Judge FURIOUS! Lawyer Lied To Judge Over Rent that was Supposed to be Returned to Tenant! 

Me too 😂

Absolutely correct

unfortunetly, this judge does not livestream. This is one of the judges that i get straight through the court.

@@mrzfieldz.officialkeep posting her. She is fabulous.

You can find the zoom links on the court’s website

​@@momsterzz please dont use the courts zoom as a livestream... if even 50-100 people start bombarding the courts zoom? it will become a problem. We have to remember that this is court and zoom is supposed to be used for court, not as a livestream.

"Not sure why she dismissed the case @15:00 It was a new notice so anything from prior is irrelevant" - It was a new notice, but it was a new notice about the exact same November 28, 2023 breach of payment. The landlord had still received the 3 payments from the tenants after that date which the landlord had still not returned to the tenants, despite the lawyer saying they would return them. So, if you owed someone say $1,000 on November 28, 2023 for December's rent that you weren't able to pay on time the landlord would have the right to evict you for failing to make that payment. *However,* if you pay the landlord that $1,000 + the new rent each month after that *before* you have been evicted & the landlord takes that money & keeps it then you have no longer failed to make the payment for November 28, 2023... right? The fact that the landlord refiled the eviction case with the exact same cause of action & there hasn't been any automatic deposits since the new notice [due to the landlord revoking the acceptance of that automatic deposit,] still doesn't change the fact that the tenants have already paid the landlord for that November 28, 2023 breach of payment & he still has the money that was owed from that November 28, 2023 breach. So, he has to pay them back the rent payments accepted & kept since that November 28, 2023 breach to be capable of claiming they failed to pay the rent due on that date. *Or* there has to be some other breach of payment that has occurred since then which they claim as the reason to evict. Now, I don't know if the tenants have failed to make any rent payments. I know there is not any reason to think they haven't made any of these payments since not even the landlord has said that.

Yea it’s a funny part of the law that often favours the tenant - if a landlord calls for an eviction, it’s no longer valid if they continue to accept rent, and evictions can take a long time so some tenants get to just live for free for a while. It’s actually a common scam. I know they always says these ‘greedy landlords’ always have the upper hand but that’s just not the case, and not all of them are huge companies, many landlords are mom and pop operations that pay their mortgages with the rent payments. I think judges never really want to see people get kicked out unless it’s a last resort, however, it’s no secret that there are squatters and scammers out there that take advantage of the laws. Also, I’ve noticed, some judges seem to favour landlords and some favour tenants, you never know with the type of judges and prosecutors coming out of the Biden admin as of late…

You had me right up until the very end…

Lmao quaker oats man

So the first case is a "hold over" case, not a non payment case. So depending on your jx, there are different statutory notice periods a LL must give to terminate a lease. This is because, what usually happens at the end of a lease, practically, is a new lease isn't signed and they just keep going. Because of this contract law assumes at the end of a lease term, the lease may be renewed under all the same terms as the original except that it will become a month to month tenancy. This is evidence by a tenant offering money and the LL accepting which equals a contract. If a LL wants to evict based on something other than breaking the lease terms or non payment, it is a hold over. So during the statutory notice period (in my jx you get between 30-90 days depending on how long the tenant has lived there). If the LL accepts payment they are renewing the lease and the notices would have to be resent. That is why it is a fatal defect to a petition, statutory notice period has not actually elapsed of you have been renewing the lease. The rent for the time the tenants remain in the property should then be part of the petition/complaint as a kind of liquidated damages type of things. It's been awhile since Ive done any housing work, but that is what I remember. The whole doctrine is actually to protect regular ppl who might not think they need to sign a new lease each time. It protects all of the original terms is the lease. In reality, it is a doctrine that makes everyone's lives a lot easier.

Frequency illusion. A judge handles a lot of cases in a day. If you go pro se on an eviction you're looking at a lot of paperwork that you will screw up. The other, the attorney admitted they didn't return the money after saying they would. That is bad stuff.

What are your legal credentials regarding landlord-tenant law? Oh, that's right! You have none! 😂

It was hilarious to watch.

@@WW-hn5yb $425 a month is not even close to "rich" 🤦🏼‍♀️ that's less than half of a normal adults biweekly check.

