It was supposed to be a heartwarming gift. Miss Plotner’s daughter had scoured the internet to find the perfect companion for her mother—a stunning, seal-point Himalayan kitten. After connecting with a seller online, she agreed to pay $450 and even tossed in an extra $25 for gas to meet the defendant halfway. It was a deal sealed with a handshake and a fluff of fur.

But the joy was short-lived. Within days of arriving at its new home, the kitten began coughing, its eyes clouded with a pussy discharge. What started as a gift quickly turned into a financial nightmare, resulting in veterinary bills that climbed to nearly three times the original price of the cat.

The Smoking Gun

When the case reached Judge Judy’s courtroom, the dispute centered on a single piece of paper: the vaccination record. The daughter claimed the seller handed her a document proving the kitten had been deemed “fit for sale” and vaccinated by a specific veterinarian, Dr. Twining, just the day before. The seller, however, vehemently denied this. She produced a blank form, claiming she had told the buyer she simply “didn’t have time” to get the shots done.

Judge Judy wasn’t buying it. Looking at the detailed record—complete with the vet’s specific address and phone number—the Judge saw through the deception. “She’s not clever enough to remember the name of your backup vet and where he was,” Judy remarked, pointing out that an excited buyer wouldn’t even think to forge such specific details. It was clear: the seller had misrepresented the kitten’s health to make a quick sale.

The Final Verdict

Despite the seller’s attempt to file a counterclaim—alleging harassment and a near-physical altercation at a previous hearing—the facts remained. While Judge Judy didn’t hold the seller responsible for the entire mountain of vet bills (as the buyer chose to keep the cat rather than return it), she had no patience for fraud.

The Judge saw the seller’s story for what it was: a “slick” attempt to dodge responsibility.

“I believe that you fraudulently misrepresented the vaccination of the cat,” Judge Judy declared. She dismissed the seller’s counterclaim entirely and ordered her to pay the plaintiffs $450—the full purchase price of the kitten.

In the end, the kitten found a home, but the seller learned an expensive lesson: in a court of law, a forged signature is no match for common sense.