Woman Stopped Paying on Car She Totaled | Part 2
Vložit
- čas přidán 28. 08. 2024
- Marasha signed paperwork detailing her loan repayment to Trudy, but stopped making payments after totalling the car.
#JudgeJudy
The Original! There’s only ONE Judge Judy. Visit our website for where to watch, weekdays.
Subscribe to Judge Judy on CZcams: / @judgejudy
If someone needs to borrow a downpayment, regardless of what they are buying, they need to rethink the entire thing.
She had no business buying a car when she didn't even have the down payment.
Right! Just straight ghetto. She seems like the type to finesse and then try to act dumbfounded
Right! Just straight ghetto. She seems like the type to finesse and then try to act dumbfounded
@@therose__ truth is the defendant got finessed into taking out 2 loans on 1 car.
Yep - but also, don’t sell a car to someone who can’t afford it! Greed on the car dealer’s part 😒
It never ceases to amaze me how some people always see themselves as victims when in reality they are the perpetrators.
Amen
I would NEVER publicly admit as a defense “I was too stupid to know what I was signing”…specially when the acknowledgment was only one paragraph! My God that’s soo embarrassing!!! 😮
😂😂😂😂
She was taken advantage oooooof.
She wanted that car desperately using poor judgement when it came to the contract.
She kept giving angry-face too. She's used to getting away with not paying what she owes.
She's probably got a few repo's in her future, and she'll blame everyone but herself when it happens.
@@canileaveitblank1476 🤠😂😹🤣
Ugh. I hate it when people act stupid AFTER they sign contracts and then blame it on you...........
You need a no nonsense judge to shut down the bs
People should remember, you have 2 ears, 2 eyes and 1 mouth for a reason. This woman would not stop with the excuses 🙄
So you have no problem with the vulture capitalism?
@@edwhilt I'm not a disaffected malcontent, no
@@ThePrimeMinisterOfTheBlock huh?
Does the defendant actually believe saying 'I didn't read anything I signed' is going to win her the case? She kept saying that as if it actually means anything.
cause she cannot read loan agreements. takes the car and runs.
there are too many stupid people in thesecases
Well, nowadays being an idiot can get you alot of money so kind of makes sense. Like "I ate this laundry detergent because it didn't say Do Not Eat", so basically people are rewarded for being dumb or not using common sense.
😂😂😂😂😂😂
It’s so crystal clear the defendant stopped paying the loan back, the instant she totalled the car.
She knew full well what she was signing. It was a clear and concise easy to read paragraph.
She’s just playing dumb to get out of her responsibility and took advantage of the plaintiff. Period!
As always, right call JJ.
too bad the playing dumb didnt work
why would she still pay after insurance paid it off dumbahh
@@LMAOINMEMPHIS You playing the dumb card like the defendant 😁
That’s why you READ before signing.
She probably can’t read.
She's 'afraid' to read... She might have to pay her bills!
oh she read it lol
I think she knew exactly what she was signing. She totaled the car and played stupid after that.
Say that louder for the college students signing up for their loans
The person who would’ve never been able to get a car if it weren’t for the plaintiff said “I was taken advantage of” the entitlement of some people is unreal.
Girl that paper was very clear and to the point…
That part!
"If I had knowledge of this I would've never signed this"... meanwhile the contract is literally 2 paragraphs.
😁😁
I don't think she is aware of how ridiculous she sounds.
right lol
Needed a car, got the car then plays stupid
Full sentences
The person who borrowed the money had no business buying car if she was signing papers she didn’t know about
Yea I agree, but car dealerships are also very pushy. I feel like she was taken advantage of to an extent. They also always add random fees and percentages, i remember when my Dad was buying a car the contract in fine print said 7.5% finance, but we were told it was 5%, when we questioned it, they said that 2.5% is to cover the loan fees or some rubbish. The total repayment was 19,950 as opposed to 15550 which we originally calculated. I have no doubt in my mind she was told some baloney
@@BNR_248 That is not the case here. This girl took accepted personal loan in order to take out a car loan and was ungrateful to the person who made that possible. The brief contract was very specific and clear.
That contract was very well written
"I was taken advantage of" the delusion in that woman. 🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡
Delusion how???????? She clearly was manipulated into something she couldn’t afford..
They took advantage of each other.
