The defendant did not have a certificate of occupancy because he knew that place was not in a livable condition and he did not want to spend the money to get it fixed he just didn’t think that he would get tenants that would complain enough so that the apartment would get condemned
@@kyoto32001 that may be so. They may want to collect taxes but anyone who wants to be a landlord must follow landlord/tenant laws.... the biggest one is providing a habitable living space in accordance with the State sanitary code. If someone wants to profit from their property by collecting rent, there is a minimum standard to be met. To be quite honest, the minimum requirements aren't outrageous and everything is pretty much taxed. It's something we ALL deal with living here.
@@kyoto32001 Yes, it is. There needs to be some regulations in place. You want to live in a building with asbestos, black mold, or a fire trap due to bad electrical wiring?
The defendant is a slum lord. The judge needs to hold these lousy landlords accountable. Not just let them take advantage of young people especially when there's a lady and she is pregnant. Someone has to standup to these slum lords if it isn't you then who.
He deserves some karmic retribution, but Judge Milian can only act within the bounds of the law. She can't arbitrarily fine him because she feels he deserves punishment... in fact, she did slap him with a $750 fine by allowing the plaintiffs to stay for November without paying, which is probably the most she can do. Don't get me wrong: I'm definitely on the side of the plaintiffs here. They seem like good, honest people and the landlord seems like scum, but there are no laws preventing people from acting scummy in certain ways.
@@cygnevara8400 They probably thought they were obligated to pay it because of their ignorance of the law, which I feel bad for them about, and it's very difficult when you're in a lease and don't know the law well enough to know if you can terminate early without penalty, get your security back, and have the money to pay to relocate and get a new place, paying first (and possibly last) mont rent and security.
That's Curt Chaplin, he was savage in his no holds barred comments! When Doug Llewellyn came back, Curt stayed on to do the caustic narration we hear at the beginning of the cases.
When people wonder why the general population doesn't like landlords, it's because we deal with too many landlords like the defendant throughout our lives, they put tenants in dangerous unlivable conditions and refuse to make repairs all to save a couple bucks!
@@peterknighton2757 Holy shit... How did I never think of that?? Thank you so much Peter Knighton, now when are you going to supply me with the funds to be able to afford a house in the current housing market? And before you say "well just move in the middle of nowhere!" that's a lot more to ask of people than for greedy landlords to DO THEIR JOB PROPERLY
Haha I usually don't like Doug or Kurt but that comment was gold. The losing party in the hall almost always says that they didn't get a chance to explain their side of the story when Judge Milian has heard all she needs to know.
I believe the tenants and not the landlord. Judge should have asked the Landlord to prove his mate is a qualified gas fitter (or whatever qualification is needed in USA). His mate is probably just some handyman who watched someone fix a water heater.
Exactly, it'll be some handyman he pays peanuts to go round and 'fix' whatever the problem is. No way on this planet was that guy qualified to be doing any work whatsoever on the furnace.
I was worried that girl was about to pop right there in the courtroom boy oh boy is she far along =D I wish them all the love, happiness, health in the world and may they always have enough!
Either of them could've broken the door really. They could've gotten desperate and broke the door ( the young man could've and just didn't tell his girlfriend so she wouldn't stress over it). The city could've so that they could address the problem. The landlord could've to try to cover his tracks...after all he's trying to collect rent for a place he's not supposed to be renting...which is why I tend to believe he's the one responsible for that.
I agree 100%. Respectfully,Judge Milian’s rulings are mostly fair- with that said, at times, she, along with other brilliant judges tend to think from a logical standpoint, too logic, at times, to explore other angles of the allegations. I get it, only one perspective counts in this courtroom and that’s the Honorable Judge Marilyn Milan’s !!✊🏽💪🏾😊
Judge got the busted door wrong. The landlord ILLEGALLY rented out the apt and TOLD the tenants NOT to call PSENG because he knew the apartment was rented illegally. Mess with fire you get burned. Landlord should eat up that cost for maliciously and intentionally misleading his tenants. The apt didn’t need the landlords handy man to fix anything. The landlord needed to have professionals come fix the place in order to get that certified.
the defendant had his own person looking at the heater, while the door is locked, the plaintiffs needed people looking at the heater so they clearly took a prybar and busted it.
