Did Contractor Steal Appliances? | Part 2

In a case before Judge Judy, a homeowner alleges that contractor Mr. Santos stole appliances from their house. The homeowner recounts that Santos told them to meet the next morning, but he was a no-show. Upon visiting the house on the 18th, they found it emptied out. Only the homeowner, their assistant Emma, and Santos had access, with the latter also having a key. A neighbor, Mr. Lozada, testified to seeing Santos and two others at the property early on the 18th, with the garage door open. The homeowner reported the incident to the police, naming Santos, but received no follow-up. Judge Judy awards the plaintiff $5,000 and advises them to follow up with the police, as the witness's testimony is credible and there's sufficient evidence to potentially arrest Santos.

Takeaways

• 🏠 The plaintiff reported that all the appliances were missing from the house after the contractor, Mr. Santos, had been working on it.
• ⏱️ The plaintiff attempted to meet with Mr. Santos on the 17th but he was not present, and was asked to return the next day.
• 📞 On the 18th, the plaintiff found the house completely empty and Mr. Santos did not show up as arranged.
• 🔐 Only a few people had access to the house: the plaintiff, Mr. Santos, the assistant Emma, and the right-hand guy Jose.
• 🚗 A neighbor, Mr. Lozada, testified to seeing Mr. Santos' car at the property early in the morning of the 18th.
• 👀 Mr. Lozada observed Mr. Santos and two other people at the property with the garage door open.
• 📝 The plaintiff filed a police report naming Mr. Santos as a suspect but has not been contacted by the police.
• 🤔 Despite the witness testimony, the police have not yet contacted Mr. Santos or taken further action.
• 🏆 Judge Judy awarded a judgment of $5,000 to the plaintiff, indicating a belief in the credibility of the witness.
• 🚨 The judge advised the plaintiff to follow up on the police complaint, as there was sufficient evidence for an arrest.
• 🙅‍♀️ The defendant, Mr. Santos, denied taking anything from the property.
• 📚 The case highlights the importance of securing one's property and the legal recourse available when dealing with unscrupulous contractors.

Q & A

What was the main issue presented in the case?

The main issue was whether the contractor, Mr. Santos, had stolen appliances from the house under renovation.

When was the last time the plaintiff saw the house before it was found emptied out?

The plaintiff last saw the house on the morning of September 17th.

Who had access to the house besides Mr. Santos?

The plaintiff, their assistant Emma, the right-hand guy Jose, and Emma's son had access to the house.

What did the plaintiff do after finding the house emptied out?

The plaintiff reported the burglary to the police and filed a police report naming Mr. Santos.

What did the neighbor, Mr. Lozada, observe on the early morning of September 18th?

Mr. Lozada saw Mr. Santos' car at the unit where they were working, with the garage door open, and Mr. Santos along with two other people.

Did the plaintiff ever receive any follow-up from the police after filing the report?

No, the plaintiff had not been contacted by the police as of the time of the hearing.

What was the judgment given by Judge Judy?

Judge Judy ruled in favor of the plaintiff and awarded them $5,000 in damages.

What advice did Judge Judy give to the plaintiff regarding the police complaint?

Judge Judy advised the plaintiff to follow up on the police complaint, as there was enough credible information to potentially arrest Mr. Santos.

Why did the plaintiff call Mr. Santos on the morning of September 17th?

The plaintiff called Mr. Santos because he was not present at the house as expected, and Mr. Santos had told them to meet the next morning at 8:30.

How many times did Mr. Lozada see Mr. Santos or his car between August 27th and mid-September?

Mr. Lozada saw Mr. Santos or his car between 10 to 15 times during that period.

What did the plaintiff do after being advised by Mr. Santos that the floors were still wet?

The plaintiff agreed to meet Mr. Santos the next day, as advised, to check the progress of the house.

What was the reaction of the defendant, Mr. Santos, to the allegations?

The defendant, Mr. Santos, did not provide a response within the provided transcript.