You keep defending a full grown adult with the defense of ignorance. Nobody made you sign documents. The dealer didn't drag her into the shop. Of course both parties are looking for a benefit when they enter a contract. That's the name of the game. You don't knowingly enter a contract to be in a worst position. The defendant wanted a car. The saleswoman wanted money. Simple. Anytime there's an exchange of goods, it's for benefit. Taking advantage is not correct because it implies the plaintiff did things maliciously. THE CONTRACT WAS PLAIN SIMPLE ENGLISH!!!!
My jaw dropped a little bit on that one. Wow.
She was taking advantage of.. would you loan a stranger money if you had nothing to gain? She wanted her commission and $300 for a one month loan. Plus I guarantee if that car was not totaled she would have got the dealership to repo it for her money.. she probably does it all the time to people who don’t know any better
Defendant is a perpetual victim, never her fault. Glad JJ saw that.
BLM mentality!
@@gmshadowtraders dumb comment
@@orionb5217 EXTREMELY dumb comment.. 👍
White privilege 😅
@@gmshadowtraders fact
The old 'play stupid' defence that has never worked ever. She knew she owed the money, no question at all.
The fact that she came into a dealership with $980 wanting an $11,000 is very stupid and based on fact that she totaled the car a less than a year later I can definitely believe that she did not read or probably even care what the lady was saying to her she was ready to jump behind that wheel as fast as possible.
@@destinyphillips1461 Oh there's no doubt she's an idiot, but she's an idiot that knew full well she owed the plaintiff the money.
@@destinyphillips1461 They used each other.
I am not so sure she was playing.....
Defendant is not as dumb as she pretends to be. She knew what she was doing, trying to get a free car and not pay all of the loan back. Even when a car is totaled in a wreck of your fault, you still have to pay the balance. And they do add interest.
Reading is fundamental. This is why education is important.
she is just playing stupid to not pay...
Not negligent, just stupid 😂😂😂
@@linapesz313 'Pre' Judge Judy, playing stupid has served her well.
Both plaintiff and defendant border on the dishonest. You don't sell a car to a person who does not have enough money for a down payment, period. And you don't stop paying back a personal loan only because you no longer feel like it.
There was only one person who got taken advantage of here and it was NOT the defendant!!!
Why would someone who works as a salesperson selling cars give a customer a personal loan?? Are they related?
Naw the plaintiff benefits off of it
In the comments section of part one, some people said that shady car dealerships will loan a customer a sufficient down in order to fool the finance company into approving the loan application. To avoid the appearance of fraud, the dealership will have customer sign documents describing the funds as a personal loan from the salesperson to the customer.
@@lynne709 this is true
10% is a bargain. It could have been 29.99%
This is why they need to add financial literacy to high schools. The defendant is clearly a victim of illiteracy.
No she isn't. She's just a liar.
She should go back to school instead of screwing around and having babies just to get money from the daddies.
Charlie Kelly behavior
thats is not even financial literacy, as judge judy said that it was in plain english
The defendant is clearly a victim of her own negligence.
"Because I was taken advantage of." I bet she didn't feel that way when the woman loaned her the down payment, so she could get a car to begin with.
Wow, the plaintiff had a very clear and simple document.
no one forced her to not read the terms. no one forced her to sign the dotted line. no one forced her to buy a car she didn't have the money for. no one forced her to not show up in court with no proof that she made the payments she claimed to have made. the best thing you can work on is learning how to hold yourself accountable. . .
Her defense is "I'm too stupid to be trusted with grown up responsibilities"
Omg! Her defense is literally to throw up her hands and say “Well I didn’t know what I was signing so…” 🤷🏻♀️
The plaintiff is so ANNOYING. I just can't. I would never have bought a car from her after just having a conversation with her.
Really? How? Why?
Exactly the plantiff is sickening
She was awful! That whole nodding and pursed lips thing was so annoying I skipped to the end to see the judgement.
I find the defendant annoying, she thinks she could take advantage of a nice lady.
Yet she financed the down-payment to a leach? You're probably exactly like the leach.
This is why it's important to read whatever paperwork someone gives you before signing. The defendant has no excuse if she didn't agree with what the papers said then she should have not signed it. She was trying to make excuses to not finish paying just pay the woman and be free! I don't like the plaintiff for some reason, but the defendant still has to pay.
The defendant knew exactly what the situation was. Ignorance is not a defence anyway. She wanted the car, she started making payments, then stopped when she destroyed the car. She would have played the poor victim to get sympathy and help, then she just shit on them. Its a dumb move anyway. All she had to do was pay the $1400, then she would be free and clear to get another car. Instead she burned her bridges and burned her reputation. The defendant is probably already at the next car yard trying to finagle a car and using this situation for more sympathy.
