She and her family caused damage to your home.
Correct.
[announcer] Now on Tribunal Justice.
The child who has autism caused quite a bit of the damages there.
She was gonna take responsibility for that.
You said, "I'm gonna call the police.
There's been a crime committed on my property."
Like I feel like I have a high moral compass.
Such a high moral compass.
She could have been subject to 90 days in jail.
I am glad you think it's funny. I do not.
["Flight of the Valkyries" plays]
[announcer] Today's case was filed in Excelsior, Minnesota.
[Cassandra] Your Honor, this is case number 2067,
Lundeen versus Sonmor-Wise.
- Thank you so much, Cassandra. - You may be seated.
[Judge Levy] All right.
Mr. and Mrs. Lundeen, according to your complaint,
you rented your home to the defendant.
You're suing her because she and her family caused extensive damage
to your home and that's why you're suing her for $10,000.
- And Ms. Sonmor-Wise. - Uh-hmm.
[Judge Levy] You say that you rented the home for ten years.
You admit that the damage to the walls and the doors
that we're gonna see are your fault.
- Those are your kids'. - Correct.
You say that prior to moving out, you offered to fix the damage,
but the plaintiffs told you, "Don't make any repairs.
We're gonna do a full remodel anyway.
You doing repairs would be for naught."
And they asked you to assist them in filing a false police report
so that they could file a claim with their insurance company
so they could get paid for damages in the home
that they were not otherwise entitled to.
You say that you refused and they filed the police report on their own
and subsequently got a $25,000 check from their insurance company
for the damage that they claim you and your kids caused.
- Correct. - And they're suing you on top of that
for an extra 10,000 and you say it's absolutely outrageous,
which leads to your counterclaim, because in Minnesota,
where all of you are from, there's a law
that when a tenant vacates a premises,
then the landlords must provide within three weeks of moving out
an itemized list of everything that they claim was damaged
and they must not take out any of the security deposit before doing so.
And the total of your counterclaim is $2,400 for the deposit,
250 for interest, and punitive damages of $500.
- [Sarah] Correct. - [Judge Levy] So Mr. and Mrs. Lundeen,
she's claiming you guys committed insurance fraud.
So the first thing I wanna know is how much damage do you attribute
just to her and her children?
Essentially $30,000.
That's it? Just $30,000?
- Less the $25,000 insurance, so $55,000. - [Judge Levy] I wanna know--I am not--
I wanna know an amount 'cause that's what she was entitled to when she moved out.
$30,000.
[Judge Levy] That's not what your wife is saying.
- You--your wife is saying it's $55,000. - Correct.
And if you would have attributed anything more than $55,000 to her,
that would be a lie.
- That's--yeah. - Sure.
Great. Let's take a look at the complaint
that you filed against her in court.
Here's what you said.
The defendant and her family caused extensive,
massive damage to your property.
Some clearly intentional.
The total damages were $81,165.
- Right? - That--yeah.
That was the total damage. So that's--yeah.
- That's our... - [Judge Levy] Total damage?
See, but you also filed against her ex-husband
- who were both on the lease, right? - [Lindsay] Correct.
You made it much more clear in his complaint.
He's not here. I'm gonna read it anyway.
Defendant and his family caused extensive damages
to the property totaling $81,165.
Right off the bat, we know that you made prior statements
under oath that were not true.
We're gonna put those aside now.
The lease that you signed with the defendant
and her ex-husband was when?
May of 2012.
- One-year lease? - [Chad] Yes.
- Twelve hundred dollars a month? - [Chad] A month.
[Judge Levy] Twelve hundred dollars security?
And between 2012, rent was 1,200,
and then in December of 2022, what was rent?
- Fourteen hundred. - Fourteen hundred.
- [Judge Levy] Right? - [Sarah] Correct. Yes.
[Judge Levy] Fourteen hundred. In the lease, paragraph four--
do you remember what it says?
- [Chad] I'd have to look it up. - It says, "Security deposit.
Within 21 days after the tenancy ends,
landlord shall return the full security deposit with interest
or send a letter explaining what was withheld and why."
