@@MrCharlesEldredgeWho cares? She failed to prove it. All she had to do was call a plumber and find out exactly caused the problem and move forward accordingly. She's not a plumber, therefore her accusations are just speculation. 😊
My landlord did the same thing to me. He refused to hire a real plumber. Kept telling me there was no leak and I must've spilled water until I called the city. Turns out there was raw sewage from the let out valve on the side of the house seeping into my living room. Afterwards he cleaned the carpet in that area only, refusing to replace it. Just a terrible landlord. I had two more leaks after that. Now I live in a place where maintenance fixes everything the right way...right away.
WHO is Mr Nichols???!!!!!!!! The Defendant was weird for sending him in the first place. The Plaintiff didn't even have to allow some random other tenant into her apartment when a PLUMBER was needed.
The landlord should’ve hired a plumber to come out and inspect everything to write up a statement, stating where the water would have come from. To be able to hold that person liable for the damages.
Neither have proof of what really happened, but none of that really matters. What matters is that the security was kept, and the landlord MUST provide both a reason for keeping the security, proof of damage, and proof the damage was caused by the plaintiff. She had none of that. So, ultimately their competing stories don’t matter, even if one sounds more likely. What the case really hinged on was the Defendant’s burden of proof, and she failed.
@@nameundefinedname5307 Because the Plaintiff is ALSO presenting a scenario about why this happened as her legal stance. The Plaintiff’s case is “she shouldn’t have kept my money because the damage was not caused by me but by someone else”. But that stance requires evidence, too. It’s not just the Defense that needs evidence, but the Plaintiff, also. In every case. The plaintiff is alleging that a thing happened, but she, too, has no evidence of what really happened that day. All we know is that there was some kind of damage. So, when neither side has evidence of their claim, it defaults to the law: and that is simply, if a landlord wishes to keep security, they must present evidence of how the damage occurred, and the Defendant has none. So the plaintiff prevails. Had the Defendant had at least some kind of evidence, the Plaintiff would’ve needed to present contrary evidence to fulfill the burden of proof which would’ve shifted back on her.
@@YvonneNonYa Yes, but the tenant upstairs is the fabulous and very helpful Mr Nichols, who is not her son and she feels free to wake him up at 5:30 a.m. So she can't sue him, can she now..
The landlord know she was wrong. Tryna get her repairs done in the tenants dime. How you have water damage in your building and still don't know what caused it. She lazy and greedy.
Thank God there's still a judge who has NOT sold out & holds to her morals & values even on a TV courtroom show, she's still a judge who DDNT sell out & I tip my hat to her & have mad ❤ & respect for her not doing so.❤❤😊😊
I know there won’t be any new ones, but she was on air for 20 years. They just post the same episodes. You’re right that the new show was nothing like the one we love!
If there was no 'busted' pipe and the defendant never paid a plumber to come out and see or do anything, then where does she get off thinking she can keep the security deposit, to do what with it, put it in her pocket?...
This looks like a judgement error. If there was no plumber brought in to fix any pipes, how was it attributed to a broken pipe? Is the reason that the landlady didn’t get a plumber to certify that the pipes were all fine? After that further deep dives were required to confirm that Mr Nichols didn’t cause it… ?
Changing a faucet is no proof that there was anything wrong with the line. I'm not sure how the judge ruled in the plaintiffs favor. Where are the pictures of all the water? Where is even a picture of a plumber fixing a broken line?
You are missing the point, the defendant kept her money, either there wasn't a leak and so the defendant had no right whatsoever to keep the security deposit or there was a leak and once again it is the defendant's responsibility, either way she had no right to keep the security deposit...
Well if there was the water on the floor ONE time and a plumber never came and the issue didn’t continue, it sure sounds to me the lady left the water running.
OK, if there was water in the apartment but the landlord never fixed any pipes then the water couldn't have come from a broken pipe. The landlord screwed up by not getting a plumber to come in to take a look. Now if the landlord did have to change some pipes or a faucet then that would have been acknowledgement that there was indeed a leak. I guess the judge didn't need to see that evidence of that because the lack of a plumber's inspection over rode it.