@@zombie5017 “the defendant had his own person looking at the heater”. The defendant also rented out the space illegally. Do you think the defendants “person” looking at the heater is a professional? The defendant didn’t get the apt up to proper code but YOU think the person who he got to look at the heater is professional, lmfao. Wow you’s a sucker for sure.
@@BabieBoyBlew im not saying that he is a professional, what im saying is that the plaintiffs denied breaking the door, since the defendant had his own person looking at the heater, there would be no reason for him to bust the door. The plaintiffs had reason to bust the door and them lying about it is obvious and not trustworthy. of course the defendant should not have rented that place, but lying to a judge should have consequences.
It’s highly problematic that the Judge assumed the young couple damaged the door when they never lied throughout the entire case but relied on the slumlord’s testimony. Wonder how this would have played out in a different scenario.
I agree that there wasn't really much evidence that the couple damaged the door, but there was an absence of motive and opportunity for anyone else to have done it, and in civil cases, the burden of proof is much lower than in criminal cases.
Considering the defendant had pictures of the damaged door, and there was never any annotation of damage upon move-in (by the plaintiffs), it’s more likely that the plaintiffs damaged the door. It fits the narrative. Why would the defendant damage his own door. “More likely than not” is what the judge is basing her verdict on.
It’s possible .. and even more that he didn’t break in to just stare at it .. more to try and fix it or out of frustration pull wires Not saying the guy isn’t a slumlord
@@vorpal22 The civil standard of proof is " a preponderance of the evidence", but there is only one problem here: There was no evidence to ponder with regard to the tenants tampering with the door. That's pure speculation based on process of elimination. That opens the floodgates for tons of other conjectures, such as the idea that an intruder could have done it, the MANY people who've worked on the furnace over and over again could have broken the door unintentionally, etc. So to avoid going down a rabbit hole of endless speculation, better judgement would have been to stick to what the evidence showed.
@@sufferedlearnedchanged Agreed... She's a billionaire, ( I just looked her up 😳) she's BALLING IN DOE...several mansions.. In her episodes from years ago- she still had the air of caring in her manner? Fast forward to present? It's just a Hollywood job now. She can't relate no longer.
Judge demonstrated bias against the young couple. She assumed the broke the door when there was no evidence supporting that they did. They spoke the truth consistently, provided ample documentation to support their story. Shameful behavior Judge!
@@thefoodwench4848 That would depend on whether or not the lease grants them access. I rent a house and my lease does not grant me access to the area where the water heater is housed.
YOU HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD!! The City broke in because they knew the Landlord did not want them in there, the City was mad they had to break in so they Condemned the place to teach the landlord NO ONE WILL GO IN NOW since you want to lock us out. Good example of GOODY GOODY lol.
To be honest, I dont think they busted the door down. They don't even look like the type to do that. Why would they keep calling the city to get the landlord in trouble THEN go bust the door down.
It doesn't matter what you think: Judge Milian does not have the right within the eyes of the law to refund them the rent that they already paid. She doesn't get to just make up whatever laws she feels like: she has to abide by the laws of the state in which the litigants live. If you've watched enough PC, you know that Judge Milian is a huge animal lover and considers her pets as members of her family, and there have been many cases where she makes it clear that she would want to rule differently than she is legally obligated to, but pets are property in the eyes of the law and must be treated as such.
@@shaylagogobean417 If they hadn't paid rent, Judge Milian would not have forced them to pay rent (doctrine of unclean hands), but as they did pay rent, she could not refund according to the law.
Locked the door to the furnace, a vital part of the house, so the people who are paying for the house can't get to it? How should they be charged for busting that door open? They have an absolute right to access that part of the house. Again, because she is a landlord, she finds as much in favour to landlords as she possibly can, even a major slumlord like this. Those people with a small child in the house deserved much much better from her than this. They should have got the whole $3,000.
So because they have right to every part of the house, that gives them freedom to damage the house? You also have a legal right to your paycheck. That doesn't mean you can steal your boss's checkbook and write one for yourself if they don't give it to you.
Let me get this straight I’m an innocent victim who paid rentThe landlord knowingly committed a crime by renting out the place but he gets to keep his moneyAnd we lose our money when we are the innocent victims that teaches the landlords a lesson
The defendant already proved he was a liar when tried to blame the plaintiff for vandalizing the furnace. The judge should've never believed him about the broken door. JUDGE MATHIS would have never ‼️ Once you've proven you're a liar Mathis don't believe a word you say after that!
