A Furniture Dispute With a Custody Fight Underneath
What begins as a small claims case about used furniture quickly turns into something far more loaded. Emily Stewart, 23, is suing her ex-boyfriend, 24-year-old Ernie Murky, for the return of furniture and a television. The two have a two-year-old son together, and before the furniture is even discussed, Judge Judy establishes the arrangement sitting beneath every answer: Murky has primary custody of the boy, going back to around June 2008.
Stewart does not accept that framing. Asked directly about custody, she says flatly, "He does not have custody." The judge presses on the timeline. Did the child live with Stewart before June 2008? Yes. So what changed? Stewart says she was hospitalized for a week. Judge Judy notes the obvious implication, that a week in hospital should not by itself upend a household, and Stewart answers that Murky filed for the interim custody while I was in the hospital.
Money Sent to a Boyfriend in Prison
The picture gets messier. According to Murky, he threw Stewart out after discovering she had been sending money to an old boyfriend in prison. The furniture, he says, came from Stewart's father, used pieces with the exception of the television, which was hers.
That brings Stewart's father to his feet, and Judge Judy uses the moment for a warning rather than a question. She tells him to listen carefully before he alienates a man who may be the primary caretaker of his grandson for a long time. She reminds him that Murky's account, that Stewart's father offered him the old furniture after buying new pieces, is already on the record. The denial is immediate, and the judge's reply is blunter still:
"I don't believe you."
The exchange over who cared for the child continues. Mr. Stewart insists that he and his wife and his family helped, that it just was not all on Murky. Judge Judy agrees that grandparents should help, then draws the line. "You're the grandfather," she says, before ordering him back to his seat: "Sit down, Mr. Stewart. You're not being smart."
"How Do I Have Poor Judgment?"
Perhaps the sharpest exchange comes when Judge Judy tells Stewart she has very poor judgment. Stewart pushes back, asking how, and points out that she had a medical issue rather than a drug or alcohol problem.
Judge Judy answers with a list. Stewart, she says, had poor judgment in getting involved with someone who ended up in prison; poor judgment while living with the father of her child, who was supporting her; and poor judgment in running errands for the incarcerated boyfriend by delivering him money. The judge's summary is unsparing:
"That's poor judgment. Now, do you understand?"
The details behind that come out earlier. After leaving the hospital, Stewart went to her apartment with a boyfriend who is now incarcerated. She later moved out on August 1 and stayed with a friend. Asked where the boyfriend went, she says, "To jail. That wasn't my problem."
A Landlord, a Tenant and a Missing Check
The second dispute switches gears. Victoria Ditas is suing her former tenant, 32-year-old Tammy Danca, claiming more than $5,000 in damage to a rental property. Danca says she left the house in fine shape, and counters that Ditas owes her the security deposit back and has been bad-mouthing her around town and to a new landlord.
That counterclaim collapses almost immediately. Asked for proof she paid a security deposit, Danca says she has none because it was folded into the first month's rent. Asked for the first month's rent check, she does not have that either. Judge Judy declines to entertain the counterclaim. When Danca calls the suggestion that she never paid ridiculous, the judge corrects her:
"No, it's not ridiculous. All you had to do was bring me the check."
The Pool Gate Argument
The case's most electric moment concerns a five-year-old girl and a backyard pool. Danca says the pool door was broken before she moved in, that she used a stick, and that a friend installed a semi-lock out of fear her daughter would drown. Judge Judy seizes on the word "tried."
"You can't try!"
Then she paints the scenario in the starkest terms available: "When your daughter is laying face down in the pool, you tell her that you tried to put a lock on the door?"
Cleanup Is Not a Renovation
On the damage claim, Judge Judy separates mess from destruction. Photos of a dirty toilet or a dirty refrigerator, she says, show cleanup, the kind of thing a few hundred dollars might cover. They do not show holes in walls, ripped-up carpet or broken windows. Her distinction is memorable:
"But you don't get $7,000 for doing a renovation."
She asks to see pictures of the damage and concludes, "I don't see any."
The Ruling and the Reaction
When Ditas has no cleaning bill to offer, she instead tells the court, under oath, about rocks and marbles found in the garbage disposal. It is not enough. Judge Judy dismisses the case and the counterclaim, noting there is no proof the security deposit was ever paid.
The reactions afterward are as raw as the testimony. One side calls the outcome phenomenal; the other calls it "bull," insisting the door was stripped and broken and cost thousands. There are claims of human urine in the carpets, a $1,400 security deposit left behind, accusations that someone came to a workplace "to attack me," and repeated phone calls. The final line is a weary one:
"I wish I never came here."
Across both cases, the same theme keeps surfacing. Receipts and photographs decide outcomes; stories without proof do not. And in this courtroom, a week in the hospital, a missing check and a broken pool door are never just details. They are the whole case.
Source: Guria Crocheteira e Arteira on YouTube
