I got kicked in the head by a horse.
I'm out of work. They said I have a cognitive deficit.
"She had horses that were unsound.
Her young horses were jumping and running in paddocks with huge boulders.
It was unsettling."
You understand what I'm saying.
This is Judy Justice.
Diane Depenbrok is suing horse breeder, Jessica Austin,
for the deposit on a horse.
Court, come to order. All rise.
Have a seat, please.
- Hello, Judge. - How are you, Kevin?
Case 2136, Depenbrok versus Austin.
- Thank you. - You're welcome.
Depenbrok. Yes.
You bought a foal, which is a baby horse,
in utero, which means that the horse had not yet had this foal.
But you wanted to place an order for it.
- And Ms. Austin is in that business. - Correct.
You entered into a contract.
By the way, what is the gestation period of a horse?
Roughly 340 days.
And at what period in the horse's pregnancy
did you enter into this contract with the Plaintiff?
Roughly three and a half months into the gestation.
Okay.
- Did you have a written contract? - Yes, Your Honor.
I'd like to take a look at it because this is a contract action,
and it is your claim that you made a substantial deposit,
over $3,000, for the horse, that, when the horse was born,
it did not meet the specifications of this contract,
you wanted your money back.
- The defendant says that's not true. - Correct.
That the horse did meet all the requirements of this contract.
The one specifically that you're referring to
is something in this contract, which I will read,
I assume, that says that the horse must be, once born,
insurable within the first two days or 48 hours of its birth.
And that this horse was not insurable within 48 hours,
and therefore, you decided to terminate the contract.
- That's your position. - Yes, Your Honor, I request...
And it's your position that the horse was, in fact, insurable.
That you can prove that because you did, in fact, get insurance on the horse
within 48 hours of the horse's birth, and...
So... Part of that... - No, no, no. Don't...
Your position is you met the conditions of the contract.
- Yes. - Okay.
Okay. "The deposit for 25% of the purchase price.
The seller agrees to hold the foal off-market
exclusively for the buyer until the foal reaches 48 hours old
and is deemed insurable."
Well, does that mean the foal is taken from the mother?
- And transferred? - No.
So, the foal stays with the mother until it's how old?
I choose to wean at six months because they seem to be better adjusted
if you wait until that period.
Okay. And it's not that you can't get insurance.
It's that "a live, healthy foal is defined
as a foal that is deemed insurable at 48 hours old.
And if the mare fails to produce a live, healthy foal,
then the buyer may request a refund of the deposit
or a credit towards another purchase."
Okay, so the foal was born when?
June 9th, 2022 at roughly 5:30 in the morning.
Okay. Your case, your proof. Okay.
So, I had to find out the foal was born through Facebook.
Okay. Whatever. - She never notified me.
And then, I went to see the foal when it was a day old, on Thursday.
One day old? I mean... Well...
Not even. 12 hours old, basically.
Okay, so it was not a day old. It was 12 hours old.
Correct. I'm sorry. 12 hours old.
June 10th, she told me the vet would be out at 9:30 a.m.
to do the routine foal exam,
and I requested to be notified of the results.
Just tell me about the contract. The foal is born alive and is how old now?
She turned five months old on the 9th of this month.
Have pictures of her? I do!
I'd like to see.
Oh, she's beautiful. Thank you.
Have you seen her? - I have.
Recently? No.
Would you show the Plaintiff these photographs?
Yes.
Looks perfectly healthy to me.
I couldn't get insurance when... Just a sec.
Looks perfectly healthy to me.
And I'm not an expert, but...
You would say that that horse looks pretty healthy.
Yes. Okay. Great.
So, now the horse is 12 hours old,
and tell me the rest.
So, at 48 hours old, I had submitted the vet report
to eight insurance companies,
and they all declined to insure the animal.
Just a sec. You submitted what report?
Let me see the report. And let me see what you received.
Okay.
Did you furnish her with a report within 48 hours?
