Ouch! Judge Stiffs Tenant (Again)

Re: The Peoples Court [May 25, 2016]: Fireworks Over a Faulty Stove
________________________

It's obvious that beneath the pretense of fairness, the TPC "cast" is pro-landlord. Judge Milian often rules against landlords, and even gives the worst ones hell once in a while, but Harvey's bogus leading questions to the onlookers always push the idea that tenants are generally irresponsible, parasitic low-lifes, and landlords are generally decent, fair businesspersons.

The final case in this episode involved a guy suing for the return of his $200 security deposit. He asked for triple damages because he thought it was up to the judge to decide whether double or triple damages should be assessed.

Both parties agreed that there was ongoing friction between the plaintiff and the defendant and her mother (the plaintiff's housemates) during his tenancy regarding his persistent failure to clean up after himself satisfactorily.

The defendant, a nice enough young woman, explained that they kept the $200 security deposit because of the cleaning required after the plaintiff left.

As all TV-court watchers know, landlords are legally required to send an itemized letter, usually within 30 days of the tenant's departure (it varies by state) listing the reasons for keeping some or all of a security deposit. The penalty provisions kick in if the landlord fails to provide this notice.

The defendant claimed to have sent such a letter, but didn't have a copy or any proof that one was sent. The plaintiff denied getting any such letter. Furthermore, the defendant had no-- no-- evidence at all to prove up the actual damages to justify keeping the deposit.

So Milian got zero evidence that proper notice had been given, or even that there was actual damage to justify keeping the money. This should've been a slam-dunk for double damages!

Although Milian didn't hesitate to correct the claimant's mistaken impression that it was "up to the judge" to assign multiple damages, and explained that it was a matter of (state) law-- she went ahead and did exactly what she told the claimant she "couldn't" do, except not for the plaintiff's benefit: she took pity on the vulnerable defendant and only awarded the screwed-over plaintiff the return of the $200.

The judge explained that she felt that in spite of keeping the security deposit and failing to comply with the legal notice requirements, the landlord really didn't act in "bad faith". Huh?

And yet Milian just loves to beat tenants over the head, and charge them to the full extent of the law, if they fail to vacate the premises and clear out all of their possessions by midnight on the final day of the rental period/lease-- even if it was OK with the landlord! To her, that's automatically "bad faith".

I think she should jump on the landlord who "bends" the law as hard as she jumps on the tenant who takes a day or two-- sometimes only hours-- to clear out of a place that hasn't even been re-rented.