@@kenhawes4695Pipe didn't magically fix itself, dude upstairs left his water on, then turned it off when he got a call. He caused the flood, that's why plaintiff saw water on the ceiling.
JM completely blew this one! As the defendant was attempting to convey, how does a pipe “break” and then magically repair itself. I believe the plaintiff did in fact leave the water on mistakenly.
The problem with this logic is that the Defendant requires proof, and that’s what it boils down too. Both can be yapping their gums about how it happened, but ultimately one thing matters: the security was kept and the landlord must provide a reason for why it was kept and proof that the damage was caused by the Plaintiff. The Defendant didn’t hire a plumber, didn’t get any proof of what caused the issue, never investigated to see if a pipe in the wall might’ve been an issue. Nothing. So she can’t keep the money.
So the defendant's proof consists of the word of another resident who 1- isn't a plumber, and 2- isn't there in the courtroom to talk to the judge. Interesting.
The defendants proof is that there is water damage and no broken Pipe to fix. So either the tenant left water running or the upstairs tenant left water running. Broken water pipes don’t fix themselves. I hope your not a judge or anyone who gets payed to think.
![[Live สด] การออกรางวัลสลากกินแบ่งรัฐบาล งวดวันที่ 16 พฤศจิกายน 2567](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/wPd7VFfWHIA/mqdefault.jpg)
![PASULOL รามเกียรติ์ ตอนที่ 4 นนทกพบรัก [Ramakien Ep.4: Nonthok in love]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/tMUQgmZzf_A/mqdefault.jpg)
![กี่หมื่นฟ้า | Your Sky Series EP.1 [2/4]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/qJbQs_nhjD4/mqdefault.jpg)
So where did the water come from, lady 😂? You suing for water damage, but there was no water? Sweet plaintiff ❤
Withholding security for water damage while not acknowledging the water damage. This case undoubtedly makes very much sense in some parallel universe.
😂😂😂😂😂
If you left the faucet on and caused an overflow that could easily cause water damage. Duh
@@MrCharlesEldredgeWho cares? She failed to prove it. All she had to do was call a plumber and find out exactly caused the problem and move forward accordingly. She's not a plumber, therefore her accusations are just speculation. 😊
My landlord did the same thing to me. He refused to hire a real plumber. Kept telling me there was no leak and I must've spilled water until I called the city. Turns out there was raw sewage from the let out valve on the side of the house seeping into my living room. Afterwards he cleaned the carpet in that area only, refusing to replace it. Just a terrible landlord. I had two more leaks after that. Now I live in a place where maintenance fixes everything the right way...right away.
Homeowners insurance doesn't cover your personal belongings. Get Renters insurance next time.
WHO is Mr Nichols???!!!!!!!! The Defendant was weird for sending him in the first place. The Plaintiff didn't even have to allow some random other tenant into her apartment when a PLUMBER was needed.
I love my Trini people and so sorry she had to deal with that slumlord 😂
When she opened the faucet and it blew, it was relieving air from the hot water pipe - the supply line has a leak
The landlord should’ve hired a plumber to come out and inspect everything to write up a statement, stating where the water would have come from. To be able to hold that person liable for the damages.
Agreed. As usual some landlords would rather do things and themselves rather than spend the money out of pocket
Defendant should be ashamed of herself. Slum landlord!
Most likely if there are no broken pipes, the upstairs tenant flooded his bathroom by not turning off his tap.
Wait, not Mr. Nichols. It’s funny how the Defend took his word on where the water came from.
That's possible. Or the plaintiff did.
@@MrCharlesEldredge Bit hard if the roof was wet and if it wasn't, why didn't the defendant bring her star witness?
She needed to hire a plumber. He could have found the source.