I furnished her with what the vet gave me.
- He did the vet exam at 24 hours old. - This is the vet report.
But he had to draw blood and send it to a lab.
Okay. Just let me... Shh. And wait for that...
This first thing is dated June 12th, 2022,
and this laboratory is sending the report to you,
and it seems that they put the horse on a course of antibiotics initially
for one day because something came back high,
but it says, "I do not believe all foals should automatically get antibiotics,
however, I stand by our decision to treat
what turned out to be a completely normal and healthy foal.
We can pull follow-up labs to be sure, but her behavior since the blood sample
backs up the lab results."
"Her behavior since the blood samples." What does that mean?
So, for a foal to be considered "doing well behaviorally," it needs...
What are you a doctor of, first of... People. Internal medicine.
Okay. - For people.
I brought a witness veterinarian. You're the vet.
Okay.
So now, I have these test results which I don't understand,
and I'd like to see your reports from the insurance companies.
How long was the foal on antibiotics?
She received two doses.
One the day the vet came out
and then one the following morning before he got the blood test results back.
- When the blood test results came back... - They were normal.
They were normal? - Yes.
He said, "Don't give any more antibiotics. She does not need them."
And this report that you have... from one insurance company...
- Or from, actually, all of them... - Correct.
...say, "Underwriters have declined to provide coverage at this time
and will reassess when the foal is off antibiotics."
Well, the foal was off antibiotics within two days.
Mrs. Austin told me she was on antibiotics for three days, actually...
Well, either two or three days, but then the results came back normal.
The insurance companies, each will wait a certain amount of days.
So, that particular one wanted to wait seven days
to reassess after the foal had been off antibiotics.
A few of the companies were 30 days.
And I think one was 14 days.
But that doesn't matter. All you need is one.
I was taking a risk having an animal that's uninsured,
and I wasn't ready to...
This is problematic for me.
Because if I put a deposit down on something that I really wanted,
and within two or three days,
any question with regard to whether or not
the animal was insurable or healthy,
if my intention was to honor the contract,
I would say, "Let's see if the results are normal or abnormal."
Now, the results came back that the foal was perfectly healthy.
So, unless you had,
in my view, something preconceived that you wanted out of this deal
for some reason other than insurability, it's your horse.
I signed the contract based on the fact that she could be insured.
The year before, I purchased another in utero,
and that foal was insured at 24 hours old
and with the same type of contract. I wasn't...
Well, that's all right. You understand what I'm saying.
I understand, but I... You understand?
Because my problem is,
"After I made the deposit," according to you,
"some things came to my attention that gave me anxiety."
This is before the foal was even born.
"I learned about several of the Plaintiff's horses
that had to be put down.
She had horses that were unsound, lame, and missing eyes.
Her young horses were jumping and running in paddocks with huge boulders.
I also found out that she tried to sell the mare
that was pregnant with my foal to a friend of mine.
It was unsettling."
Correct. Right, so...
I'm trying to just put this in chronological order for myself
to understand whether there was a true breach of this contract.
You have a counterclaim.
Yes, Your Honor. For what?
When I originally got the notification from the court,
I got kicked in the head by a horse on July 4th.
And they had done testing. I'm out of work.
They said I have a cognitive deficit...
What does that have to do with what you want?
Later...
So, this is a picture of the car before he painted it?
No, ma'am. That's after.
- Oh, doesn't look bad. - From afar.
Listen. When you're born in 1964, everything looks better from afar.
Diane Depenbrok is suing horse breeder, Jessica Austin,
for the deposit on a horse.
Jessica is countersuing for breach of contract.
The foal is born on June 9th? - Correct.
Was given a dose of antibiotics on the 10th of June,
because they were suspicious of something before the blood was drawn?
Correct.
Given another dose of antibiotics in the morning of the 11th.
Correct. - The blood results come back on the 12th.
Which indicates that the horse was totally normal.
And you advised her. Correct?