- You got that? - Here it is. Yup.
We sent it on the 20th.
And it's--actually, her response is on here too saying she received it.
- [Judge Levy] Yeah. No problem. - So we did it.
I--the countersuit seems silly 'cause it was done and there's our proof.
[Judge Levy] Well, we're gonna see how silly that sounds.
According to your answer, you were prepared to pay those damages
or to fix those things until you were told not to.
- That's just your story. - Correct.
Right? Do you admit or deny that you told her that?
I told her do not waste your time spackling.
- [Judge Levy] The holes? - The holes.
- So they're... - The holes are like this big.
[Judge Levy] You can--yeah. You can patch.
- [Lindsay] Well, we... - Patch, spackle, sand.
- I've done it before. - We can show you evidence
of when she had done it that's horrible.
- [Judge Levy] I get it. - So we were like, "Don't waste your time.
We're gonna have to redo it anyway."
[Chad] It needs to be professionally done is what my...
Okay. Ma'am, when you started in 2012 with the lease,
how many children were living with you?
[Sarah] Just one at the time.
I was pregnant with my second when we moved in.
Second child, the child who has autism was born in January of 2013.
He did cause quite a bit of the damages.
And did you know about her growing family
and specifically her autistic son who lived in the home?
- Uh-hmm. - Very minimally.
- [Judge Levy] Okay. But you knew? - Yup.
[Judge Levy] Let's talk about the home.
Could you describe it?
[Lindsay] Well, I bought it.
It was my home. I bought it in 2005.
I was like a poor schoolteacher.
I worked three jobs in the summer to buy this home
and it was like my pride and joy.
I painted every room myself, took amazing care of it.
We got married in 2008.
Chad also had a townhouse, so we decided at the time
to keep those two homes and rent them out.
We had a few renters before Sarah in hers.
We've had several in Chad's.
But, unfortunately, we didn't have $55,000 in the bank to fix her damages
so we ended up having to sell that one.
Okay. And that's the number you're sticking with, $55,000,
- solely attributable to her and her kids? - Yes, sir.
So if I understand you, you purchased a home
- in July of 2005, correct? - Yes, sir. Yup.
[Judge Levy] Remember what you paid for it?
Ooh.
[Judge Levy] Hundred and seventy-eight thousand dollars.
- Sounds about right? - That sounds about right?
- Yeah, that sounds about right. - [Judge Levy] Good.
- It was a town home, correct? - [Lindsay] Yes.
When was it built? 2001?
- 2001. - 2001. Yeah.
[Judge Levy] So you bought it in July of 2005.
You put it on the market for sale after you did the full remodel, correct?
Correct. Yup.
And then it sold May 30th of 2023 for 305,000.
So it was like $127,000 profit,
- minus some closing cost. - Minus the $55,000
- we had to put [indistinct] a contractor. - Got it.
- Yup. - Thank you, Judge Acker.
[Judge Acker] Thank you. Let's take a look at exhibit five
if we could, the hole in the wall.
Is this damage that your little boy caused?
Yes.
The doorframe that was--
he knew I had been to the store and bought stuff
for their Easter baskets.
And when I was in the other room or downstairs doing something,
he took a knife to try to get-- 'cause I had locked the door.
And he had chiseled away at the door to try to break into my room
to get Easter candy and stuff.
And then, yes, the other holes are from him just throwing things,
hitting things.
Suffice it to say that had you been presented
with an itemized list of damages
prior to the expiration of the statutory period,
you would have said let's come up with a reasonable plan
for correcting the damage that I caused.
Correct. And I still had never gotten that.
I mean, that's why we hold landlords to that standard.
Ms. Lundeen, you're waving something around.
- What do you want me to see? - This is it right here.
This is exactly what you're looking for.
And it was sent on the 20th, exactly in the 21-day period.
So you're welcome to take this.
- Please. - [Sarah] Well, I first got a email
that was titled renovation for $70,300.