The plaintiff took advantage of her
It was probably an illegal loan. The interest rate is way too high and illegal in most states.
@@tubester4567 My thoughts exactly.
@@kylenielsen5341 If their is a contract it is not illegal. The Defendant is an idiot.
This is why we need to be teaching basic finance skills in junior high and senior high schools. Incredible ignorance.
The defendant is probably right in the last things she says. 10% interest for a 1 month loan is over 100% APR. Usurious loans with interest rates this high are illegal in most states.
even personal from one to another?
@@NewWesternFront Especially personal from one to another, because individuals don't have all the certifications to be a profit-based lender.
Correct, I was asked for substantial loan, burrower said pay $1,000 per week. I said okay but for that amount I need my attorney to write up a document. He said put $975 as $1,000 puts it too close to 16% triggering usury law. funny part about it is a credit card company can charge way over that.
The plaintiff looks like one of those creepy dolls that closes and opens her eyes when you move them.
She reminded me of Annabella doll in horror movies
Meanwhile , the defendant looks like she’s spent her youth eating doughnuts 😂
@@minkyfran8307 Meanwhile, you sound like your brain lacks braincells starting at your youth 🤣
2:34 "Your honor if i would'v.. If i would.. If i.. If i have.." Yeah that's a sign of lying🤣
Defendant is about as smart as a tube of toothpaste
She admits she signed documents without reading or understanding. Is she serious??? In this day and age... my word
She knows what's she's doing😏Acting like she didn't know or don't owes😑 See how she talk.
she had attitude the whole time.
@edwardjames6070 no she didn't 🙄
Imaging going to court and your defense is "Your honor, I'm too stupid to know what I was doing"
The defendant was not “ignorant” of what she was signing. She knew the lady was lending her money for the down payment and she was required to pay it back by the agreed upon date. She figured since the car was totaled and her insurance paid of the finance company the plaintiff wouldn’t waste her time trying to collect the remainder and she was wrong. She isn’t ignorant she is just an ungrateful person who doesn’t take care of their responsibilities. Her whole defense was bogus. Then she had the nerve to act indignant too…how sad. It’s too bad the plaintiff didn’t have a penalty clause on that agreement with the maximum allowable percentage added on for every day she went past the payoff date.
The plaintiff is getting on my nerves for some reason. I don’t like her composure.
same!!! her lips piss me off
her mannerisms
the motions she uses and the way she talks
it just ticks me off
@@bubbaXzone how about the color of her hair. very offensive.
She's a predator. She's not an honest person. She's running a racket on the job. She clearly seeks out customers who can't make the deposit and offer them high interest loans. Wonder if her boss knows or knew. And that's not to say the girl doesn't owe her. Seems the young woman thought the loan was with the establishment, not the woman herself.
Alot of people can read, but don't necessarily understand what they're reading - No Comprehension.
''A 10% interest rate isn't even legal'' she says.
Yes it is !
Someone lending you money can charge you whatever they like .. especially if you sign the contract agreeing to pay that.
It was a simple one paragraph contract that she now claims that she didn't understand.
What's not to understand ?
She was loaned $2700.00 and agreed to pay back €2970.00 (€2700.00 + 10%)
0:58 This is why reading is fundamental. Read before you sign and understand what you are signing but she still dont get it even in the end at 3:02
She clearly was too busy looking for future baby daddies in school instead of paying attention to teachers and learning.
@@ec6443 of course you have to mention “baby daddy’s” when it’s a black defendant. Your kind is so practicable 😂
What you seem not to get is she was just bullshitting
@@ec6443 why was this comment needed
@@nekajones595 why not princess? Does it hit too close to home for yourself? Neka? Wtf is that?!?! That's the sound my ass makes at the end of the day when I put on pjs. Did your parents not love you to name you something so stupid?
This is why I don't give personal loans..... not even to family. not even with a contract.
I find it crazy how many adults go to dealerships, sign anything just to drive off, then play victim when they don’t honor the agreement. That’s called being an arrogant asshole.
The plaintiff comes across as scammy
Yet the defendant is the actual scammer 🤔
How so?
What type of deal was thus where the salesman LOANED the down-payment😩
Thank you! Why is nobody else asking this? The only thing that makes sense is if the salesperson also owned the used car dealership. Which is nuts anyway. Why on earth would a salesperson loan 5x what the commission would be for a down payment on a car to some rando stranger off the street? Something isn’t adding up.
