02x129 - Divorcee Debate and Goldendoodle Mishap

[bunniefuu]

You were married for ten years.

Correct.

And you want your father's tools back.

I sold the tools.

She is a manipulator.

I sold them just to pay the mortgage.

And to feed the kids.

I'm going to get out my violin, Madam.

You can't sell somebody else's property.

[narrator] This is Judy Justice.

Andrew Scruggs is suing his ex-wife,

Lorri Wadsegar, for the cost of tools
she wrongfully sold.

[Bailiff] Court come to order.

All rise.

Have a seat, please.

Hello, Judge.

Case 2189, Scruggs vs Wadsegar.

Thank you, Bailiff.

Mr. Scruggs, you have brothers
and sisters?

No, ma'am.

Were your father and your mother...

Who predeceased whom?

My mother died when I was


And, ah, my father died in, ah, 2019.

- Okay.
- After a long-time illness.

And, um, he had his tools
at my property.

You and the defendant were married
for ten years.

Correct.

You separated in what year?



And when you left,

- she stayed in the house.
- That's correct, your Honor.

Sometime prior to 2016, according to you,

you borrowed some tools of your father's.

That's correct. I actually...

Just a... Is that correct?

That is correct.

And the tools that you borrowed

from your father were left
in the marital home...



You were divorced in 2000...

We were divorced in 2019 was
the final judgement.

And then things sort of got away from you.

So now we're in 2023.

And you want your father's tools back.

Or the money for them.

According to you...

- ...$10,000 worth.
- Yes, ma'am.

Ridiculous! Let's start out
with ridiculous.

Where were you in 2019?



And, ah, shortly after he died,

I was taking care of his affairs

and we still had an ongoing
court case

that consisted of our minor children
at the time,

and I was under advisement
of my attorney.

Don't tell me what your attorney
advised you.

It's hearsay.

You did nothing with regards
to the tools.

In what year did you buy the
tools from your father?

It was 2013.
I brought the tools over to

my storage shed and...

Mr. Scruggs...

You've got to let it go.

You haven't had the tools
in seven years.

You've been out of the house
since 2016?

- Mm-hmm.
- 2016!

- Well, your Honor...
- Look at you... and you've been living.

- Who's this?
- This is my current wife.

So, you got divorced.

You remarried.

When did you remarry?

I got remarried in 2018.

Well, so you found time to get married.

Right? Just a sec.

That's a yes or a no.

You found time to get married.

- Yes, ma'am.
- Did you have a big wedding?

- No, ma'am.
- You had a small wedding.

Do you have any children?

- Yes, ma'am.
- With your current wife?

- Yes, ma'am.
- How many?

- One child.
- How old?

She's five.

So you managed to have a baby.

All I'm suggesting to you, sir...

How many jobs did you have
since 2016?

I've had two different employers.

Since 2016, so you also looked
for another job.

And found another job,
so let's see.

You got married,

you had a child,

you changed jobs.

But all of a sudden, in 2023,

the tools are important.

Now, how many children

did you and the defendant have?

- Two children.
- How old are they?

I have a 14 year old

and an eight year old.

You pay child support?

- No, ma'am.
- How come?

Because one of the children

lives with me full time.

- For how long?
- She's living with me full time

for approximately three years.

But when you
and the defendant separated,

she was living with her mother.

Only for a short amount of time.

- How long?
- Probably about a year.

And I paid support during that time.

And the other child?

It's a 45-55 split.

So that's why you don't pay
child support.

- Correct.
- And do you work?

- Yes, ma'am.
- OK. Good.

At some point...

...what do you want to say?

- And why?
- Just that the reason

we were not able to do anything
about the tools.

[J.Judy] The tools are stupid.

[Judge Judy] The tools are stupid.

But she had an order of protection...

[Judge Judy] The tools are stupid.

Orders of protection don't disqualify you

from coming to small claims court.

They said it wasn't able to...

