAH. WELL, NOT JUST THAT. IT WAS JUST… HE WAS VERY CONDESCENDING TO US THE ENTIRE TIME, JUST WALKING AROUND LIKE HE OWNED THE PLACE WHEN HE WAS THE ONLY ONE NOT PAYING RENT. [LAUGHTER] HE WAS REALLY FRUSTRATING TO LIVE WITH. JUDGE: RIGHT. SOMEHOW I GET THE IMPRESSION THAT’S PROBABLY TRUE. GO AHEAD. SO WHAT HAPPENS? YOU GET BACK TO MINNESOTA. WHAT DO YOU SEE? WHAT HAPPENS? JACOB: YEAH. I WENT OUT TO MY CAR TO GO SOMEWHERE AND NOTICED THAT THERE WAS THIS HUGE SCRAPE FROM THE PASSENGER DOOR BACK ACROSS THE REAR PASSENGER DOOR AND EVEN ONTO THE REAR QUARTER PANEL. JUDGE: YOUR CAR WAS NOT LIKE THAT PRIOR TO YOU LEAVING MINNESOTA TO TAKE YOUR TRIP TO CALIFORNIA? JACOB: YEAH. I KNOW FOR A FACT THAT THERE WAS NO DAMAGE ON THAT SIDE OF THE CAR. JUDGE: OK. LET ME SEE THE PHOTOS YOU SUBMITTED TO COURT. IS THAT THE SCRATCH ON THE SIDE? JACOB: YEAH, AND YOU CAN SEE BOTH OF THE MISSING TRIM PANELS DOWN THERE, TOO. JUDGE: OK. WHAT HAPPENED? JOHN: NOTHING. [LAUGHTER] I PUT IT IN THE GARAGE. WHEN HE MOVED IT OUT, MAYBE THAT DAY SOMEONE CAME ALONG AND SAID, “OH, THIS IS A NICE CAR “IN A CRAPPY NEIGHBORHOOD. I’M GONNA MESS IT UP.” JACOB: WHY? WHY WOULD THAT BE A THOUGHT PROCESS? ROBERT: THAT’S WHAT THEY DID. JUDGE: ALL RIGHT. MR. HILL, DID YOU MOVE THE CAR FROM THE GARAGE TO THE STREET? JOHN: NO. JUDGE: SO YOU NEVER CALLED AND ASKED HIM TO MOVE HIS CAR FROM THE GARAGE TO THE STREET? JOHN: NO. I… JUDGE: THAT NEVER HAPPENED? JOHN: I MOVED IT FROM THE PARKING PLACE WHERE IT WAS INTO THE GARAGE. I DID NOT MOVE IT FROM THE GARAGE INTO THE STREET. JACOB: I PARKED IT IN THE GARAGE. WHO MOVED IT OUT OF THE GARAGE? JOHN: NOT ME. JUDGE: IN YOUR ANSWER– I’M GONNA GO BACK TO YOUR ANSWER AGAIN BECAUSE I THINK YOU’RE HAVING MEMORY PROBLEMS AGAIN. SO I’M GONNA BACK TO YOUR ANSWER, BECAUSE IN YOUR ANSWER, WHAT YOU TOLD THE COURT AND WHAT YOU WROTE IS THAT IF HE DIDN’T WANT TO TAKE A CHANCE OF HAVING YOUR CAR DAMAGED, THEN HE SHOULD NOT HAVE TOLD YOU TO MOVE IT TO THE STREET. [AUDIENCE MURMURS] YOU UNDERSTAND? FROM THE CURB… FROM THE GARAGE TO THE STREET. THAT’S WHAT YOU SAID IN YOUR ANSWER. AND IN COURT HERE TODAY, YOU’RE SAYING YOU MOVED IT FROM THE STREET TO THE GARAGE. SO, SIR, WHAT I’M TELLING YOU IS YOU EITHER HAVE A REALLY, REALLY BAD MEMORY, OR YOU’RE JUST A LITTLE LIAR. [APPLAUSE] SHOW ME PROOF OF THE DAMAGES TO YOUR CAR. DO YOU HAVE PROOF OF DAMAGES TO YOUR CAR? JACOB: I DO HAVE PHOTOCOPIES OF THE QUOTE I RECEIVED FROM THE BODY SHOP. JUDGE: HAVE YOU HAD THE WORK DONE? JACOB: NO, I HAVE NOT. I CANNOT AFFORD IT CURRENTLY. ROBERT: I JUST REALLY NEED THIS MONEY BECAUSE I’M TRYING TO MOVE OUT OF MY HOUSE, AND I CAN’T UNTIL THIS MAN’S DEBT IS REMOVED FROM… JACOB: YOUR RESPONSIBILITY. ROBERT: MY RESPONSIBILITY. JUDGE: OK. AFTER REVIEWING ALL OF THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE, I FIND THAT YOU DO OWE $2,474 IN BACK RENT, AND I’M ORDERING YOU TO PAY THAT TO THE PLAINTIFFS. IN ADDITION, I’M ORDERING YOU TO PAY $1,937 FOR CAR DAMAGES. YOU HAVE ZERO CREDIBILITY, AND I’M GONNA TELL YOU RIGHT NOW, YOU NEED TO STOP LYING SO MUCH. WHEN YOU COME TO COURT AND YOU TAKE AN OATH TO TELL THE TRUTH, YOU NEED TO START TELLING THE TRUTH. YOU DON’T EVEN REMEMBER YOUR LIE FROM LAST WEEK WHEN YOU SUBMITTED YOUR ANSWER TO THIS CASE. JUDGMENT FOR THE PLAINTIFFS, $4,411. GOOD LUCK. [CHEERING AND APPLAUSE] [THEME MUSIC PLAYING] JACOB: YES. ALL RIGHT. ANNOUNCER: PLAINTIFF VICKY WRIGHT SAYS HER CONTRACTOR IS TRYING TO SCAM HER. SHE’S SUING FOR THE RETURN OF HER DEPOSIT, IN THE AMOUNT OF $620. DEFENDANT KENNETH HEATH CLAIMS THE PLAINTIFF BREACHED THE CONTRACT, AND HE OWES HER NOTHING. HE’S COUNTERSUING FOR $3,000 IN EMOTIONAL DAMAGE. JUDGE: VICKY WRIGHT? VICKY: YES. JUDGE: YOU ARE SUING THE DEFENDANT, KENNETH HEATH, FOR $620, THE RETURN OF A DEPOSIT FOR WORK YOU HIRED HIM TO DO IN YOUR HOME? VICKY: THAT’S CORRECT. JUDGE: AND YOU ARE COUNTERSUING, SIR, FOR $3,000 FOR EMOTIONAL DAMAGE? KENNETH: YES, MA’AM. JUDGE: OK. MS. WRIGHT, WE WILL START WITH YOU. I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU HIRED MR. HEATH. YOU WERE LOOKING FOR SOMEONE TO BUILD A RETAINER WALL IN YOUR HOME? LET ME ASK YOU, MR. HEATH, IS THAT WHAT YOU DO FOR A LIVING? ARE YOU A CONTRACTOR BY TRADE? KENNETH: YES. JUDGE: AND SO WHAT DO YOU USE TO BUILD A RETAINING WALL? IS IT BRICK? VICKY: IT’S BRICK, YOUR HONOR. JUDGE: OK. MAY I SEE A PHOTO OF YOUR–I UNDERSTAND YOU SUBMITTED PHOTOS OF YOUR HOME. LET ME TAKE A LOOK AT THAT. WHAT IS THIS A PHOTO OF? VICKY: THAT’S THE PHOTO OF THE RETAINING WALL THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE. JUDGE: OK. GOT IT. AND THAT’S CONCRETE. SO YOU WERE GONNA USE BRICKS, SIR, TO BUILD A RETAINING WALL? KENNETH: RIGHT. INTERLOCKING BLOCKS. JUDGE: OK. GOT IT. SO WHAT WAS THE ESTIMATE HE GAVE YOU, MA’AM? DID YOU GUYS ENTER INTO A WRITTEN AGREEMENT? VICKY: YES, WE DID. JUDGE: MAY I SEE THAT? VICKY: YES. JUDGE: AND HOW MUCH DID YOU PAY HIM? VICKY: UM…IN THE CONTRACT, IT STATED THAT HE WANTED HALF THE MONEY UP FRONT. I DID PAY HIM $620 ON AUGUST THE 14th. JUDGE: SO THE TOTAL FOR THE CONTRACT WAS $1,236? VICKY: YES, IT IS. JUDGE: AND SHE PAID YOU HALF, CORRECT? KENNETH: SHE GAVE ME $620. JUDGE: OK. GOT IT. DID YOU EVER START THE PROJECT? KENNETH: NO. I– JUDGE: SHE FIRED YOU BEFORE YOU EVER STARTED, RIGHT? KENNETH: I’VE HAULED ONE LOAD OF INTERLOCKING BLOCKS THERE, AND I WAS GOING BACK TO THE HARDWARE STORE TO GET THE OTHER BLOCKS, AND SHE CALLED, AND SHE HAD TOLD ME TO COME BACK AND PICK THE BLOCKS