Outlines

00:00

🏠 House Progress and Disappearance - Judge Judy's Inquiry

The transcript begins with a discussion about the progress of a house renovation. The plaintiff contacted Mr. Santos, who informed them that the floors were sealed and needed to dry before they could leave the property. They were instructed to meet the next morning at 8:30 am, but Mr. Santos was a no-show. The plaintiff visited the house on the 17th at 8:00 am to find no one present and called Mr. Santos, who asked them to return the next day. Upon arrival on the 18th at 10:00 am, the house was found completely emptied out. Only a few people had access to the house, including the plaintiff, Mr. Santos, the plaintiff's assistant Emma, and the plaintiff's right-hand man, Jose. The plaintiff also mentions that Jose's son had the code to the property. Judge Judy eliminates Emma and Jose from suspicion. The plaintiff did not visit the premises between the 17th and the morning of the 18th. A witness, the neighbor Jesus Lozada, is brought forward and confirms seeing Mr. Santos and his car at the property early on the 18th, along with two other individuals and an open garage door. Ms. Joyner, the property owner, was informed of the burglary in the afternoon of the 18th after calling Mr. Lozada to inquire if he had seen or spoken to the workers. The plaintiff reported the incident to the police and named Mr. Santos, but neither the police nor Mr. Santos has contacted the plaintiff. Judge Judy finds in favor of the plaintiff, awards $5,000 in damages, and advises the plaintiff to follow up with the police, as the witness's testimony is credible and there is sufficient evidence to potentially arrest Mr. Santos.

Keywords

💡Contractor

A contractor is a professional who enters into a contract with a client to provide services, typically in construction or renovation. In the context of this video, the contractor, Mr. Santos, is accused of stealing appliances from the house he was working on, which is central to the dispute being adjudicated.

💡Appliances

Appliances refer to the large mechanical equipment, often found in a home, used for various purposes such as cooking, cleaning, and refrigeration. In this video, the missing appliances are the subject of the theft and are integral to the case being presented to Judge Judy.

💡Judge Judy

Judge Judy is a well-known television personality and former judge who presides over a reality court show where she adjudicates real small claims disputes. In this script, she is the arbitrator deciding the case regarding the stolen appliances.

💡Burglary

Burglary is the unlawful entry into a building or property with the intent to commit a crime, typically theft. In the video, the plaintiff alleges that a burglary occurred, as her property was cleared out, suggesting that the contractor may be responsible.

💡Key or Access

Having a key or access implies having the means to enter a secured area or property. In the context of the video, the discussion revolves around who had a key or access to the house, which is crucial in determining who could have potentially stolen the appliances.

💡Code

A code, in this context, refers to a security measure such as a passcode used to gain entry. The video mentions a code to get into the house, which is significant as it narrows down who could have entered the property without a physical key.

💡Witness

A witness is someone who has seen an event take place, and their testimony can be used as evidence in a legal proceeding. In this case, the neighbor, Jesus Lozada, serves as a witness, providing crucial information about seeing Mr. Santos and his car at the property in question.

💡Police Report

A police report is an official document filed with law enforcement detailing a crime or incident. The plaintiff in the video has filed a police report naming Mr. Santos, indicating the seriousness of the alleged theft and the steps taken to involve law enforcement.

💡Credible Witness

A credible witness is someone whose testimony is deemed reliable and believable in a legal context. Judge Judy refers to the neighbor as a credible witness, emphasizing the weight his testimony carries in the case.

💡Arrest

An arrest is the act of taking someone into custody by legal authority, typically in response to a suspected crime. The possibility of arresting Mr. Santos is discussed, highlighting the potential legal consequences he faces if implicated in the theft.

💡Judgment

A judgment is the decision made by a court or judge in a legal case. In this video, Judge Judy makes a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, awarding a sum of $5,000, which signifies the resolution of the dispute presented.

Highlights

The plaintiff claims that the contractor, Mr. Santos, stole appliances from the house under renovation.

Mr. Santos informed the plaintiff that the floors were sealed and needed to dry before leaving the property.

The plaintiff attempted to meet Mr. Santos at the property but he was not present.

Mr. Santos requested the plaintiff to meet him the next morning, but he was still a no-show.

On the 18th, the plaintiff discovered the house completely emptied out.

Only the plaintiff, Mr. Santos, the plaintiff's assistant Emma, and the plaintiff's right-hand man Jose had access to the house.

The plaintiff did not visit the property between September 17th and the morning of September 18th.

The neighbor, Jesus Lozada, testified to seeing Mr. Santos and two other people at the property early on the 18th.

Mr. Lozada observed Mr. Santos' car and an open garage door at the unit where they were working.

Ms. Joyner, the plaintiff, contacted Mr. Lozada to inquire if he had seen or spoken with Mr. Santos.

Mr. Lozada was asked by Mr. Santos to move his car which was obstructing the garage.

The plaintiff reported the burglary to the police and filed a report naming Mr. Santos.

The plaintiff provided the police with the name of the witness, Mr. Lozada.

Neither the plaintiff nor Mr. Lozada has been contacted by the police regarding the incident.

Judge Judy awards a judgment of $5,000 to the plaintiff.

Judge Judy advises the plaintiff to follow up on the police complaint, suggesting there is enough evidence for Mr. Santos' arrest.

The plaintiff expresses relief and satisfaction with the judgment.

The defendant, Mr. Santos, denies the allegations, stating he did not take the appliances.