[Judge Judy] Oh no, what's a "they"?

Us? You're allowed to come
for small claims court

and file a petition

to say these tools belong to me.

He didn't do it during the divorce.

He didn't do it before your wedding.

He didn't do it after your wedding.

He didn't do it before your
daughter was born.

He didn't do it until
after your daughter's born,

and she's now five years old.

It's ten years after the tools

were moved from your father's house

into the marital home.

That would be a fair statement.

Ten years.
You said 2013.

We're now 2023.

Correct. And your Honor,

I do have here

where my dad filed a police report...

where he was trying to
recover the tools.

[Judge Judy] Well, unfortunately...

And here, obviously lied

to this officer here

and told them that...

[Judge Judy] So what?
I want you to forget

$10,000, sir.

It's not happening for you.

Put a period.

The only thing I'm going to consider is

she did, in fact, sell the tools.

That, she acknowledges.

Now, she can't sell something
that doesn't belong to her.

And in what year did you sell the tools?

I sold the tools...

our divorce was signed in 2018.

They had gotten married,

he quit paying a mortgage,

so I had to find a way to pay...

- Just a second.
- Yes, ma'am.

Can't you just tell me
in what year did you sell...

On and off between
August and October of 2018.

So you sold them piecemeal.

- Yes, ma'am.
- And you remember that,

so you must have put an ad someplace...

I put an ad on Craig's List

because I needed to pay the mortgage.

And I didn't only sell his tools,

I sold jewellery that was mine.

- I get it. But you sold it.
- Yes, ma'am.

OK. Do you have an inventory about...

First of all, they borrowed his tools.

They were his father's tools.

But I've asked him whether

or not he was an only child.

He is an only child.

So he would stand to inherit these tools

unless there was another child

that he doesn't know about,

because his mother predeceased his father.

Your Honor, I do have an inventory from...

I don't care.

Understand this... I don't care.

How do you know it was
a thousand dollars

if you sold them over
a three or four month period?

And if the answer to that is I don't know

or I pulled that number out of my behind,

then that's an answer.

But not that I sold the tools

to put food on the table for my children.

That's not an answer.

[narrator] And later today...

I do have a witness

that I brought with me, my daughter,

who actually did see.

You're sure you want to do that?

Are you sure you want to do that?

Be very careful, Miss Vieira.

Are you sure you want to put her there

for me to question. Are you sure?

[narrator] Andrew Scruggs claims
his ex-wife, Lorri Wadseger,

wrongfully sold his father's tools

and kept the money.

[Judge Judy] You let it lapse too long.

Your father died four years ago.

You and the defendant were separated

for six years.

The tools were there for ten years.

Courts don't care.

We use a whole bunch of things...

statute of limitations,

we use laches, we use all kinds

of terms when people don't act quickly

to assert their rights to something.

Because we don't want to be bothered
with what happened ten years ago

or 12 years ago

with this kind of nonsense.

We do it with certain things
that are important.

Crimes are important.

So sometimes, we let the statute
of limitations get blurry.

But not this.

When you sold the tools,
you had no right to sell the tools.

So he's entitled to the money
that you got

for selling the tools.

Now, according to you, you sold
all the tools for how much?

- A thousand.
- And how do you know it was a thousand?

Because you say you sold it over
a period of time.

Because I have the paperwork
where I had

submitted so many payments
to the mortgage.

Because I sold them just to pay
the mortgage.

And to feed the kids.

Listen. I'm going to get out my violin.

Madam, I asked you a specific question.

- Yes, ma'am.
- My specific question is

how do you know it was a thousand dollars

if you sold them over
a three or four month period?

And, if the answer to that is I don't know

or I pulled the number from my behind,

then that's an answer.

But not that I sold the tools
to put food on the table

for my children.
That's not an answer.

How do you know it was $1,000?

Because I had put that money
into the bank.

I paid the mortgage with it.

Your Honor, you're exactly right...

the defendant here is
a liar and a manipulator...