I immediately forwarded the email to her, correct.
Okay. Now the foal is 50 hours old,
and you're told that the foal is totally healthy.
I'm not sure that I'm comfortable with your position
that there was a material breach of this contract.
I think that a perfectly healthy horse was born,
and it was within a reasonable period of time...
May not have been 48 hours,
but they were being very cautious in starting the course of antibiotics.
You're the vet. Stand up and tell me
if I'm not seeing something.
The vet who saw the horse... Was that you?
Um, it was not. Okay.
...evidently decided that, to be very cautious,
they would await the blood test result on the horse.
- On the baby. - Mm-hmm.
And start a course of antibiotics that could be stopped
if the blood tests came back normal.
- Which they did. - Correct.
Within a day.
No, I don't think there's been a material breach
of this contract by the Defendant.
I think that you're obligated.
If she wanted specific performance, that's fine,
but you're not entitled to your deposit back.
I have an email from the insurance company from the 21st
when she finally told me the foal was insured.
Just a second. - I can't take that risk for two weeks...
- No, no. - ...on an animal I can't get insured.
But your problem is, it wasn't two weeks.
Your problem was it was less than a day.
Adding it on to that 48-hour period. And I have to determine
whether that was a material breach of the contract.
Certainly, if the lab results came back
that show that there was any deficiency in the horse,
I'd say, "Absolutely. You're entitled to your deposit back."
But they did not. They came back and they said
that a vet wanted to be very cautious, but the vet turned out to be wrong.
My contract didn't state anything about a vet.
I'm telling you, I don't find
that one day was a material breach of the contract
because if you had then, on the third day,
sent the normal blood test results out to the same insurance company,
the insurance company would've found that the horse was insurable.
They wouldn't because they wanted to wait seven days
until the horse was off antibiotics.
Then you wait seven days. That's still not a material breach.
She's not asking you for the rest of the money.
So, if something happened in those two weeks,
I would've been out $9,000.
That is not accurate. Just a second. You were not.
You weren't going to take the horse until the horse was six months old.
I wasn't going to take the horse if it wasn't... if it couldn't be insured.
Well, it could be insured. It turned out that the vet was cautious
and you were wrong.
And I believe that you'd already made a decision.
I had not made a decision.
I find there's not a material breach.
You don't get your deposit back.
Now, the horse is yours. You have a counterclaim.
Yes, Your Honor. For what?
$1,500 for my lawyer costs and another $100 to file the counterclaim.
For your lawyer's costs for what?
When I originally got the notification from the court,
I got kicked in the head by a horse on July 4th.
And they had done testing. I'm out of work.
They said I have a cognitive deficit that they're working...
What does that have to do with what you want?
I'm sorry, but what does it have to...
I obtained a lawyer to represent me in court
because I didn't know if I would be capable of representing myself.
Oh, well, but you are perfectly capable of representing yourself.
You don't get your deposit back.
So, now you have a perfectly healthy horse that you can sell.
And hopefully sell for the same amount that you sold it to the Plaintiff for
and pay your attorney's fees.
Do you understand? Because she lost her deposit.
I don't think that there was a material breach of a contract
with an extra one day to get normal lab results back.
Your case is dismissed. We're done. Thank you.
This court is adjourned.
As the judge read from the contract,
as the seller, I assumed all risk on the foal
until she was six months old.
You put a lot of money to make an investment in,
and you want to make sure your assets are covered
and the horse can be properly taken care of if something comes up.
Therefore, the argument
that the buyer would lose anything if something happened to the foal
is inaccurate.
I'm really happy with the two horses that I have,
and I'll stick with the ethical breeders I know.
And the insurance that we obtained was based on the exam at 24 hours old,
therefore we have proven that we upheld the contract.
So, one interesting thing about that case is,
as I was looking at the calendar of what day the horse was born
and when the vet came out first and when the results came back,
the horse was born on a Friday, and then the vet came out Saturday,
and I was surprised that any lab sent labs back on a Sunday.