Some people do not DESERVE to own a vehicle.
It's crazy how many people think, "I didn't read what I was signing/purchasing/whatever" is somehow a defense for their mistakes. I've had people at work literally say, "I don't care what I signed," when I tell them they were or were not obligated to something. Unless it's in the case of gross negligence on the other party, your personal chosen ignorance does not oblige your issues to become someone else's problem.
Don’t like the plaintiff but the defendant owes the money.
Also, actually getting money through wage garnishment isn’t a given either. She may not earn enough or there may be others ahead of this plaintiff.
i agree i dont like plantiff either. Just something about her that just makes me uneasy and rubs me the wrong way.
@@bubbaXzone she's a pretty used car salesman. She does appear intelligent and organized. I've dealt with a few used car people who are decent and some not so much. Maybe she is one of the decent ones. After all she didn't try to get any extras just what she was owed.
Oh honey, they can garnish paycheck till the debt is paid, no matter how much you make. Ask deadbeat parents who have child support garnished from their paychecks till they quit the job.
@@bubbaXzone Well because she is probably frustrated with the Defendant's BS. They probably went back and fourth and finally decided to take to Judge Judy.
“I was taken advantage of” 😂
She took advantage of her knowing she wasn’t educated on financing she gave her down payment but still made commissions on the car as hell all around scam
That’s the defendant’s fault she admitted to signing things that she didn’t even read salesmen especially cars salesmen are scammers and she made it easy for the plaintiff
Girl is in for a hard life!! However, what an interesting racket the used car saleswoman is running. She talks buyers into a more expensive car they can't afford, potential buyers don't have enough money - she personally loans them the difference at a healthy interest rate. She sells the car and gets commission on that AND picks up a 10% return on her personal investment. Not sure this practice is even legal, but would be determined by local laws.
My one and only purchase form a used car lot was so shady, I never did it again. What the seller did here was probably legal in her state, but like check-cashing companies, highly distasteful IMO.
That said; this defendant had no intention of continuing to pay for a car she could no longer drive. She will declare bankruptcy to avoid the consequences, then go do it again. I see this all the time where I'm from.
@@vohawk They're both scammers.
@@jenniehughes6927 I agree. I think its pretty obvious too.
The plaintiff is super shady and I can't believe what she is doing is legal. She's "working" for the dealership as the person selling her the car, and she's working for the "customer" by personally loaning them money to buy the car from her. There has to be a conflict of interest there.
@@tommyjones6866 They sell their cars above the loan to value of the vehicle, so the only way to get financing from a financial institution is to have money to put down. The salesperson knows this, so they have agreements on the ready to personally lend the down-payment at a profit to them. Customers that enter into an agreement like that usually have bad credit and are desperate, so they sign. Very despicable and bad practice for the salesperson and dealership!
I love how people who are borrowing money act like they’re the ones being taken advantage of 😂
If you have to borrow money for a down payment on a car, you shouldn’t be trying to purchase a car. That in itself was the defendant’s biggest mistake aside from signing contracts she failed to read, let alone understand what they meant before she agreed. This is just terrible and very flat out stupidity!
I 100% believe the defendant. But yes, she should have read all the paperwork thoroughly….Also I hate the plaintiff’s lips 😂
So you 100% believe the defendant is too stupid to read 2 paragraphs?
Foolish fool
Reading....and comprehension....is fundamental. If you aren't sure, ASK.
I thought it was illegal for car sales personnel couldn’t loan down payment to customers
Girl if you paid, just go to your bank and get proof there.
A finance company will NEVER finance your down payment. EVER! The defendant is annoying.
People have zero accountability. Woooow!! Shameful
"I never would have signed that if I had know what it said." In other words, she thinks she's not responsible for legally signing for something she didn't read and comprehend. That has to be the stupidest, laziest excuse ever.
She should've read that document which was crystal clear.
Things to NOT do on Judge Judy:
Have any kind of bad attitude!
Interrupt Judge Judy
No evidence
Back peddle on story
Hesitate / stutter
Act ignorant
You can't claim to accept responsibility in something you did and yet still use the excuse that you were taken advantage of. Cancels each other out. It doesn't work that way.
The defendant isn’t the brightest bulb and the plaintiff recognized that. If I went to a business and an employee offered me a personal loan or side deal separate from the company transactions I would consider that a huge red flag 🚩 about their ethics and business practices and immediately leave. And it being a used car lot means I would run 🏃♀️ not walk out of there.
Why would you go to a car place if you can’t afford the down payment. Also those used car dealerships screw you over I’d rather go to a legit dealership.
What a mess.
I think there was some shady business going on at this used car 'dealership', as is the case with many of them! It was never addressed about the amounts taken directly out of her bank account - THAT'S why the plaintiff needed the voided check! I have actually been a licensed car salesperson in VA & there is a test you must pass to be a car salesperson. I think what happened here was that the plaintiff used the 'wiggle room' on car sale prices to cover the defendant's downpayment - for all or part of the 'loan' & didn't really come out of her pocket for the whole loan amount!! I've NEVER heard of a car salesperson personally loaning a downpayment to a total stranger!! Doesn't make sense to me!! She DEFINITELY TOOK ADVANTAGE OF THIS YOUNG LADY!!!
That's not what happened. The plaintiff loaned her the down payment that she had to pay back since she didn't put in the down payment herself. The rest of the car payment she still has to make on top of paying back the down payment that was a loan.
Also, down payment is not the monthly payment you make for financing the car. Since she didn't have enough money for the down payment and plaintiff loaned her the money she has to pay her back! What part of that doesn't make sense?
@@onlineversion I understand what the lawsuit was about & that clearly by her own admission the defendant didn't finish repaying the loan. But a couple things about the case just didn't 'sit right' with me. First of all what were the direct debits from the defendant's bank account TO THE CAR DEALERSHIP, separate & aside from the finance company? Secondly, why did the plaintiff need a voided check from the defendant 'for tax purposes'? I've never heard of nor seen while working as a car salesperson. The only reason this would be needed was to debit money directly from the defendant's bank account as was done by the dealership NOT the finance company. Third, the plaintiff's response to the judge's question regarding her commission on selling the car, didn't feel right, especially having been a salesperson, who typically are paid ONLY the commission on the cars we sell, plaintiff responded her commission 'WOULD HAVE BEEN $559.40' (I may be a little off on that #, but she had it down to the penny) the plaintiff's words IMPLIED ('WOULD HAVE BEEN' NOT 'WAS') she didn't get paid her commission! Fourth & finally the biggest thing that bothers me about this case, & I ask you to put yourself in the plaintiff's shoes for a moment & take a very logical, sensible look at her (now yours since you're pretending you're her) actions, remembering your ONLY income is commission. A young lady you don't know, have never seen before, comes in to buy a car, selects the Toyota Avalon priced at $11,950, you already know your commission is going to be about $550, but when it comes time to do all the paperwork, the young lady is $2750 short of the cash downpayment. That's MORE THAN 5X what your commission will be for selling the car! Would you reach into YOUR OWN WALLET to loan that money to this total stranger?!?? Answer COMPLETELY TRUTHFULLY - WOULD YOU??
They don’t necessarily give the customer the money in their hands plenty of dealerships do it that when u don’t have the full down payment they don’t want to lose the sale they put it thru for u and u come back and pay them back whenever y’all agreed u would not uncommon she didn’t take advantage the lady clearly wanted a car so bad that she didn’t bother reading or thinking it through if u didn’t have the money for the car maybe u should’ve never wen thru the deal nobody told her to be stupid !
@@litodat233 I definitely get what you're saying, but that's usually the dealership extending a short term loan - NOT the salesperson pulling it outta their own pocket!!
Pleading victim and stupidity - one’s certainly right!
When the car was financed she didnt pay off the loan for the dp in 30 days as promised. The lender allowed her to make pmts. When the car was totalled she stopped paying altogether. The defendant was actually trying to take advantage of the plaintiff. Glad it didnt work out.
The perched lips and the lack of blinking by the plaintiff will give me nightmares tonight - with that said, she is 100% right and is owed the money she loaned the defendant.
She was trying to play stupid to get out of paying the loan 😵💫
Don't you love when you help somebody out and then they cry victim and say that you took advantage of them
She’s too old to say she was taken advantage of. She should have walked away and not bought the car if she didn’t have enough money to put down on the car .
The plaintiff is pretty shady. The defendant should report her to the state AG and IRS.
What she did sounds pretty predatory and borderline illegal.
It couldn't possibly be the defendant who's at fault
There is absolutely nothing that she did that was illegal. What she did was actually very nice. I’m sure the defendant had a sob story and HAD to get the car that day and she wanted to help her and made sure she had her sign a document so when the defendant decided to not finishing g paying her back she would be protected under that document and could sure her in small claims court
@@shelley7596 There was nothing nice about it. I highly doubt the customer asked a total stranger for a personal loan. I think the defendant isn’t the sharpest knife in the drawer and the plaintiff knew it. I wonder if the dealership knows she makes side agreements with people.
@@anndeecosita3586 that’s also what I’m thinking. Never heard of someone charging 10% interest on a loan they’re giving someone to “ help “ them.
@@anyiawynn1669 the plaintiff did not know this person. My guess is the defendant came in desperate to get a car. The plaintiff loaned the money at 10%. The loan agreement was very simple. The defendant paid over half the money owed but since she did not get the money back after totally the car, she just wanted to write it off! She can’t do that! If the plaintiff was a horrible person she would not have brought the proof that the defendant paid anything on the loan.
Always read documents before you sign
Ignorance of the law is never a defence
While I agree with most people here, ignorance is no excuse however, dealerships should be held accountable too. People may need a car for whatever ever reason and out of desperation sign anything to make it happen and be able to drive off. I’m not saying what the defendant did was right but why would the dealer allow their employee to “loan” a customer money? She is not that nice!! The dealer was in on it!!
Most car selling outfits do in house financing anyways, there's nothing unethical about it. If you don't want any part of it then save your money before purchasing a vehicle.
You poor fool, you will be taken advantage of to the end of your days
“Because I was taken advantage of”
No you just don’t want to pay her back and now that the car is totaled you don’t think you have to. Glad you lost. Pay up.
I have never seen so many people totaling cars like I have on judge Judy.
She read it and understood it completely
How does someone survive when they’re so ignorant.
The defendant is a LIAR
she just tries to get over on people and never have to work.
@@edwardjames6070 yup like most of America isn't it sad and disgusting
Learn to purchase something that you can afford and also learn that if something is too good to be true then it is often not. Life is not a lottery ticket. 😑
Lifelong victim.
Zero responsibility
Ignorance is not a defense
Defendant like a lot of people don't get what it means to finance a car. Without that down payment she loaned her then she wouldn't have been able to get the car. She's not realizing that you don't get down payments back and she took out 2 loans. One with the finance company and one personally with the plaintiff. That car could be working or totalled right now, wouldn't matter. You don't get a down-payment back on a finance contract lol
Just for my own clarification as a new car buyer soon, when you say “you don’t get your down payment back” what do you mean?
Like if I was to put down 10,000$ on a 20,000$ car and finance the rest. If it was totaled you only get the finance portion??
I just don’t understand why is a stranger cake sales person giving loan to someone who cannot afford the car. So weird.
@@baileylocklear5975 The $10k is an initial lump sum payment towards the car. If you finance the rest of the cost, then you’re paying off the remaining value in increments over time. It has nothing to do with what your car is insured for.
Your car will be insured for whatever value it is that year (cars depreciate in value every year). If you total it, the insurance company will give you the amount it is currently worth, which would be used to pay off the remaining payments on it (and you keep the rest)
@@User84030 Oh okay got it!
I was a bit confused since Ive never financed a car and didn’t know what happened if you got in a wreck without it fully paid off.
Thank you!!
Never sign ANY document if you are unsure re: Each clause. You could sign away your life if you don't thoroughly understand it.
Defendant claims she was the one taken advantage of at the very end of the case. Idiot City.
Without the plaintiffs loan, she wouldn’t have even been able to finance the car. I know what happened, she crashed the car and said, well I’m not paying that loan anymore.
She got taken advantage of!!!?!?? What a sorry defense. Ignorance is not a defense. What about the plaintiff?!?!? She was out over $1000!!!! "I was taken advantage of", no shame!!!
It wasn’t the plaintiff’s money, it was the dealerships money. This was all a scheme to fool the finance company.
I THINK THE BLONDE. IS TELLING FIBBS‼️‼️‼️
Used car salespeople are gifted wordsmiths who can convince you to sign anything and have you thank them for robbing you.
This defendant gave ridiculous answers. Taken advantage of? Are you kidding me????
I seriously believe there's a lot of people walking around that have a processing or comprehension disorder.
smfh to the defendant. all the lights on but noone is there
The plaintiff seems shady. I actually believe the defendant regarding the checks.
I hate this bull nose piercing thingy
yea, septum piercing.🫤
She should be ashamed of herself… She’s very ungrateful!
why are used car salespeople making personal loans to customers?