- [Judge Judy] Just a second.
- And she will tell you

whatever she thinks you want to hear.

That's true, sir.

And I don't believe she sold the tools

for $1,000, but I don't know that.

And you...
Just a second. What?

I guarantee she made $13,000, $14,000.

Oh, that's possible, sir. Prove it.

Just a second.

It's your burden of proof.

You have to prove to me

that she sold them for $13,000.

And even then, you're late
in bringing this suit.

But you can't prove that.

Well, because she is a manipulator.

There's a lot of this ex...

[Judge Judy] I don't want to know this.
I don't care.

You're not following me.

Courts, not me personally...

courts, I am the court...

we don't care.

Because what you did was wait too long

to assert a claim.

You waited too long.

According to you, you had COVID,

and the pandemic came in between

and, you know,

having another child, and getting married
to somebody else.

All those are reasons

you had personal issues why you didn't

assert your rights in a timely fashion.

So we're not going back to try to
recreate something

that you can't recreate.

And neither can she actually.

Because you don't have to keep track of

something that happened
three or four years ago.

Well even the agreement...

[Judge Judy] We're done. That's it.

Well, even our agreed judgement
that she signed...

I texted her not three months ago

trying to retrieve items.

Just a second.
You have a judgement of divorce

that says in the judgement of divorce

she is to return the tools to you.

- No. The tools...
- Then, I'm not...

There's nothing.
OK. You sold them for $1,000?

- Yes, ma'am.
- You can't sell somebody else's property.

And that's all that he can prove is what
you say you sold them for.

I'm not sure that that's what you sold
them for.

But he waited too long.

And the only thing I can establish
at this point

is that you sold somebody else's tools

for $1,000. That's it.

Judgement for the plaintiff for the amount
of $1,000. We're finished.

[Bailiff] This court is adjourned.

The defendant, she obviously is a liar,
a manipulator.

She got a lot more than
even the $10,000,

and these were what I considered
family heirlooms.

No, actually,
I've got the documents for that.

Even after my father died,
I looked at her

and said, "You know, we need to fix this."

And I came to her and said, you know...

Because he can't let me go.

If it's a matter of money,
let me give you

the money for the tools, and she still

was selling the tools to,
we think, her best friend.

Because they don't want me happy.

I'm sure glad that it's over,

and hopefully we can co-exist

and take care of our son
that we have together.

I'd like to be friends, I mean,
for the children.

Anything to make the children happy.

Do you know what's more fascinating

to me than anything else?

And I have to... when we leave today...

I'm going to go back and look up
the doctrine of laches.

A footnote, I think, in one of
our casebooks.

Because we're talking 60 years ago
when I went to law school.

And I seem to remember you had both

the statute of limitations,
which was a formalized statute

for certain causes of action.

And you had to bring them within
a certain period of time. That...

I'm sure they taught you that
in law school.

- Yes.
- But I seem to remember, Sarah,

there was a doctrine of laches

which discusses
why you are supposed to bring an action

in a timely fashion.

More of a common sense argument

- as opposed to...
- Preservation of evidence...

Because we...
and this is a perfect example.

I think they call it 'ripeness'.

- [Judge Judy] Ripeness.
- Same concept.

- Maybe.
- More of a way for judges

like yourself to be able to use
common sense

in cases like this and say,

"There's no evidence that's going to be

preserved ten years later.

You had all these opportunities.

Common sense tells me, therefore,

it's not ripe. And I think
it's a good doctrine because although

there might not be a set statute for

this particular cause of action,

it doesn't mean that evidence just...

appears out of nowhere
that you're going to be...

[Judge Judy] That you don't preserve.

- Exactly.
- That you don't preserve.

And certainly he made a whole lifetime

for himself in ten years.

Divorced, remarried, had a child...

changed jobs, changed careers.

A lot can happen in ten years.

But what's not going to happen

- is you getting the tools back.
- Yes.

