#CourtroomDrama #TenantVsLandlord #EvictionCase #RealCourtFootage
A tense day in housing court featured multiple landlord-tenant disputes, showcasing everything from unpaid rent and property damage to misunderstood conditional dismissals and emotional eviction pleas.
In Ryan Palmer vs Sonia Stoneberg, the tenant failed to appear. A default judgment was entered against her for property damage and non-payment. The judge granted possession to the plaintiff, with no right of redemption.
In Evergreen Apartments vs Matthew Chavez, the judge ruled there was no trial issue. Despite some confusion over pet rent adjustments and remaining balances, a judgment of $1,873.61 was granted, giving the tenant time to work things out before eviction.
Jerome vs Cassidy Council was set for trial after mediation talks failed. The judge expressed mild frustration due to previous expectations of settlement.
In Estate Solutions vs Daryl Daniels, both parties agreed to a conditional dismissal: Daniels must vacate by May 23, and the landlord will refund $500 in February rent, $650 security deposit, and up to $500 in moving costs.
Town Center Place vs Jacqueline Kane got heated. Although Kane had proof of apartment applications, the judge denied her request for more time after determining she violated her conditional order of dismissal by underpaying rent—even if only by $79. The judge emphasized: “She did not pay full rent on time. Motion denied.”
Lastly, in S&T Holdings vs Michelle Stacy, the tenant objected to tax return garnishment. The judge explained tax garnishments require no prior notice, and her objection was denied.
🔥 Tensions escalated in Sycamore vs P, where lingering belongings and alleged structural damage sparked debate. The judge maintained: “She’s got to get the things out,” signaling no more extensions.
Subscribe My Channel [@CourtSignal ]
📢 Disclaimer:
The following video is for educational and commentary purposes only. All information presented is based on publicly available court footage and is not intended as legal advice. The views expressed are those of the content creator and do not reflect the opinions of any court, judge, or legal entity. Viewer discretion is advised.