[Chad] Well, if you look at the very bottom of that spreadsheet
- that's there... - Yes. Yes.
... I think that, you know, 15 days into it,
we were estimating that 23,000 of it would be...
- [Lindsay] Hers. - [Chad] ... her fee on that, correct?
[Lindsay] Yup. If you look at right at the bottom--yup.
- We hired--had to hire a contractor... - [Judge Acker] Fair enough.
- But... - ... and he wrote those numbers down.
So it's your testimony that this was your receipt.
Yeah. And I went through that invoice and that estimate from the contractor
and then said, "Okay, I believe that we were going to replace
that kitchen floor anyway
and so we're gonna take this amount for that floor off."
Let me ask the two of you a slightly different question.
What do you think the role is of law enforcement?
Well, my dad's also a judge, so I take the law very seriously.
So her accusation-- this is the first that I'm hearing
that we apparently were attempting insurance fraud--is egregious.
I would never, ever, ever take advantage of something like that.
Like I feel like I have a high moral compass and that's...
[Judge Acker] Such a high moral compass that you would think it's appropriate
to summon the police on a charge of criminal damage to property.
And so I actually looked up what that would translate to in your jurisdiction.
At a minimum, she could have been subject to 90 days in jail...
[Lindsay] Uh-hmm. They asked if we wanted to press charges.
... because you wanted to make sure that you got some insurance money.
[announcer] Coming up on Tribunal Justice.
[Judge DiMango] You both come in here very presentable,
formidable family history, et cetera, et cetera,
but the whole picture here stinks.
[dramatic musical sting]
[theme music plays]
[announcer] Landlords Chad and Lindsay Lundeen
claims Sarah Sonmore-Wise and her family
destroyed their rental home, requiring a complete renovation.
But Sarah claims the Lundeens tried to lure her
into committing insurance fraud.
[Judge Acker] You knew there was a little boy in there with disabilities
and you knew that those disabilities were at least in part responsible
for why there was damage to the property.
She knew that. She was gonna take responsibility for that.
But that wasn't good enough for you.
You said, "I'm gonna call the police and I'm gonna suggest
that there's been a crime committed on my property."
I am glad you think it's funny. I do not.
- [Lindsay] I just think it's exaggerated. - I do not.
- Our insurance asked us... - [Judge Acker] Well, you may say
it's an exaggeration but it is what you did.
Judge DiMango.
In my entire criminal career on the bench in New York state,
seeing vandalism, criminal mischiefs, whatever from soup to nuts,
I have never seen a landlord come in and say,
"My tenant vandalized my home
with her little boy who has autism,
and these are things that he did."
I just--I couldn't even conceive of that.
- Can I speak to that? - [Judge DiMango] Okay.
[Chad] So I walk into our home.
Every ceiling, every wall, every door, every floor needs to be replaced.
- [Judge DiMango] Let me pause. - Every appliance.
[Judge DiMango] Let me pause. How many times did they paint your home
- in the ten years you were living there? - Zero.
How many times did they come and visit there to check your property?
I think in the whole...
- [Judge DiMango] Ten years. - ... ten years, maybe four.
Interestingly also, in your papers, you tell her that,
"If we don't have to involve the court system,"--
it'll only get more expensive for you both.
"And, again, that is not a road we want to go down."
- Uh-hmm. - "But you should understand
we have the knowledge, experience, and resources."
- So you... - Meaning her father's a judge.
[Judge DiMango] Yeah.
And lead us to like what we need to do next.
Did your dad lead you down to filing the insurance claim for vandalism?
- [Lindsay] Can you speak to that? - Yeah.
So I'm trying to speak to that part of it.
So I walk in, I see all this damage.
I say, "I think this may be an insurance claim."
I have no idea. So I called the insurance company.
They said the only way that would be is if it's vandalism,
- so we would have... - Correct.
They mean somebody comes in from the streets and vandalizes your home.
- You made it a criminal situation. - No. So they--so they said,
- "We'll send out a claims adjuster." - When you call the police--
do you think the police monitor civil court or criminal court?
- [Lindsay] Criminal. - Criminal.
[Judge DiMango] Thank you.
So if you're calling the police on someone,
you're calling them because you believe that they've engaged in criminal conduct.
I mean, is that what your dad told you?
I can't believe your father would tell you that.
- No. - Nope. He did not tell me that.
[Judge DiMango] Now, I'm gonna tell you this.
You both come in here very presentable,
formidable family history, et cetera, et cetera,
but the whole picture here stinks.
I'd love to see the video of what it looked like after you were done.
Maybe you can tell us what we see.
Okay. So we're going into your home.
- Kitchen. - [Lindsay] Kitchen, yeah.
We had to redo that whole thing.
[Judge DiMango] Yeah. I'm sure you had to do it like that too.
[Lindsay] [chuckles] So keep in mind,
we are owning about 30 grand in upgrades in this...
- [Judge DiMango] I... - [Lindsay] ... because at the time...
- [Chad] No. - [Lindsay] ... we didn't have the money
- to renovate it, so we knew we had to... - [Judge DiMango] I'm gonna say
the kitchen alone is $30,000 in upgrades.
[Lindsay] So we knew we needed to upgrade.
You took out every appliance that was in there.
Did you bring...
Because they were dented and had locks on them.
[Judge DiMango] She lived there for ten years...
- She had... - ... with four kids...
- [Lindsay] ... locks on them. - ... and you rented it
before she moved in.
- And it was in great shape... - [Judge DiMango] And I haven't...
- ... when she got in. - [Judge DiMango] Where's those pictures?
Uh, I'd like to see them because I don't see them in my papers.
- [Chad] Yeah. - Except we had to...
I don't think I printed those. I think I just emailed them.
And I am told that we are not in receipt of them nor have we ever received them.
Of course that would be the true gauge of what indeed happened
rather than a brand new home.
You just don't seem to get that tenants don't need to pay
- for your new home to be sold... - [Lindsay] But like...
[Judge DiMango] ... at a profit above what's asked.
[Lindsay] Agreed. A hundred percent agreed.
[Chad] We're not asking them to.
Right. So if you think that we're pulling an insurance scam here,
- that's not the case. - And we--like, we had to...
- The damage to do this... - I know you're looking at me...
- Got the bathroom... - ... so I--uh, Judge Levy--okay.
[Lindsay] The bath alone is $11,000 right there.
That is a hundred percent her--
has nothing to do with her child with autism.
I work with kids with autism, I'm a fourth grade teacher.
Like, just because they have autism, I don't go,
"Well, you can totally ruin my classroom and make holes all over it."
- That's not the way it works. - [Judge Levy] I got it.
I still hold them to a high standard, we work through it, we talk through it.
So that bathroom alone where she--I don't know what happened,
must have let the tub overflow hundreds of times,
that's $11,000 out of our own pocket not covered by insurance.
[Judge Levy] Okay. I got that.
And what your complaint says is that you had to file an insurance vandalism claim
for the seemingly intentional damage done to the property.
Did you intentionally let the tub overflow
- hundreds of times? - [Sarah] No.
Well, was there supervision of children in the tub then?
Especially if you know one has special needs.
Like how is it happening over and over again?
[Judge Levy] Hold on. 'Cause you know what we do have--
we have very detailed move-out lists, correct?
- Yeah. - It described the condition of the home
when you moved in 2012, you got a copy of that,
- didn't you, ma'am? - [Sarah] Uh-hmm.
[Judge Levy] According to the move-in sheet in 2012,
the bathroom number two-- what's bathroom number two?
- Basement. - Basement bathroom.
Downstairs. What's poor finishing on boards and bathtub, what does that mean?
The--whoever finished the tub was not really well professionally done.
[Judge Levy] Right. And you know what happens
when someone doesn't professionally caulk a tub?
Why don't you tell me?
- Water damage. - [Judge Levy] Water damage.
- [Chad] Uh-hmm. - [Judge Levy] And the caulking was bad,
it was leaking in the tub.
You're trying to tag her for that, right?
- [Chad] Yes, Your Honor. - [Judge Levy] I am going to now show you
the list that you sent her in January of 2020.
The bottom of it says 23,633.50.
- Yes, sir. - And you have to understand,
a lot of this is a guess and an estimate at this point
because contractor hasn't spent any time in there to...
- [Judge Levy] Yeah. - ... really detail it up.
[Judge Levy] Yeah, that's the problem.
You're giving her this and you're saying that, "This is the damage,
I am now complying completely with the Minnesota statute."
You just acknowledged that this was not a final figure.
- Right. - That's the problem that she has
which is why there's a good chance her counterclaim succeeds.
I wanna go through this list.
So wall damage repairs, stickers all that, was $7,740.
The doors, the damage was $1,300.
All the other flooring was $4,200.
The upstairs bath was $3,900.
That included the vanity, wood damage,
mold under sink, and floorboard damage,
when the shower insert will need replacing.
So you're charging her for a brand new shower
that's 22 years old and ceiling lights,
fans with missing parts or damages, $300.
All that equaled $23,633.
And you put your claim in to the insurance company for $25,000.
$25,000 would've covered that totally, correct?
- Uh-hmm. - [Judge Levy] Thank you.
I have nothing further.
[Judge Acker] Um, Ms. Sonmor-Wise...
- [Sarah] Yes. - ... who is your witness, ma'am?
This is my current husband.
[Judge Acker] And what does he have to offer?
[announcer] Coming up on Tribunal Justice.
Yes, my son is a lot to handle.
And even sometimes if I am right there with him,
I can't wrap my body around him,
I can't put him in a straitjacket.
[dramatic musical sting]
[theme music plays]
[announcer] Chad and Lindsay Lundeen want $10,000 from former tenant,
Sarah Sonmor-Wise, claiming that her children left the rental home in shambles.
But Sarah says the Lundeens want her to pay for an entire home renovation.
[Judge Acker] Um, Ms. Sonmor-Wise...
- [Sarah] Yes. - ... who is your witness, ma'am?
This is my current husband.
[Judge Acker] And what does he have to offer?
He moved in, um, the--at the beginning of the pandemic in 2020
and really his testimony is that they never came to do
- any inspections or any maintenance. - Sir, can you take the stand?
Thank you for joining us.
And can you identify yourself for the record, please?
Uh, David Wise.
And with respect to the property damage, what can you tell the court about that?
Basically, um, he called the police right after the--
or the December 30th walkthrough
and told the police not to contact Sarah at all.
And then I got a hold of, like...
[Judge Acker] 'Cause they didn't wanna put her in jail.
Your intention was to have an insurance company take notice.
And at that December 30 walkthrough, I gave her the heads-up saying,
"As a part of any type of insurance claim here,
a police report would have to be filed.
I want you to know that that may happen
so that you don't have all of a sudden your name is in some report."
[Judge Acker] So you're not surprised by it, correct?
- [Chad] Correct. - Before I go,
I just think that you deserved an opportunity
to clear up the record with respect to your supervision of your boy
because you've been accused of negligent supervision.
So would you like to address that point?
Yeah, I just wanted to say yes, my son is a lot to handle.
I'm not on top of him 24 hours a day one-to-one.
There might be times where I was changing a diaper
and he would throw something down the stairs.
I'm not handcuffed right next to him.
And even sometimes if I am right there with him, I...
- [Judge Acker] He's a lot to handle. - Yeah, I can't wrap my body around him,
I can't put him in a straitjacket.
It--it's not that I wasn't watching him.
- He just... - [Judge Acker] I understand.
- I understand. - He has escalated behaviors.
I understand. I just thought you deserved an opportunity
to answer the accusation.
I don't have anything further.
[Judge DiMango] That's it. We're gonna retire to deliberate.
- Thank you. - Court is now in recess.
Parties are excused.
[dramatic musical sting]
Listen, they're not bad people.
Plaintiffs just figured they wanna get something for nothing,
and they wanted the insurance company to pay for something
that they quite frankly knew they weren't entitled to
because it was not intentional damage.
And they got money from the insurance company that we now,
I am convinced, were not entitled to.
And they are still suing their ten-year long tenant
who was for a period of time a single mother of four with an autistic child.
I think it's outrageous.
And in order for the plaintiffs not to lose on the counterclaim,
the defendant's counterclaim, they have to prove
that they gave her that itemized list within 21 days.
They did. And that list that they gave her
said there was $23,633.50 worth of damage.
They got 25,000 from the insurance company,
they get donut from the defendant.
They don't get a windfall.
As far as the defendant's counterclaim,
she knew that she damaged the place and she was prepared to fix it,
and she would've fixed it and she was okay with losing her security.
But once she saw 81,000, she gave them the middle finger and said,
"Yeah, that's what I think about your 81,000
and here's a counterclaim for you."
I think we should dismiss that as well.
I am with you a hundred percent.
She knows that she and her family damaged the property.
I think she was willing to take responsibility for that.
They just didn't give her a reasonable basis with which to do so.
So I would dismiss her counterclaim and I would absolutely dismiss their case.
And she--I agree. I don't think they're horrible people.
I think they made a mistake in the way they pled this case
and they just don't have the proof for it, and they've been paid, so I'm done.
You know, they're not horrible people and that's what brings this
and makes a different-- a civil case versus a criminal case.
- [Judge Acker] Indeed. - What they did was they wanted to,
I guess, minimize their cost and expenses to redo their home.
I think they did it illegally really.
I don't think it was appropriate for them to have made a claim
with an insurance company.
So I think, absolutely, their complaint has to be dismissed.
They do have her security deposit.
They never established above and beyond, and I'm willing to dismiss both.
- All right. Unanimous. - Great.
[dramatic musical sting]
Order. Court is back in session.
All parties are reminded that you're still under oath.
- Thank you, Cassandra. - You're welcome.
All right. I'm gonna start with your counterclaim, Ms. Sonmor-Wise.
Let me see if I understand.
You recognize that the damage was done to the house
- and that you were prepared to fix it? - Yes.
And then, but for seeing that $81,000 figure
- that they're trying to tag you with... - Yes.
... that was a large contributing factor behind your decision
to file that counterclaim?
- Uh, yeah, when... - [Judge Levy] Yeah.
- ... brought forth their claim. - [Judge Levy] Right.
So now knowing that you were responsible for that damage,
you would've paid for that damage, are you prepared to withdraw
the counterclaim at this time?
- Yes. - [Judge Levy] It's probably a good idea.
- We're gonna dismiss it anyway. - Okay.
But here's where we stand,
we're unanimous with respect to your complaint.
You're not bad people, but I think in this case,
you might have done somewhat of a little bad thing,
by not being completely upfront and honest with the insurance company,
without wanting her to give a statement to the police,
'cause that would've undermined the insurance claim.
She would've said it was accidental.
But in filing that claim,
you got $25,000 to get you started on your remodel.
In order for you not to get tagged with that counterclaim,
you must show us, and you did, that you gave her that itemized list
within 21 days of moving out.
That itemized list attributes to her damages
of $23,633.50.
And because you got $25,000 from the insurance company,
that covers all of her damage.
So your counterclaim is dismissed and your complaint likewise is dismissed.
You got a beautiful home and you sold it for money.
Run all the way to the bank.
[gavel bangs]
[Cassandra] This case has concluded.
All parties are dismissed.
I think it was fair, pretty common sense,
um, that they were getting greedy and trying to get double paid.
Well, I'm not lying when I say every door, every floor, every wall, every ceiling...
- Window. - ... had to be replaced.
It was obvious that they were getting greedy
and wanting me to pay for their renovations.
I worked really hard for that house
and we wanted that to be an investment property
for our kids' college fund.
I think they did want something for nothing.
It was destroyed.
[announcer] Did someone destroy your property?
Let Tribunal Justice decide your case.
Find us on social media at Tribunal Justice.
["Ride of the Valkyries" plays]