Case 2189. Hernandez vs Vieira.

All parties, please step forward.

[narrator] Sofia Hernandez is suing
her dogsitter, Cherie Vieira,

for vet bills after her dog was injured

during Cherie's care.

Miss Hernandez, how old is your puppy?

She's six months, your Honor.

And when she was four months old,

you needed a home sitter for your dog.

You needed a place to board her

- for a weekend.
- Yes.

A weekend.
You live on an army base.

A naval base.

- [Judge Judy] A naval base.
- Uh huh.

Does the defendant live on the base
as well?

- Yes, your Honor.
- And she approached you...

whatever, and said that she was
available for sitting.

Is that what you do to make
some extra money?

Yes, your Honor.

And on the 22nd of December,

of last year, which is when
this incident occurred,

you dropped the dog off

at the defendant's home.

[Sofia] December 16.

- [Judge Judy] It was the 16th.
- Yes.

And when you dropped the puppy off

at the defendant's home,

- she was in perfectly fine shape.
- Yes.

- [Judge Judy] She looks very sweet.
- Thank you.

So what happened when she dropped
the puppy off at your house?

I want you to tell me something that
I'm going to believe.

That you and your mother were
in the room

with your ten year old sister,

and you saw what happened with the dog.

Just a second. I want you to make sure

that that's what you're telling me.

[narrator] Sofia Hernandez claims
her dog sitter, Cherie Vieira,

is responsible for vet bills
after her dog, Dolce, was injured

during Cherie's care.

[Judge Judy] Because Miss Hernandez has
an outstanding vet bill

for surgery on the dog's leg,

which was broken while in your care.

Yes, your Honor.

So why don't you tell me
how that happened.

Miss Hernandez brought Dolce
to our house

and we took her in, and, um...

we have also another dog...

Not "me." I want you you tell me, "you."

When you say "you" took her in,

did you or somebody else?

Um, it's a family effort.

My children also help take care
of the dogs.

I started watching dogs because

my youngest child was deathly
afraid of dogs.

She was bit by a dog at the age of two.

So we started this so she could learn

how to take care of dogs properly,

know their signs, and things like that.

And we took Dolce into my daughter's room.

- Which daughter?
- Into my youngest daughter's room.

- [Judge Judy] Is that you?
- I'm the oldest.

You're the oldest. And how old is your
youngest daughter?

She's ten.

OK. So, once you took her
into your daughter's room,

she was alone with the puppy.

No, all three of us were in the room.

Um, what we like to do is...

No, I don't want you to tell me
what you like to do.

I want you to be consistent with

what you put in your answer.

You were all in your daughter's room?

- Yes.
- Is that what you're telling me?

- Yes, ma'am.
- Just one second.

OK.

So, your husband was with another dog

- in the yard.
- [Cherie] Yes.

"So I brought this dog
into my daughter's room..."

your ten year old daughter's room,

- "...to settle down."
- Yes, your Honor.

And then you don't know what happened

because you weren't watching.

[Cherie] Um, I was actually...

You were not watching.

That's what is says here.

- Well, I was taking pictures.
- It doesn't make any difference.

You weren't watching.
You don't know what happened.

If you were taking pictures,
they would be on your camera.

I have, um, pictures here of Dolce.

That I was actually sending...

[Judge Judy] I don't care.

It would be on your camera if you were

taking pictures.
And if you were taking pictures,

then you would have exactly what
happened with the dog

that caused the dog to have a broken leg.

But you don't have those pictures.

- Am I correct?
- [Cherie] Yes, your Honor.

So that you were not watching

and you did not see what happened

at the moment the dog was injured.

- Yes, your Honor.
- OK.

But I do have a witness

that I brought with me, my daughter,

who actually did see.

As I was sending pictures

- to Miss Hernandez.
- You sure you want to do that?

Are you sure you want to do that?

Be very careful, Miss Vieira.

Are you sure you want to put her there

for me to question. Are you sure?