WHAT? The judge made them pay for the door, when there is ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF that it was them that broke the door, who says it wasn't Public Services, after all if that furnace was a ticking time bomb, PS would have had every right to break down the door and turn it off. And why didn't they get their rent back for the 2 months they didn't have heat. The judge thinks it's so easy to move out, when in reality it takes time to find a new place and you need the money to put down on a new place, but of course the judge has no idea of real life experiences and in her white mind thinks life is easy...
I don't agree w the judges decision in this case either. But to say something about her "white mind" when she's infact Latina with light skin, is just ignorant asf.
She makes 10 million a year but nickel and dimes poor litigants. Also imo she’s racist. I’ve watched her since day one and she always finds a way to place blame on POC.
This jerk sounds just like my landlord. My heat broke during a snowstorm and it stayed 60 degrees in my house for 2 weeks, the aux heat was running constantly and it shot my electric bill up by $150 in a week. After 3 different HVAC companies and 8 visits total it was still broken. The landlord refused to hire the first company because they wanted to charge too much, but the second company went off their (apparently incorrect) recommendation instead of doing their own analysis. So I had tons of people tramping through my house during a pandemic and crawling around in my attic to replace the lines for absolutely no reason because they had no idea what the problem was, they were just guessing - and freely admitted it. A month later when it was 80 degrees and I needed to cut on the AC (the weather is crazy in NC) I called again to say it still wasn’t working, and without even looking at the unit the repair guys tried to tell me I was wrong and that was “normal” for aux heat to cut on immediately when it’s 60 outside. I insisted that they come out to look and hey, what do you know, I WAS RIGHT - all the Freon had leaked out of the outside unit. That happened 2 more times before they finally plugged all the holes in the 20+ year old unit. Idk why the landlord didn’t just replace it because he probably spent just as much on unnecessary repairs than he would just buying a new HVAC unit, and let’s be honest it’s just gonna break again in a few months. 🙄🙄🙄
Sometimes I feel she’s doesn’t make the best judgment... Judge Judy would have ate this slum lord up..... They should have definitely received all their money!
I love judge Milian, but I have to finally say something to her favorite comment of you "could have moved out" like it's the easiest thing in the world. If you have 1 single backpack of stuff and just need 1 room somewhere maybe. BUT If you have 6 rooms full of very nice furniture and tons of clothes, bags, shoes, decoration and everything else good homes have, it's really NOT that Easy to just move out after often only 3 months.... I remember searching for my very first apartment for a whole damn year with my boyfriend because we wanted a good apartment where nothing was fu. cked up and could potentially be a problem. We looked at hundreds of apartments and they were all Trash but still expensive! So no, you can't just move out the very next day something bugs you. She's out of touch with reality... Sadly that's what all people get when they earn millions for not even moving their damn finger.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the defendant destroyed his OWN door after the place was condemned! Having a domicile condemned should automatically ensure that the security deposit will be returned, IMO. 🤷🏽♀️
I found out in my state heat is a necessity, but not air. So that policy only applies to heat lol. They are not allowed to let us freeze, but we can bake lol
This reminds me of the time I was living without heat and the landlord did NOTHING to fix it and really acted shocked when I withheld my rent from her.
Silly landlord! However, the judge never considers the cost of labor to repair/replace but, landlords never come with an earrings or receipt… I say again, silly landlord!
But as a landlord you cannot charge your tenets for cost of repairs that are considered a necessity. Unless it’s in the lease but again that’s why people rent over but because when you rent the landlord I’d the one who bites those cost not the tenets. If you broke something then I would see you having to pay but having working heat is a such a necessity that the electric company cannot turn off the gas in the winter months if you are behind on your payment. they have PSEG they are from jersey and that’s a rule.
Slumlord… the plaintiffs should have gotten all there money back smh, how can the judge say there was no proof it was deemed inhabitable… there was no heat!!
Marilyn Milian can't just give back their money because she feels like it and like they deserve it. I'm sure most of us feel they deserve their money back, but the law isn't based on our feelings.
From the time that the heat was out, it should be refunded in full. It was not inhabitable. If a landlord, in some states, does that people can receive more back than what they paid for an inhabitable condition that the landlord refuses to address. Though, it is also incumbent to move out as quickly as possible, and from that date forward, no rent would be owed in a proper case with all the facts clearly indicated I would think.