UP. SHE DIDN’T WANT ME TO DO THE JOB NO MORE. SHE SAID THAT THE ROCKS LOOKED LIKE THEY COST 99 CENTS. I SAID, “MA’AM, YOU GOT “THE COST SLIP IN YOUR HAND. THEY COST $4.15 A PIECE.” JUDGE: WHERE’D YOU BUY THEM FROM? KENNETH: A HOME DEPOT. JUDGE: TELL ME WHAT YOU THOUGHT WHEN YOU SAW THE BRICKS, BECAUSE THAT WAS ONE OF THE ISSUES. TELL ME WHAT YOU THOUGHT WHEN YOU SAW THEM. VICKY: THEY WERE REALLY SMALL BRICK. THEY WERE BLACK IN COLOR. THEY DON’T SELL DIRTY OLD BRICKS LIKE THAT, AND SOME OF THEM WERE BROKEN. THEY WERE LOOSE, SITTING IN MY DRIVEWAY. IT LOOKED LIKE THEY HAD BEEN UNEARTHED FROM SOMEONE ELSE’S YARD OR A SALVAGE YARD. OK? I GOT ON MY CELL PHONE AND CALLED HIM AND SAID, “YOU’RE NOT PUTTING THIS STUFF IN MY YARD.” JUDGE: LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION. WHAT BRICKS ARE IN HER YARD? I’M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND. KENNETH: THE BRICK– I BROUGHT ONE LOAD. IT WAS TWO LOADS BECAUSE THEY’RE TOO HEAVY FOR THE TRAILER. JUDGE: OK. KENNETH: OK. SO I BROUGHT ONE LOAD OF BLOCKS THERE. JUDGE: OK. AND YOU SUBMITTED A PHOTO OF HOW THEY SHOULD LOOK? LET ME SEE THAT. OK. THIS IS WHAT THE PALETTES NORMALLY LOOK LIKE FROM HOME DEPOT? IS THAT CORRECT, SIR? KENNETH: UH…YEAH. JUDGE: AND IS THIS WHAT THE PALETTE THAT YOU DELIVERED LOOKED LIKE? KENNETH: HUH? ANNOUNCER: COMING UP, JUDGE FAITH MAKES BAD BUSINESS HER BUSINESS. KENNETH: MY BUSINESS IS TO TRY TO DO THE RIGHT THING. JUDGE: AND WHAT’S THE RIGHT THING? YOU JUST KEPT… YOU JUST KEPT THAT HALF OF THE MONEY? THAT’S THE RIGHT THING? DON’T TRY TO SCAM PEOPLE. ANNOUNCER: PLAINTIFF VICKY WRIGHT SAYS THE DEPOSIT SHE GAVE THE DEFENDANT WAS NOT USED TO PURCHASE THE CORRECT BUILDING MATERIALS. DEFENDANT KENNETH HEATH CLAIMS THAT THE PLAINTIFF CANCELED THE ORDER BEFORE HE COULD DELIVER. HE’S COUNTERSUING FOR EMOTIONAL DAMAGE. JUDGE: IF SHE PURCHASED THE BRICKS AND YOU NEVER STARTED THE JOB, WHY DIDN’T YOU REFUND HER HALF OF THE MONEY THAT SHE PAID YOU? KENNETH: WHY DID I DO THAT? BECAUSE THAT REALLY… MY BUSINESS IS TO TRY TO DO THE RIGHT THING. JUDGE: AND WHAT’S THE RIGHT THING? YOU JUST KEPT…YOU JUST KEPT THAT HALF OF THE MONEY? THAT’S THE RIGHT THING FOR YOU? KENNETH: I SHOULD HAVE JUST KEPT IT ALL, REALLY. JUDGE: OK. WHY IS THAT, SIR, IF YOU DIDN’T START THE JOB? KENNETH: BECAUSE IT’S A BREACH OF CONTRACT. SHE SHOULDN’T HAVE JUST… SHE LET…SHE SHOULDN’T HAVE… IF SHE WAS GONNA HAVE A PROBLEM, SHE SHOULD HAVE AT LEAST LET ME START THE JOB. JUDGE: MAY I SEE THE RECEIPTS YOU WANTED ME TO LOOK AT? VICKY: YES. AND THE BRICK WAS LOOSE WHEN IT CAME TO MY HOUSE, AND IT WAS DIRTY, AND… HOME DEPOT, THEY DO NOT SELL THOSE KIND OF BRICKS. [LAUGHTER] JUDGE: YOU BOUGHT THE BRICKS ON SATURDAY? KENNETH: I PAID FOR THEM ON