- Are you sure?
- Are you OK?

- [Judge Judy] Yeah. I don't think...
- [Cherie] Yes, your Honor.

Yeah. I don't think so.
But it's your choice.

Let's go.

I want you to tell me something that
I'm going to believe.

That you and your mother were
in the room

with your ten year old sister,

and you saw what happened with the dog.

Just a second. I want you to make sure

that that's what you're telling me.

- So you were in the room.
- Yes, I was.

- OK. Your first name is?
- Abigail.

I'd like to see a picture of Abigail

in the room with the dog

when you were sending pictures, allegedly

to the plaintiff, of the dog.

I just want to see pictures
of her in the room.

Ah, your Honor, I did not make pictures
of those.

Why not? She was there.

You were taking pictures of the dog.

I assume your ten year old's room

was not the size of this courtroom.

So if you were taking pictures,

Abigail would be in those pictures.

Your Honor, I actually have a picture

of her leg after I was bit by Dolce.

I don't care after you were bit by Dolce.

You were bit by the puppy
because she was injured.

- Yes, your Honor.
- OK. That was after she was injured.

- Yes.
- I want to see a picture

of your daughter that you were taking

pictures of, allegedly to send to

the plaintiff to show her how

the dog was adjusting.

I do not have pictures of that,
your Honor.

Miss Vieira, you want to know the truth?

I don't believe you were in the room

with your daughter. Either one of them.

And the puppy... I think that you left

the puppy with your ten year old

and you don't know what happened.

That's what I believe.

And whether I believe...

and it's accurate or not accurate...

the dog was injured in your care.

So you're responsible
for the surgical bill.

It's that simple.

Dog had a broken leg in your care

with enough adults there
to watch the dog...

your husband, the older daughter...

and you put her in the room
with your ten year old

because you thought it would be cute.

Your ten year old wanted to play with her.

That's what happened.

Could I see the vet bill, please?

Yes, your Honor.

I have the urgent care bill
and the surgery bill as well.

So the invoice was $5,818?

For the surgery.

And $862.

$6,608. Judgement for the plaintiff.

We're done.

[Bailiff] This court is adjourned.

You know, I'm happy
because those vet bills

are really high.
You know, it's not something

that I could take on at the time.

I was in the room with the dog.

The dog jumped from the floor,

and it was a freak accident.

My dog was healthy, you know.

She had just been at the vet.

Just got her shots. She was healthy.

I still don't know. I researched online.

I think maybe that the dog already had
an injury prior.

She was at my house 25 minutes.

I would never drop off my dog like that.

She jumped up to retrieve a toy

out of my daughter's hand
from the floor's

fluffy carpet, and she landed and cried.

With a pre-existing condition,
I would watch her myself.

About three minutes after,
I called her mom

to let her know that
she was hurt, injured.

You know, my heart dropped,
and I was upset

that we didn't go on the trip.
But she's my baby.

We turned around.

She wanted to know how bad it was

because she wanted to go on her trip.

And I told her it was bad enough
for her dog to bite me.

We took her straight to the urgent care.

I asked her to come back to get her dog.

I didn't want to move the dog.

So, um, she came back and had us
bring the dog out.

She had a fractured leg.

Freak accident... kind of feels like...

I don't know. It wasn't... it wasn't fair.

They didn't give me one.
They just ignored

my messages asking for payment.

I'm glad the dog is OK.

Dolce's great. Her leg is healed.

She's on a recovery program.

- So, no issue?
- No.

Dog's in your care.

The dog didn't break its leg itself.

You know, common sense dictates
to me that...

They brought the puppy in to...

play with a ten year old.
Otherwise they would have had

photographs of the other daughter
in the room.

Did not. But it really doesn't matter.

No bad intentions, no...

Nothing was done on purpose.

No, but it was negligent.
Because if you...

allow a ten year old...

And the dog breaks a leg and doesn't break
it on its own. Yeah.

It's your fault.

Want justice?