@reformcongress Except that that's not how the law works. They could have left immediately due to the property being uninhabitable. Since they stayed, any rent they paid could not be refunded to them in the eyes of the law. If they had not paid rent at all, Judge Milian would not have forced them to, because to so would violate the doctrine of unclean hands.
@@vorpal22 I said that they should have left as soon as possible, which means that they would have to find another place to live which doesn't happen, "immediately". Not everyone has the money laying around to go live in a motel or hotel for a week or two while they apply, sign a lease, etc. They can stop paying the rent if it is uninhabitable to move out but there is a reasonable amount of time that they have to find a place.
@@reformcongress Well, I can agree with you on them leaving as soon as _realistically_ possible, which, as you say, does not equate to immediately. That doesn't mean going to a hotel or motel (which is going to cost even more and take them longer to save up to rent a new place). I also fully agree with you that they just should have stopped paying rent right away once they realized that either: 1. The apartment was not fit for habitability (even if they had to stay there slightly longer to accrue money and go through the process of finding and getting approved for a new place); 2. They discovered that it was an illegal rental. They could not have been evicted nor would the judge have forced them to pay rent for the months missed due to the doctrine of unclean hands, but the thing is that most people don't know much about specific laws like this. I find the People's Court to be pretty educational, because if I hadn't watched it, I would know a lot less about law, and could have made more mistakes in my life, e.g. as-is sales being the default in a private sale if a warranty is not explicitly agreed upon. What I find really shocking is how many people that are not only litigants but people in RU-vid comments seem to think that rulings in these binding arbitration court shows should be based on feelings and emotions and not actual law.
@@reformcongress I think I gave you the wrong impression with my first comment here. Like I said, if they knew their rights, they could have just stopped paying rent and continued to live there for some time without being penalized as the contract was not enforceable on the part of the slumlord.
@@vorpal22 I was just making a point. There is nothing meant by it. I've had one really bad landlord that called the police on us and accused us of destroying the ducting from the hot water heater that resulted in Carbon Monoxide levels being so high the gas company shut off the gas, but we didn't even know the ducting had come disconnected in the attic until a couple of days later when I called an HVAC person over to look at it. We had complained about the smell of gas and asked her to do it but she didn't, so I moved out before the end of that month. We didn't file a lawsuit, but we could have and we would have won, but the place was condemned until she fixed it because she got the police involved, not us. It was her fault it was in that condition and then she got herself in trouble by accusing us.
72 hours is reasonable to fix the heat. Sometimes it may be longer due to locating parts or just outright replacing the furnace. But I believe as long as actions were taken in the 72 hours the homeowner is good. To break a lease because it took 74 hours even though you'll waiting on a part is not right or fair!
Depending on the state and the temp, it's not reasonable to not have provided then with a solution other than waiting it out. Or at least not charging rent for those fee days. All that doesn't matter though because he didn't have a CO. So he was illegally renting it out and wasn't supposed to be collecting rent anyway.
@@payableondeath9091 he probably should've but he shouldn't have had to pay for it. Since he had the paperwork he should've deducted the cost of the hotel room from the rent. (Even though technically the owner wasn't supposed to be renting), but I think you get what I mean.
Comment section y'all gonna talk about the case or her being pregnant with their 2nd kid and not being married... I guess everyone in the comments got married then had kids.... ☕ 🐸. Let them people walk the path they want it's their relationship..
I don't have kids and don't want them, but if I did decide to tear up my body going through pregnancy and childbirth, the dude WILL marry me first. No ring, no womb.
@Jason McCann THANK YOU! Everyone here saying they need to get married and putting all the blame on the man for not proposing (derp... it's the 21st century... if she wants to marry him, she can propose) are examples of how the education system fails to teach people critical thinking.
I feel bad for them. I have a slum lord. I have a small hole in my living room floor. I've had a broken fridge for a year and other small multiple things needs fixing. It sucks 😕
Illegal rental, slumlord has no renting license. He did not like it that the tenants called the city over the furnace and claimed they destroyed it, and other disrepair was found when the city inspected the property. Good for the tenants wanting a safe place to live. Slumlords do not care about disrepair till they are called on it. City will be on his butt till it is all completed to their satisfaction.