Neither have proof of what really happened, but none of that really matters. What matters is that the security was kept, and the landlord MUST provide both a reason for keeping the security, proof of damage, and proof the damage was caused by the plaintiff. She had none of that. So, ultimately their competing stories don’t matter, even if one sounds more likely. What the case really hinged on was the Defendant’s burden of proof, and she failed.
why would the plaintiff need evidence
@@nameundefinedname5307 Because the Plaintiff is ALSO presenting a scenario about why this happened as her legal stance. The Plaintiff’s case is “she shouldn’t have kept my money because the damage was not caused by me but by someone else”. But that stance requires evidence, too. It’s not just the Defense that needs evidence, but the Plaintiff, also. In every case. The plaintiff is alleging that a thing happened, but she, too, has no evidence of what really happened that day. All we know is that there was some kind of damage. So, when neither side has evidence of their claim, it defaults to the law: and that is simply, if a landlord wishes to keep security, they must present evidence of how the damage occurred, and the Defendant has none. So the plaintiff prevails. Had the Defendant had at least some kind of evidence, the Plaintiff would’ve needed to present contrary evidence to fulfill the burden of proof which would’ve shifted back on her.
Excellent point. You are right.
thank you for the detailed reply@@allegroaffettuoso9012
How can you say there’s no busted pipe if you never had a plumber come see?
❤ the plaintiff’s accent .
her accent sound like a Trinidadian
Definitely Trinidadian
Defo 🇹🇹
Trini❤🇹🇹
Pipes don’t fix themselves. If it was a broken pipe, it’d still be broken. Water from the ceiling, came from upstairs lol
The defendant said there was water damage, just no water leak was found. Upstairs neighbor.
She wants to charge the tenant downstairs she needs to charge the tenant upstairs.
@@YvonneNonYa Yes, but the tenant upstairs is the fabulous and very helpful Mr Nichols, who is not her son and she feels free to wake him up at 5:30 a.m. So she can't sue him, can she now..
she needed a plumber and PROOF. That was her problem.
The landlord know she was wrong. Tryna get her repairs done in the tenants dime. How you have water damage in your building and still don't know what caused it. She lazy and greedy.
The case of "pipe down" smh lol
That plaintiff is from Trinidad for sure 😂 🇹🇹
Especially the way how she telling the story 😂😂
Thank God there's still a judge who has NOT sold out & holds to her morals & values even on a TV courtroom show, she's still a judge who DDNT sell out & I tip my hat to her & have mad ❤ & respect for her not doing so.❤❤😊😊
Absolutely agree with you 100 percent 😁😁😁
Please give us the episodes from the early 2000s. We’ve seen these and we know there are more episodes than this. 😢
Sadly, not anymore. The people's court is done there, no longer recording and on TV. She has a new show and it's nothing like people's court! 😢
I know there won’t be any new ones, but she was on air for 20 years. They just post the same episodes.
You’re right that the new show was nothing like the one we love!
Very disappointed with the new show. Only made it through one episode.
She kept saying there's no busted pipe, but she didn't hire a plumber. Can she see through walls?
If there was no 'busted' pipe and the defendant never paid a plumber to come out and see or do anything, then where does she get off thinking she can keep the security deposit, to do what with it, put it in her pocket?...
Landlord didn't want to spend a red cent. All she had to do was hire a plumber to check things out.
Any responsible home owner would have called a plumber.
If she didnt call a plumber shes probably still has an issue !!!!
And if she found no water anywhere why did she withhold anything !!!!!
Were all gonna miss the peoples court sadly there finished it was a long good run. Her new show is not the same!
What’s her new show?
Her new show is scripted cases with actors. These are real cases and real litigants.
This looks like a judgement error. If there was no plumber brought in to fix any pipes, how was it attributed to a broken pipe? Is the reason that the landlady didn’t get a plumber to certify that the pipes were all fine? After that further deep dives were required to confirm that Mr Nichols didn’t cause it… ?
The dangling earrings at the end gave me anxiety. 😮
Mr. Nichols 😂
Nuff said pay her !!