SATURDAY. I BROUGHT THEM THERE ON SUNDAY. JUDGE: OK. PERFECT. VICKY: I CALLED HIM AND SAID, “YOU ARE NOT PUTTING THIS DIRTY OLD STUFF IN MY YARD.” JUDGE: NOW, YOU ADMIT THAT YOU– VICKY: I PAID FOR NEW. JUDGE: HOLD ON A SECOND. YOU TOOK THE BRICKS TO… AND DELIVERED THEM ON SUNDAY, THE 17th, RIGHT, TO HER HOUSE? KENNETH: YES. YEAH. JUDGE: GOT IT. GO AHEAD. VICKY: WHEN HE LEFT MY HOUSE, HE TOOK THE RECEIPT AND SAID HE WAS GONNA GO GET HIS MONEY BACK AND TAKE THAT DIRTY OLD BRICK BACK, AND I SAID, “I DON’T THINK THEY’RE GONNA “TAKE THAT BACK. THEY DIDN’T SELL IT TO YOU.” JUDGE: DO YOU HAVE ANOTHER STATEMENT FROM HOME DEPOT THAT SHOWS WHEN THE BRICKS WERE RETURNED? VICKY: UH, YES. IT’S IN THERE. JUDGE: BARBARA, HAND THAT TO HER. VICKY: IT’S KIND OF SMALL PRINT. JUDGE: PLEASE PULL THAT DOCUMENT OUT AND SHOW IT TO ME. VICKY: HERE IT IS. SHOW THEM THE THING. PURCHASED AND RETURNED. JUDGE: OK. MY QUESTION IS THIS– THE BRICKS WERE PURCHASED ON SATURDAY. YOU’RE SAYING THEY DIDN’T GET TO HER HOUSE ON SUNDAY. WHO TOOK THE BRICKS TO HER HOUSE ON THAT SUNDAY? KENNETH: MY SON’S EMPLOYEE. JUDGE: SO HOME DEPOT DIDN’T DELIVER THE BRICKS? KENNETH: NO. JUDGE: YOUR SON’S EMPLOYEE PICKED THEM UP ON SUNDAY AND DELIVERED THE BRICKS FROM HOME DEPOT, EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE PURCHASED ON SATURDAY? KENNETH: RIGHT. JUDGE: OK. VICKY: THE NEW BRICK THAT I PURCHASED WERE NEVER PICKED UP FROM THEIR YARD. JUDGE: HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT? HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT? VICKY: BECAUSE I SPOKE WITH THE SALESPERSON, AND I SPOKE WITH THE PERSON FROM THE YARD, AND THEY SAID– JUDGE: HOME DEPOT SAID… WHEN DID HOME DEPOT TELL YOU THE NEW BRICKS WERE PICKED UP? VICKY: THEY WAS NEVER PICKED UP, THEY TOLD ME. JUDGE: OK. THAT’S WHAT I NEED TO KNOW. THAT’S WHAT I NEED TO KNOW. ANNOUNCER: AND NOW JUDGE FAITH RULES. JUDGE: WHEN YOU SAW THOSE OLD BRICKS, IN YOUR MIND, YOU STARTED THINKING, “THESE BRICKS CAN’T BE NEW. THEY CAN’T BE FROM HOME DEPOT.” AND THAT’S WHY YOU STARTED CALLING, CHECKING UP ON ALL OF THIS? VICKY: OH, YES. YES. JUDGE: OK. GOT IT. I BELIEVE HER. I BELIEVE EVERYTHING SHE’S SAYING. AND I AM ORDERING YOU TO– LET ME TELL YOU SOMETHING, MR. HEATH. I BELIEVE HER. I BELIEVE WHAT SHE’S SAYING. I BELIEVE YOU SHOWED UP WITH THOSE OLD BRICKS. NO, SIR. NO, SIR. I BELIEVE HER. YOU OWE HER $620, SIR. DON’T TRY TO SCAM PEOPLE. KENNETH: WAIT A MINUTE– JUDGE: THAT’S FRAUD. $620 YOU OWE THE PLAINTIFF. VICKY: THANK YOU. KENNETH: WHATEVER. [MUTTERS] ANNOUNCER: IF YOU OR SOMEONE YOU KNOW HAS A DISPUTE, DON’T TAKE THE LAW INTO YOUR OWN HANDS. LET JUDGE FAITH RULE ON IT FOR YOU. TO SUBMIT YOUR CASE, GO TO JUDGEFAITH.COM AND TELL US YOUR STORY. SEE YOU IN COURT.

