Judge Judy

A woman alleges that her ex‑boyfriend took loans from her to pay his rent, buy clothing and cover medical expenses. He maintains, however, that the debts have been repaid and that, according to him, they are now even. Both parties disagree on whether any outstanding balance remains.

The broadcast is presented as a single episode of a programme centred on a personal dispute. In this instalment, a woman confronts her former boyfriend over a sum of money she says he borrowed from her. The format follows her account of the financial arrangement and his response, giving viewers a clear picture of the disagreement. According to her testimony, the money she lent was used to cover a range of essential expenses. She claims the funds went towards his rent, the purchase of clothing and the settlement of medical costs. By detailing each category, she paints a picture of how the cash was allocated to meet his immediate needs. She maintains that the loan was necessary to keep him afloat while he dealt with those obligations. Her narrative stresses that the money was not a gift but a temporary advance meant to be repaid once his situation stabilised. The emphasis on the specific purposes—housing, attire and health—underscores why she feels the debt remains outstanding. The ex‑boyfriend, however, disputes her version of events. He insists that the accounts have been balanced and that they are now even. From his perspective, any money he received has already been accounted for, leaving no further obligation between them. This contrasting stance forms the crux of the episode’s conflict.