Top 10 Times Judge Judy Was Wrong

Top 10 Times Judge Judy Was Wrong

Welcome to MsMojo, and today we’re counting down our picks for the times TV’s toughest judge might have gotten it wrong. But don’t tell her we said so.

#10: Unearned Refund

Plaintiff Carlos Campos must have wanted to get on TV. Though he’s a lawyer, the judge doesn’t think he has much respect for the court system if believes a $5,000 lawsuit over a haircut is warranted. Even Sheindlin admits she’s only taking this one seriously for TV. And it’s entertaining enough that we’re grateful she did. Where we think she messed up was actually granting this guy his $10 refund. It’s definitely a funny decision to award him a mere 10 bucks against a $5,000 suit, but seeing him walk away with anything at all seems wrong.

#9: Stolen Money Dispute

When the plaintiff’s savings account was closed out and the money disappeared, the only person who could’ve closed it was her mother. Conveniently, her mother can’t remember and blames the bank. Usually, Judge Judy is not a fan of the “I can’t remember” defense, so it’s weird she didn’t press the mom for some more concrete answers. Plus, the defendant doesn’t seem all that fazed by her daughter having lost her hard-earned money. Those are already two things working against her. Unfortunately, Judge Judy points to one thing that is working for her: the law. Although circumstantial evidence may point to the defendant’s guilty verdict, the judge sticks to her guns about there being no concrete proof.

#8: Legally Right, Morally Wrong

Two sisters end up before the judge to settle a dispute over unpaid dental work. At first glance, the defendant, Carissa Kolthoff, seems to have taken her sister, Corie, for a ride. However, it turns out some of the defendant’s dental work was needed because the sisters got into a physical fight that resulted in Corie dislodging Carissa’s jaw. Judge Judy doesn’t want to hear the specifics of the drama, but the real story makes Corie look lower than low. Not only did she have an affair with the father of Carissa’s children, but the physical altercation also took place while Carissa was still in the hospital after giving birth. The judge awards the plaintiff, though she does acknowledge she’s morally in the wrong.

#7: Nightmare Roommates

Plaintiff Paige Morgan sues her former friend and coworker, Natasha McClendon, over damage to her apartment. McClendon was living in a hotel at the time, and was down on her luck. However, it seems that the plaintiff and her boyfriend became abusive, destroying her bedroom door and pouring cereal on her bed. Even the judge believes the defendant was mostly the victim here. She still ruled against her for the portion of the rent she didn’t pay, despite the plaintiff’s boyfriend’s also staying with them and not paying anything. It’s one of those times when many viewers felt the judge was wrong to award anything against the defendant.

#6: Disability Benefits

Judge Judy never fails to bang the drum about social security benefits. She seems to consider anyone without a visible disability a leech on society. However, in this case, she eviscerates the plaintiff who is suing for misplaced social security checks. We understand perhaps needing to know a bit about the plaintiff’s social security, but Judge Judy really scrutinizes this man’s whole medical history in front of so many watching eyes. It’s also possible that a physical disability is not the only reason he’s receiving government aid. Either way, it’s none of our business; social security benefits are owed and his case deserves the same consideration as any where potential theft has been committed.

#5: Where Did She Get Two TVs?

Formerly unhoused plaintiff Stella Williams moved in with her niece, then later sued her over some misplaced belongings after she left the apartment they once shared. Judge Judy can’t seem to get past the fact that the plaintiff had two TVs despite not having a place to say. It’s a complete misunderstanding – or perhaps a lack of empathy – about what being unhoused is actually like. We’re not saying the plaintiff deserved to win the case by any means, but there was perhaps just a bit too much judgment coming from Sheindlin.

#4: The Dress

Judge Judy never misses a chance to dress down the younger generation. This case finds her grilling a witness about the length of her dress. Given the outfits some show up to court wearing, the witness here is actually one of the more respectably dressed participants. At least her dress is somewhat professional looking. Her brother, the actual litigant, looks like he’s dressed to hang out at the mall. It’s fun to see the judge roast people, but only when they deserve it. This just felt over-the-top and unwarranted, not to mention misogynistic.

#3: Endangered Children

Some cases are just too exploitative to air. This is one of them. Judge Judy is forced to question two girls about a 45-year-old man who allowed them to drink liquor. This is clearly a situation that could have gone south very quickly. The guy is lucky enough not to be in court, but the way the defendant, a family friend, answers the judge’s very fair questions about how she let two underaged girls hang around a man they didn’t know is enough to make us squirm. Watching these girls answer questions in such a public forum is deeply uncomfortable for all involved, especially the girls themselves.

#2: Avoidable Dog Attack

The defendant in this case offers tax-preparation services from his home. Plaintiff Blanche Dawson showed up at his house for this purpose but couldn’t get ahold of him by phone. The door was open and so she let herself in. Unfortunately, this resulted in the defendant’s two dogs attacking her. Because they were doing business, Judge Judy ruled against him. Apparently, because he was conducting business from his home, he had no right not to expect the woman not to walk in uninvited. Even when the woman’s report of her wounds doesn’t square with her medical records, the judge still awards her. Dawson’s attack is, of course, horrible but the case doesn’t seem as cut-and-dry as Sheindlin makes it out to be.

#1: Talking Over the Defendant

Plaintiff Elena Menz sues her former employer, alleging she was fired because she wouldn’t have a relationship with him. The judge keeps talking over the defendant when he tries to defend himself. She even dismisses his countersuit for defamation before hearing all the facts. It isn’t until she allows him a moment to say she pulled those pictures off of his social media and not from her conveniently erased text messages that Judge Judy even entertains his countersuit. If she had just kept talking over him, she would’ve let the dismissal stand. Instead, she reversed her decision. Considering how egregious the plaintiff’s conduct was, it would’ve been a hugely unfair ruling.

Have you ever disagreed with the judge? Tell us about it in the comments.