81 thoughts on “Judge Faith – Roommate Run Off; 99 cent Brick (Season 1: Episode #84)

  • Cole Barker Post author

    Dude in the purple is tweaking though..

  • Chet Brinkley Post author

    I'd eat Judge Faith!

  • keithfr1 Post author

    1st defendant is just screwing his friends over by not paying rent

  • jerseygirl45 Post author

    2nd defendant is a old scammer with that gold tooth in front lol

  • Tanya Corbin Post author

    LMAOOO 2nd case he said at the end….."YOU AINT GONNA GET IT" LOL SCAM ARTIST

  • Vera Wroe Post author

    I don't know why the brick lady would have trusted him in the first place. He simply oozed Con man.

  • K JC Post author

    i can't stand it when Judge Faith says thank you to her Bailiff Barbara, and Barbara goes mmm hmm. other court rooms. say thank you, and the Bailiff says, you're welcome.

  • Ed Dancer1 Post author

    I pay my landlord cash then my landlord gives me a receipt with her name on it but sometimes I give her a money order
    Ed

  • Latia Green Post author

    That contractor is a crook. He act like a junkie

  • meme Post author

    1st defendant is just a liar and JF saw it straight away.

  • The Brideseed Love Post author

    how does the court MAKE sure people pay?

  • Nellie K. Adaba Post author

    Ex roommates

  • carolyn carter Post author

    She is good….!

  • God's Advocate Post author

    Lol he didn't get those bricks from home depot but i feel he still would have done a great job tho..

  • Campbell Post author

    The first case is fake. They know the show pays what is owed in the case. Ill bet they split the money after the show.

  • taufiq teo Post author

    why does barbara always have this stank face? πŸ˜’

  • Chris Pham Post author

    What a petulant child the first defendant was.

  • LK B Post author

    WOW! Who were these 3 idiots raised by? They are all so weird….. especially the liar, with memory problems. How many lies did Judge Faith catch him in….?? Too many.

  • Queen of Scorpio Post author

    He's on Drugs and he drinks. If you can't find tell by looking at him then you're dumb.

  • April Thompson Post author

    She must never been in a home Depot before. They do sell it but for discounted price.

  • chris gast Post author

    I could understand if the friend wanted to pay in cash (a little skeptical of why he doesn't have a bank account though). But he would've been better off to pay the landlord him/herself from the start instead of handing it to his friend or move out altogether (after the first mix-up). If his friends were fuckin' him over, then he should just cut his losses and move out. That's a lot of money to just hand someone. You should keep track of where your money is going at all times.

  • Jay Post author

    You can tell liar

  • heather isais Post author

    "Lo barato sale caro; the cheap comes out expensive"- marilyn millian best court judge ever.

  • Keziah Tagoe Post author

    The defendant is a liar in the first Case

  • Jasmine Chanel Post author

    I only deal with cash & I’m definitely not a drug dealer pimp or stripper

  • Angel Face Post author

    Uh..gloating made it seemed like they lied as well… They're all liars

  • Jazmine Graves Post author

    The defendant crazy as heck with the lies in the first case πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚

  • Beautiful Strong Post author

    Judge faith ,,your so wrong about that comment U made,,about only 3 people that pay in cash,, CUZ l ONLY PAY IN CASH SO I WON'T DEAL WITH ANY PAPER WORK & ALL I NEED TO KEEP ARE RECIETS,, SO BEFORE U SAYS STUPID COMMENTS THINK ABOUT IT 1ST I'M HAVE MY ASSOCIEATES IN CRIMINAL LAW,, & I'M NOT A DRUG DEALER,,PIMP,, OR PROSTITUDE.,,,,,SUCK IN THIS 1 BUTCH!!!!!!😀😀😀😀

  • MISS. SABALI Post author

    1st Case: Oh Yea, He's BIG MADπŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚

  • olive oil Post author

    me and my husband pay in cash and were not any of that stuff

  • Cathy Martin Post author

    Judge faith annoys me with her personal perspectives. Run it like a court and Lv your personal feelings at the door

  • Valeeda Davidson Post author

    I UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHAT THE DEFENDANT SAID. JUDGE WAS WRONG.

