In the theater of “Judge Judy,” where common sense is the law and excuses are the enemy, Ms. Mounts entered the courtroom with a laundry list of grievances against her ex-partner, Mr. Pullen. What followed was a masterclass in judicial dismantling as Judge Judy peeled back the layers of a complex personal history to reveal a case built on sand.
The Foundation of a Failed Partnership
The relationship between Ms. Mounts and Mr. Pullen spanned three years and resulted in one child, Savannah. However, the background noise of the case was immediately deafening. When asked how many children she had in total, Ms. Mounts replied, “Eight.” When asked how many lived with her, her answer was a stark “None.”
The courtroom tension spiked when it was revealed that Mr. Pullen and his mother were the ones actually raising Savannah—a child Ms. Mounts admitted to seeing only sporadically. Despite this, Ms. Mounts, who was currently unemployed, admitted she was paying zero child support. This lack of financial responsibility for her children set a grim tone for her claims regarding “community property.”
The “Almost-Married” Dilemma
Ms. Mounts’ claim was ambitious. She wanted half the value of a camper they shared, the return of personal property, and reimbursement for a prepaid campsite. Judge Judy’s response was swift and uncompromising: “You don’t get any of that.”
The Judge delivered a blunt lesson in civil law: there is no such thing as “almost-married” in the eyes of the court. Without a marriage certificate, there is no community property, no joint assets, and no legal framework to divide a life that was never officially joined. Ms. Mounts had invested in a lifestyle without the legal protection of marriage, leaving her with no standing to claim a “settlement” upon their separation.
The Mystery of the $16,500 Loan
The final and most serious part of the claim involved a $16,500 car loan. Ms. Mounts alleged that she had secured the loan, deposited it into a bank account, and that Mr. Pullen had subsequently “emptied it out.”
Judge Judy’s skepticism was immediate. She questioned how an unemployed woman could secure a five-figure loan. While Ms. Mounts claimed she was working at the time of the loan in May, her story began to fracture under pressure. Mr. Pullen denied ever having a joint account with her, calling her a “convicted felon” before being silenced by the Judge.
The turning point came when Judge Judy issued a simple command: “Prove it.”
Ms. Mounts claimed the bank refused to give her documentation because her name had been removed from the account. However, she failed to provide the most basic evidence: a record of the loan being granted, a deposit slip, or even the name of the lending institution. When she couldn’t show where the money came from or a single piece of paper proving it ever existed in an account she shared, the case reached its inevitable conclusion.
A Swift Exit
Realizing the plaintiff was offering nothing but anecdotes and unverified claims, Judge Judy ended the charade with her signature flair.
“Goodbye, Ms. Mounts! Bye, Cookie Pie!”
The case was dismissed. Mr. Pullen walked away with his daughter and his camper, while Ms. Mounts walked away with a harsh reminder that in a court of law, your “feelings” about what you are owed mean nothing without a paper trail.