So, in a business that's so dependent on something you can't control,
when the horse is going to give birth,
why would the Defendant put, in her own contract,
a 48-hour... such a tight window for insurability for the horse?
Maybe it's standard practice. I don't know standard practices
for horses or anything like that.
It's a very... It's a very... You're right. It's a tight window.
And my guess is... Although, I could've asked the question.
...probably standard in that industry. I'm not sure.
But it's interesting to note that, in contract law,
unless time is of the essence,
there has to be some sort of material breach,
and, you know, in this case,
if the Defendant had not had a vet come out
and look at the horse for a week, well, that's a different story.
She had a vet come out immediately. The vet was super cautious.
The vet turned out to be, ultimately, thankfully, mistaken.
- There was nothing wrong with the horse. - Mm-hmm.
Got a clean blood test, but the Plaintiff had already determined
that she had buyer's remorse with regard to this deal.
There was another agenda there.
Because the horse looked beautiful at five months old, a beautiful animal,
and it was perfectly clear within 60 hours.
And the Defendant seems to love it now and very proud of it.
- So, it's in a good place anyway. - Yeah.
Case 2134, Wimberly versus Miera. All parties, please step forward.
Tina Wimberly is suing auto-body worker, Robert Miera,
for a refund of a 1969 VW Bug paint job.
Ms. Wimberly, tell me about this car that you have.
So, I have a '69 Volkswagen Beetle.
- I've had the car for about 20 years. - Where did you buy it?
In Salt Lake City, Utah.
Is it a Bus or a Bug? It's a Bug.
My goodness, I remember everyone had one of those cars.
The whole world had those little Bugs when they came out.
Except me. Scared to death. Okay.
Anyway, you've had it for a long time, and you try to keep it restored.
- Do you have a photograph? - I do.
I'd like to take a look please.
You acknowledge it's unsatisfactory because you said, "I'll fix it."
No, I said I'd take care of it in a good gesture
to try to make things work with her.
I did not deny her any kind of service
or say, "Go get lost," until she started cursing at me.
No, no. - She didn't tell you she was cursing.
You know?
Tina Wimberly claims auto-body worker, Robert Miera,
owes a refund on a 1969 VW Bug paint job.
As you're getting that, the case is simple.
You want your money back for a bad paint job
that you say that Mr. Miera did on the car.
Okay.
So, this is a picture of the car before he painted it?
No, ma'am, that's after.
Oh, that's after? Yes.
Oh, doesn't look bad. - From afar.
Listen, when you're born in 1964, everything looks better from afar.
Okay.
That's an interesting color.
Do you have a photograph of what the car looked like
before you took it in to the Defendant?
No, ma'am. Okay.
But I have pictures of after. The bubbling that it's doing.
I'll take a look at it.
Okay.
Have you shown these pictures of the bubbling to Mr. Miera?
I have, Your Honor.
And you've seen them, sir? - Yes, ma'am.
Okay, so this is the story. You brought your car
in to Mr. Miera to paint it. He gave you a price. The price was?
Originally, it was $3,500. What did you ultimately pay him?
- No, it wasn't. Mm-mm. - $6,500.
Okay. So, you paid him $6,500 to paint it.
- When had you brought him the car? - In January.
Of what year? - 2021.
When did you pick the car up from him? May of '21.
I was moving from Albuquerque, New Mexico to Louisiana,
and as May got closer and closer, I kept telling him.
"I'm leaving. I'm leaving." You know... Okay.
The car was there from January until May.
Yes, ma'am. You picked the car up in May.
- Was it ready in May? - Yes, ma'am.
When she picked it up? - Yes, it was ready when she picked it up.
- When had you painted it? - Probably at the beginning of April.
No, ma'am.
Is that when you started sanding it down. I assume the...
No, she actually sanded the car down herself.
So, the car was completely sanded when you got it?