If it hasn't been fixed it must have overflowed
I know a Trinidadian accent when I hear one 🇹🇹
Changing a faucet is no proof that there was anything wrong with the line. I'm not sure how the judge ruled in the plaintiffs favor. Where are the pictures of all the water? Where is even a picture of a plumber fixing a broken line?
You are missing the point, the defendant kept her money, either there wasn't a leak and so the defendant had no right whatsoever to keep the security deposit or there was a leak and once again it is the defendant's responsibility, either way she had no right to keep the security deposit...
You can tell the landlord is stubborn. She just wants to make up her own reason without getting confirmation from a professional . Get out of here
Well if there was the water on the floor ONE time and a plumber never came and the issue didn’t continue, it sure sounds to me the lady left the water running.
Anyone else ever see someone cute in the audience and think, how can I find them?? lol
Hey momma, the mouse ate the wires
Gotta have PROOF, Ms Defendant. 🙄 Cough up the plaintiff's deposit. 😎🤌🏾
She needs a plumber not MR. NICHOLS
What a sour landlord! 😂
I'm Miss Cleo and I predicted this would happen.
Don't forget, Judge Milan was in the construction business.
Actually her father was. Which makes her an expert.
I wonder if he's a legal expert because his daughter is a judge?
😂❤😂❤😂
Sooo if there was no water leaking anywhere , how is she keeping money for water damage ??? I’m so confused 🤣🤣🤦🏻♀️🤦🏻♀️ ppl are so dumb I can’t even
My Trini ppl. LOVE us.
How do this lady still have a business
Judge asked her did she leave the faucet open in the beginning she said no... 😅😅😂
She doesn’t make no sense at all the defending > slum, landlord
Defendant's hair looks so healthy and beautiful, wow!
Nothing the plaintiff said makes any sense
OK, if there was water in the apartment but the landlord never fixed any pipes then the water couldn't have come from a broken pipe. The landlord screwed up by not getting a plumber to come in to take a look. Now if the landlord did have to change some pipes or a faucet then that would have been acknowledgement that there was indeed a leak. I guess the judge didn't need to see that evidence of that because the lack of a plumber's inspection over rode it.
The judge had all the evidence, the landlord had to change the faucet and speedy connector.
Trini! 🇹🇹
The defendant has dead 👀
Cheap landlords always pay in the end.
What crime???
This is a civil trial.
that little thing is probably the aerator which would have nothing to do with your leak problem.
Super hot, maybe ac was iced over and melting?
Kids in tub above
Justice was served in this case. The defendant didn't have proof that the plaintiff caused the water leak.
Very true Adrian.
Man, you are on fire. Absolutely correct.
Lmbo. Both of y'all in the reply section.
Actually it’s the plaintiff who must prove THEIR case, which I don’t believe she did. How did the pipe magically fix itself?
@@kenhawes4695Pipe didn't magically fix itself, dude upstairs left his water on, then turned it off when he got a call. He caused the flood, that's why plaintiff saw water on the ceiling.
JM completely blew this one! As the defendant was attempting to convey, how does a pipe “break” and then magically repair itself. I believe the plaintiff did in fact leave the water on mistakenly.
The problem with this logic is that the Defendant requires proof, and that’s what it boils down too. Both can be yapping their gums about how it happened, but ultimately one thing matters: the security was kept and the landlord must provide a reason for why it was kept and proof that the damage was caused by the Plaintiff. The Defendant didn’t hire a plumber, didn’t get any proof of what caused the issue, never investigated to see if a pipe in the wall might’ve been an issue. Nothing. So she can’t keep the money.
The paintiff accent sounds Trini anyone can tell me where she's from
So the defendant's proof consists of the word of another resident who 1- isn't a plumber, and 2- isn't there in the courtroom to talk to the judge. Interesting.
The defendants proof is that there is water damage and no broken Pipe to fix. So either the tenant left water running or the upstairs tenant left water running. Broken water pipes don’t fix themselves. I hope your not a judge or anyone who gets payed to think.
🇹🇹🇹🇹🇹🇹
🙋🏻♀️
Good morning Danir.
🙋♀️
Mr. Nichols 😂