The people on here talking about them being unmarried and she’s pregnant are weird as hell not everyone wants to be married how many unhappy married couples are there a lot and the divorce rate his super high let people be
Without any evidence the judge automatically assumed the plaintiff broke into the door to the basement even tho they innocently said they didn't she is now opinionated she thinks oh they broke the law now i will m ake them suffer, is she4 senile. Lets see what happens. So far she is nothing but biased against the plaintiffs.
@@chaevialva2229 Don't kid yourself. This female litigant DOES believe in marriage. She is just doing everything azz backwards. That man isn't going to marry her. He already gets all the benefits without a commitment.
@@Childfree334 what is wrong with u? The comment I replied to says "im amazed at the amount of ppl willing to hv children without the benefit of marriage" the initial comment was not specific to the plaintiff and so wasn't my response
I will never understand women who tear up their bodies to have children for men who won't even marry them. That is 9 months of suffering, labor pain, and 20 years of child rearing, but he can't give the commitment of marriage? Come on now.
Shhhhh. You’re not supposed to say this. According to some women “not all women want to get or be married.” They are just satisfied with popping out children with no commitment. 🤷🏾♀️
Everyone is forgetting leaving an apartment costs approximately $8,000 to come up with three months rent and moving guys even if you move yourself the moving truck and other expenses. I avoided moving many times because of that fact and many times landlord screwed me after 1 year they decided to sell the house when they told me they were going to be there for a while the guys are coming up with 8,000 at the end of the year coming up with another 8,000 screw the landlord's throw some good ones out there doesn't seem like this many more left
The utility company probably disconnected the furnace because they have to by law. Anywhere I have ever lived if the gas appliance is not safety compliant, leaks (either gas or exhaust), or otherwise poses a risk to occupants of the building or anyone near it, the utility company can't allow it to be used because they would be liable for it if it causes injury/fatalities. I called my friend who is a lineman for the gas company and this is a basic run-down of what he told me. What happens on subsequent visits depends on how in depth they disable it. Usually the first visit (inital complaint) they will just shut it off and tell you it needs to be fixed. Second visit if it has been turned back on before being inspected/repaired with documentation by a qualified person, they will shut the gas off or otherwise electronically disable the appliance, or sometimes both. And the third visit if somebody has been screwing around with it again trying to relight the appliance or turned the gas back on (especially if theyve used a 9/32" quarter inch drive socket to remove the lock off the gas main valve) they will take the gas meter, and they won't return the meter until whoever owns the appliance can show that the required repairs have been done by qualified personnel. And this usually will be accompanied by some kind of fine in most cases. As well, any of these steps can be done at the discretion of the lineman on site. For example if he shows up for the first visit and the homeowner tells him something to the effect of "oh, I will just patch the heat exchanger up with some pop rivets and old beer cans and then relight it," they can shut the gas off and take the meter immediately.
What business is it of the judge as to whether they are married or not, marriage is expensive, divorce is even more expensive and why does a woman have to give up her independence just because she is pregnant living with the father of her children. Look at Goldie Hawn and Kurt Russell. And sometimes marriage ruins a partnership because there is a feeling of ownership...
Someone PLEASSEEE explain to Me what on earth did them not being Married have to do with this SLUM LORD and the FACT that the house was condemned?!!! Smh. Nothing to do with the case. So in other words had they been married the judge would have found in their favor🤔I will pass on going to her courtroom. SHAME!!!
Omg Judge M - I can’t believe you didn’t rip the Slum Landlord apart. The expense of moving, all the costs incurred because the landlord didn’t provide heat should be a huge consideration and it never is. The other big issue I have is the fact that landlords draw INTEREST in the deposits. Example $1200 deposit will earn a landlord in excess of $275 a year. So they make money that’s never taken into account. Shame on you Judge M.
@@jimmyday9536 so my math was off - bottom line is that landlords hold deposit money and collect the interest in that money without any consideration being given to the renters. Looking at the bigger picture 😘
I believe JM is biased in these cases because she is or was a landlord. With all this going on how is it not reasonable that this place was inhabitable for October
they shouldve gotten their money back. the defendant wouldnt never been held accountable if it werent for these people . if they let it go , i BET he would be renting it out to someone new , doing the same thing . they shouldnt have to pay a thing .
Generations of children are growing up with mom just being a girlfriend, no respectability of a marriage. These women never have a wedding, never a bride, none of the glory ALL of the work.