Judge was way off base. Different cases the first one was defective and the second one was sound and should have moved forward. Now he has to either force his client to refund money to a tenant so they can sue to reclaim properly that has been properly noticed twice.

The problem is the clean hands doctrine. They brought a case despite representing to the court previously that they would do something and they did not. Also for hold over evictions (at least in my jx) if a month to month tenant tenders rent and it is accepted, then the contract is renewed for another month. So for a hold over, the LL cannot renew the lease by accepting money. They can ask for it in a judgement, but accepting means the lease renews and new termination notices must be sent. That is why it is a fatal defect to eviction petitions. It's contact law (which I like because of how clean cut things can be with it😊)!

@@ajarfullofjoy No The judge is essentially holding the attorney in contempt without a show-cause and in doing so punishing his client more than him. The judge should not be punishing the client who has a proper case before her if she feels slighted by the lawyer from a previous case.

The other case is not technically over if all parties hasn't done what the judge ordered in that dismissal! So starting a new action before the other is done is not accepted by the court!!

@@davvehallberg I'm guessing from the back and forth it was never recorded as part of the order. While the court can issue oral orders it gets messy quick when the case is dismissed. She should have done a show-cause and continued the new case which was properly before her.

this is jefferson county, KY .. i try to catch her as much as i can but its really hard to catch her cause she bounces around courtrooms. i have never seen a court ran like jefferson county.

@@mrzfieldz.official Thanks much… be vigilant for us.

Judge Jennifer Leibson, Jefferson County, KY

Love this Judge. Would like to hear cases other than tenancy !!! ❤

Often there isn't an affordable alternative.

Because they can’t afford it!

It costs thousands of dollars, which you usually have to pay upfront. Most Americans cannot afford to hire a lawyer.

Do you have any idea how much an attorney costs??

Attorneys are often unnecessary because 95% of evictions are straightforward and require no special legal knowledge. They also often lack the sense of urgency that landlords have in recovering the property. In my state, the going rate for an uncontested eviction is $750. If you keep decent records, you can save $500 and have your paperwork ready in less than 15 minutes.

lol my watermark is transparent, its not in the same place in every video, and not all videos have a watermark. plus, all screens are different and image burn in can happen on one while not on others. there are many factors that can cause image burn in. but a watermark like mine and many others used on many bodycam footage videos is not something that usually causes image burn in as they are low contrast images. keeping your brightness down can significantly reduce the chances of image burn in as well. I apologize if the watermark is bothersome to you but watermarks are only on videos that i obtain off youtube and are not livestreamed anywhere. like judge simpson clips dont have a watermark because he livestreams on youtube for anyone to use. i have to use a watermark for a number of reasons so i can not remove the watermark. im usually willing to compromise on most viewer requests but my watermark is not something i can get rid of... but, like i said, i only use a watermark on clips that are obtained directly through the court and arent livestreamed.. like judge disanto and judge liebson.

Your ignorance is showing...might want to think before commenting absolute hogwash!!! 😂

I'm not a lawyer, but I believe the intent of the law is that once you begin with eviction proceedings you can no longer collect rent, including to cover the missed rent because that should be sorted out as a judgement as part of the eviction. You have two legal paths: 1.) File for eviction and recover the missing rent via judgement - but the tenant has protections against unaffordable judgements in collections 2.) Allow the tenant to try to make good on their obligation - the tenant gets to stay, but does not have the protections of collections because they are voluntarily paying But you can't mix the two, because you can't try to collect both via the contract and because of breach of the contract. So in theory the landlord could have returned the money, then sued for that same money, but they can't keep it while suing. And that's an important tenant protection because you can imagine a landlord allowing a tenant to pay their last dime every month to catch up on the lease, but then evicting them anyways and them no longer being able to afford rent at a new unit and becoming homeless. Whereas if they had tried to evict in the first place and refused the rent the tenant could set aside money for their new rent and pay the judgement over an affordable payment plan.

No, she was saying a free attorney APPPOINTMENT. As in, they'll give a free appointment to find an attorney.

@@Mewse1203 Ahh, gotcha. Thanx.

Wow...get off of your soap box & PAY ATTENTION to what was actually said!!!

Your attitude is awful. You obviously didn't pay any attention to what was going on. You know nothing regarding landlord-tenant law. FYI, your ignorance is showing, dear. Bless your heart!