No, it wasn't completely sanded. We had an agreement
that she was supposed to help me repair the car.
You know, that's why I gave her a price that I did.
Because she wanted to help and learn how the process went, so...
Okay. Could you look up for me...
So I gave her... - ...a 1969 VW Bug?
So, I gave her a chance to learn... Under classic cars.
Okay, but you say it was ready when she picked it up?
Yes Okay.
And she showed you the pictures of the bubbling on the car?
Yes.
And she paid you $6,500? - Yes.
Well, I would have trouble with that bubbling myself.
Of course. I understand. - So?
I offered to fix the car. And?
She didn't want to bring it back.
That's a far trip for her to bring it back.
Well, that's all I can do. I can offer to fix it, you know?
Well, by offering to fix it, you acknowledge that,
I would say, as a layperson, this is not what I would expect.
Well, I said I... - This was not what I would expect.
If I paid $6,000 to paint a car. Of course.
And what steps... because this bubbling seems to be in various spots of the car.
Mm-hmm. So, it's impossible...
- I'm a layperson. I went to law school. - Yeah.
I didn't go to mechanic school or painting school,
but I've lived a long time,
and when you have spots like this on an anything,
either a wall or a car,
you can't just spot-fix it, right?
- No, you can spot fix it. - It's all over the car, Your Honor.
Just a second. Yeah.
Well, it's been my experience that you can't spot-fix it
because this is a bright color, it was done, now,
almost a year and a half ago,
and you're not gonna be able to match colors
because car colors, like bright ones, fade,
so if you just do it in spots, it'll look like a leopard.
Well, not necessarily. Not necessarily?
There's ways to adjust the paint. The color of the paint.
You can tint the paint.
Mr. Miera, she is not bringing the car
to New Mexico when she now lives in Louisiana.
Yes, I... - Because that would cost her.
I know. I transport cars of mine when I move around.
And that's very expensive. Mm-hmm.
Not quite as expensive as the paint job, but close.
Which would mean she would have to incur a substantial expense
to get you back the car from a paint job
that clearly was unsatisfactory.
- Well. - That you acknowledge is unsatisfactory.
Because you said, "I'll fix it." I didn't.
I said I'd take care of it
in a good gesture to try to make things work with her.
I did not deny her any kind of service
or say, "Go get lost," until she started cursing at me.
No, no, no. - She didn't tell you she was cursing.
Well, Mr. Miera, if...
What I say you would have to do would be to start over.
Sand down the car, which she did herself, according to you.
- 'Cause if she sanded the car... - She got a discount for...
She worked on her own car, so she got a discount
for working on her own car, so she had her hand in it as well.
That's terrific. You're gonna give her back her money.
$6,500. Judgment for the Plaintiff. We're done.
This court is adjourned.
I think when she transported the car,
the moisture and the climate that she took it to
may have played a factor in...
I totally disagree with what he said
because I took it from his house, put it in another van...
...in having the car bubble like that,
but, you know, I'm not sure. A lot of things can happen.
And the moisture, with what he's claiming, there's no way.
I tried to rectify the situation, and it didn't work out, so...
Time to get it looking good again.
You never got back to me about how much the 1969 Beetles were worth,
and I was surprised because, reading the papers,
reading a $6,500 paint job,
I was surprised at that. Like, that was very expensive to me.
But when I looked up how much the cars are worth,
they're worth anywhere between $12,000 and $35,000 for a nicely kept...
- Maintained. - ...maintained vintage car.
Similar to the one that I saw briefly in the photos.
- I'm sorry for not getting back to you. - It's okay.
- I got caught up. - But I think you made the right call.
Because after the paint job, we saw the damage or the bubbling,
and I know that you or I wouldn't be satisfied with that paint job
on an asset that was worth that amount of money.
- Of course. I'm sorry. Forgive me. - I think the right thing happened.
- I'll try not to do it again. - It's okay. I forgive you.
Want justice? Go to JudyJustice.tv.