  • Nia Marie Post author

    1st case…as soon as hr said hr sent the cash thur the mail…I immediately thought he was lying… Why didn't he just get a money order? Money orders aren't expensive. That's what I did, unless my landlord was on site and he would stop by my apartment and give me a receipt when I gave him cash but never just straight up cash thur the mail??

  • Zach The Celtics Guy Post author

    In the second case, Bill Cosby gets sued for fraud.

  • Yolanda SugarDimples Champion Post author

    This boy got it from his mommaπŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚all these lies, lying is in the blood!!

  • Carolyn Peercy Post author

    Lying big time On first case .

  • Moreh Yeshiah History Lessons Post author

    Drug dealers, pimps, strippers

    Raw

  • ToniA5555 Post author

    I would have thought the second defendant was a crackhead. I can just hear Judge Mathis commenting on his "crackish ways."

  • Kathy DS Post author

    What a punk.

  • Mickey J Post author

    1st case: The defendant is a habitual liar!!!!

  • Mickey J Post author

    2nd case: Scammin MOFO!!!πŸ˜‰

  • ShmooieLowenstein Post author

    That poor ugly young woman in the first case shouldn't have been living in sin with those boys.

  • Usssa Usssa Post author

    Liar πŸ€₯ liar πŸ€₯ pants πŸ‘– on fire πŸ”₯!!!

    #πŸ€₯πŸ€₯πŸ‘–πŸ”₯

  • joed596 Post author

    Who pays his rent in cash and doesn't get a receipt? <_<

  • joed596 Post author

    "emotional damage" πŸ™‚

  • Rahn Post author

    I'm hungry

  • shirley leah Post author

    First case: Compulsive liar

  • Tiffany Rush-Hayes Post author

    First guy a scumbag liar….they should've beat his behind

  • K v Post author

    If you want to pay everything in cash just get a money order that way you have proof

  • TheOpelkoenjas Post author

    Case one: the defendant is someone that would literally throw you under the bus and pont his finger to the person next to him, without even blinking for a millisecond. He's the type of person that you can only hate, not love.

    Case two: he's your typical con artist. Luckily she caught him on time and stopped everything immediately.

  • WiccanGoddess33 Post author

    Fraud man: My business is to try to do the right thing.
    Judge Faith: You owe her $620
    Fraud man: Huh she ain't gonna get it!

    So much for doing the right thing πŸ™„πŸ˜–

  • Trendiinng _ Post author

    1st defendant thought he had his lie all planned out and judge faith was boo boo the Fool.πŸ˜‚πŸ’€

  • technomewmew Post author

    I don't agree with the all cash statement about it just being drug dealers and strippers and whatnot. People struggling with money management often use cash because spending with cards is too easy. Some people just manage better with paper money and the harsh limits it provides.

  • giselle joseph Post author

    Thats why u dont rent or lease with friends they dont pay. The defendant states he make chq payments to robert an the landlord never got the money lying

  • Quantika Brown Post author

    Anybody else hear that contractor say "she ain't gonna get it"

  • Leranda Garib Post author

    "She ain't gone get it"… you'll make a jail bastard…. $3000 for emotional stress??? You should pay the woman for emotional stress

  • Do It Like The Bereans Post author

    1st Case: Who sends cash in the mail? It seems if he had really sent it, he would have at least sent it certified return so he'd get an inkling the right person received the money. He must be one of the few to just throw a few hundred dollars in an envelope and sleep easily at night without a gnawing wonder of whether or not the money would get there instead of being stolen or lost in transit. Then he supposedly hands 1400 dollars in cash to the former roommates instead of the landlord, and does so without a receipt?? Like, who does that?? After listening to the defendant some more, I've decided he's full of crap and owes the back rent. When Judge Faith calls him out on his lying from his affidavit. πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚
    Then when the defendant starts pointing his finger at the co-plaintiffs, attacking them on their appearances and saying they're trying to make him out to be a deadbeat who can't pay his rent, I laughed at their responses and even harder at what Judge Faith said:
    Judge Faith: "I'm telling you right now, Ima tell you right now–stop pointing–there are only three people, only three types of people that deal in all cash. Drug dealers, pimps and strippers. Now, you wanna tell me you're one of the three?" πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚
    Pahah the way the defendant storms out of the court room like a little 5 year old. Expensive lesson to learn, bud. Don't lie and cheat.

