30 Days to Move 30 Cars?! | Part 2

This is a husband and wife, the previous owners of the property. And several months ago, they informed the respondent that they were selling the property and that he would need to vacate and that he no longer had rights to the property. And then, the concluding paragraph emphasized that the respondent did not inform her or her husband of the subletting situation and was supposed to move out. They have not been paid any rent by respondent for months. Respondent does not have permission to enter the property.

>> I don't even have a notice from the owner saying that, "Okay, you don't have permission to enter the property." There's is nothing like that. >> Judge Yodit: Are you still paying rent? >> I'm not. Well, no. No, I'm not. If they needed to evict me or sue me, I would have documents that show you that, okay, these these people are evicting me or suing me or whatever, or he would have something. And then he was lying — >> Judge Michael: Sorry, Judge. >> Judge Yodit: Oh, no. Go ahead. >> Judge Michael: Now, we need to know from the old owner and the new owner what the situation is between you and them so that we can fairly resolve this case.

Without that information, I'm at a loss to resolve it. >> Like I say, I'm in good standing with the new owner. >> Judge Michael: Don't give me the good standings. There is no new lease. >> Judge Rachel: When was the property sold? >> I believe in February. But there's also no challenge either that, hey — >> Judge Michael: That doesn't mean anything, that there was no challenge. >> Mm-hmm. >> Judge Rachel: So I only have one question on the counterclaim, which is, what is the proof that he is responsible for stealing and damaging the car parts? >> On the date of the first break-in — there were four in total — I received, first, a call from the plaintiff's father, Max, and he stated to me that David was in my yard.

>> That's a lie. >> Judge Rachel: How did you know his father? >> His father actually lives on the property, and we actually got to be friendly. He warned me about what was happening on that date. Said, "You better get over here. David and his buddies are tearing your yard apart." Just to put this in context, I'd like to call your attention to Exhibit A, page three. This is not David in the photo. This is one of his accomplices from that day. Common sense asks, why do you need to wear a disguise? >> Judge Rachel: Right, so, what about this, Mr. Manyika? >> It's ridiculous. I mean, I asked my father. He didn't do that. He's always been saying that My father called him and stuff was stolen. What was stolen? I don't know what he's talking about. How did I steal it? >> Judge Rachel: Who took this photograph? >> I did. >> Judge Rachel: Okay, So where are the photographs of him stealing the property? >> Interestingly, some of the videos that he showed already, that was the video of me in the silver car turning around.

>> Judge Rachel: Right. >> This is mid-robbery. So they were actually actively taking things out of my yard. I have receipts for some of the items, I don't have it for every single thing. >> Judge Michael: The fellow in the photograph whose face is masked, do you know who he is? >> Yes, I know is. >> Judge Michael: What is he doing there? >> He works for me. We were fixing the fence that he kept coming in and breaking into. >> Judge Michael: Why was he wearing a mask? >> I don't know. I don't recall that photo. >> Judge Michael: I don't really have anything further at this point. We're going to excuse you now while we deliberate in this case.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *