A SALON operator has claimed that they were evicted from the building they were leasing, and all of their belongings were stolen, but the landlord still sued them.

The small business owner and the landlord recently appeared before Judge Judy to discuss the complex issues between them, with both arguing that the other violated legal agreements within the lease.

A tense battle ensued between the pair in a recent episode of the popular reality television series.

Hairstylist Charmaine Anckle opened up her salon in a 300-square-foot unit in 2018 within a 2,500-square-foot space owned by landlord Robin Watson.

Anckle provided the judge with lease documents that proved she started renting the unit in April 2018.

At one point during the period that the stylist rented the space, the building was sold, and a few months later, in August, the stylist claimed she came to work, and there was no functioning electricity.

Judge Judy then asked Watson, the defendant, if Anckle was current in her rent up until the point of the electricity shut off.

Watson insisted that she wasn’t, claiming that the stylist was late on rent, but the judge clarified that she wasn’t asking if the rent was late but if it was ultimately paid in full by the time of the electricity issue.

The landlord confirmed that it was.

Judge Judy then explained that based on the provided information, Anckle was effectively kicked out of the unit through constructive eviction.

“You have constructively evicted her because if she can’t perform the work that she was supposed to do when you know it was a beauty salon, and she can’t operate a beauty salon in the dark…she can’t do the work,” the judge explained.

Ahead of court, Watson had sued the stylist for not paying the remainder of her rent on the lease after she moved out of the premises due to the electricity being turned off.

Judge Judy ruled that based on the details of the situation aligning with a constructive eviction, the suit was dismissed entirely.

“So, that takes care of your countersuit because your countersuit is that you want her to pay because she left,” the judge noted.

“You want [Anckle] to pay for the entire lease, so I’m dismissing that.”

She added: “It’s your responsibility to know, you’re the landlord.”

Read Related Also: CAIR, SJP, American Muslim Groups Back Palestinians After Terror Attack in Israel

“I’m dismissing that because you evicted her, in effect.”

Things got more complicated after Anckle left the unit, however, and led to the reasoning behind the first lawsuit in the case.

The hair stylist explained to Judge Judy that she left on August 3, 2018, and called Watson about returning the following Monday to pick up the rest of her belongings.

Watson then informed Anckle that her remaining items had been stolen from the salon space.

The landlord explained that she had filed a police report about the break-in.

She showed Judge Judy a document where investigators detailed that there was no evidence of forced entry and that a key was likely used to enter the premises.

Watson indicated a friend of Anckle’s as a suspect, a makeup artist who rented the unit next to hers and had access to it.

“Because the door that was opened was the door that her friend had access to,” the landlord explained to Judge Judy.

The judge determined, with the evidence provided, that the landlord was not responsible for the stylist’s stolen items.

“The only way you can hold the defendant [Watson] responsible for the stolen items is if you can demonstrate either some real negligence on her part or that she took your property,” Judge Judy informed Anckle.

Anckle attempted to argue the difficulty of the theft of her salon station mounted to the wall — but the judge dismissed her claims in relation to Watson’s supposed responsibility for the stolen items.

“What difference does it make? You can take off a mounted television set,” Judge Judy said.

“I think she’s responsible for the salon getting broken into,” Anckle argued back.

Judge Judy stated: “No, she’s not.”

By the end of the hearing, both the lawsuit from Anckle against Watson over the stolen items and Watson’s countersuit against Anckle for the unpaid rent were dismissed.

Judge Judy ruled that Watson owed Anckle $125 for a week’s worth of rent she paid ahead of time during the period she was constructively evicted.

For more related content, check out The U.S. Sun’s coverage of a tenant who argued they received an incorrect eviction notice that says they owe landlords over $8,000.

The U.S. Sun also has the story of renters who were evicted and given 24 hours to leave after their apartment building was suddenly condemned.