  • Do It Like The Bereans Post author

    So I just found out that the guilty don't have to pay a dime out of their own pockets because I read the fine print at the end of the show at 19:30 that says, "Monetary rewards are paid from a fund maintained by the producer." Are the guilty paid to act disappointed at the verdict? Not only that but I researched and found out both plaintiff(s) and defendant(s) get paid to be on the show and their travel and hotel expenses are paid for. What have I been watching this entire time?

  • mmp5959 Post author

    First case was hilarious… he knew he was lying.
    Smh

  • Tatiana Correia Post author

    I wonder if the court enforces all this rulings because normally even when a case is rulled in your favour unless its enforced if the person does not want to pay they don't and you have to spend more money to endorce it to stabd a chance if getting your money which happened to me and it is Sooo frustrating & disheartening. You kind of loose faith in the system actually. But the show is good.

  • Nahtally .B Post author

    First defendant has the behavior of a complete sociopath

  • Lee Post author

    I dealt with cash. You sob judge. I ain't one of those three.

  • Robin Strajt Post author

    Just 3 kinds of people who deal in cash? Bull.

  • Lady Vampress Post author

    Jacob is cute. Shame on their former friend screwing them over and not even giving a sh*t about it.

  • andrea Burton Post author

    First defendant is a compulsive lair

  • Kazuma DoubleIce Post author

    I will be 100% honest only reson I watch this is because I think Faith is cute and love her voice and smile, that and I think she is funny.

  • James Scott Post author

    The first case seems really fake to me, like they all made up a story to get on tv. Their reactions, their affect, the way they deliver their lines….er…"testimony"….it's like they're bad actors rejected from Judge Mablean's fake show.

  • via Devon Post author

    hashtag this nword lying your honor

  • Coming From A Black Girl Post author

    Robert is so cute but its clear he's on drugs 😭

  • Fannie Outlaw Post author

    Dam he lie better than I do!!! Seesh 🀨🀨🀨πŸ€₯πŸ€₯πŸ€₯

  • Rita VΓ‘radi Post author

    Jake – the long haired guy – is very handsome.

  • Heather Gabriel Post author

    1st case the defendant is an arrogant big fat liar.dead bit.and he realy doesnt seem to care nor taking anything seriously..and its inteteresting how he is the one wearing a suit & tie…very well presented on the surface when his jus a low life

  • Guy Keelen Post author

    People be saying that this is all actors is that true I don't know I would hope not I love judge faith

  • hurricaneheli79 Post author

    1st case: Defendant was clearly lying & you can easily tell. Especially with the car situation.

    2nd case: Defendant was clearly a scam artist & nothing more. That was clear as day.

    "There are only 3 types of people who deal in all cash, drug dealers, pimps & strippers."

    1st off: BULL FUCKING SHIT. YOUR SO FUCKING FULL OF IT.

    2nd of all: I've dealt in ONLY CASH when I've worked TIP jobs. My mom dealt with ONLY CASH when she did hair, same with a cousin of mine. I work with someone that deals in ONLY CASH.

    3rd of all: GET THE FUCK OUT FAITH. You really need someone to CALL YOU THE FUCK OUT 1 OF THESE DAYS & IN FUCKING PERSON. COURT ROOM OR NOT. I WOULD APPLAUD THAT PERSON IF IT'S NOT ME.

  • Faye Dan Post author

    A lot of contractors do what this defendant did to make extra profit this shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.

  • james melchionno Post author

    the brick dude was drunk as fuck!

  • Diamond Starr Post author

    He a funny liar

  • Corey Klaustermeier Post author

    7:18 Sounds like Judge Judy’s catchphrase β€œIf you tell the truth you don’t have to have a good memory”. Something they teach in law school maybe?

  • Heaven Royal Post author

    What did the 1st defendant think he was walking into with those lies?!

  • My Humble Opinion Post author

    Judge Faith is a trip! She gets down to the bottom of the thing! 🀣🀣🀣

  • Janice Sanders Post author

    He is such a deadbeat it's not even funny….

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *