In a lawsuit that highlights the consequences of reckless teenage behavior, Shannon Hulma, a prospective homebuyer, is suing Angela Baldridge and her 13-year-old daughter, Mo’nique Baldridge, for $2,000 in damages.
The case revolves around an incident that occurred while Hulma was in the process of purchasing a vacant home. According to Hulma, Mo’nique and a friend broke into the house, causing significant damage by splattering pink paint all over the walls and carpet.
Hulma, who had placed a deposit on the property but had not yet finalized the deal, frequently visited the house to check its condition. On one of these visits, he noticed that the sliding glass door at the back of the house was open and heard giggling coming from upstairs.
Upon investigating, Hulma caught Mo’nique and her friend in the act of using a spoon to fling pink paint onto the walls and carpet. The teen girls initially attempted to cover up their actions by telling Hulma that they were being threatened with a knife by other girls, but later admitted the truth after Hulma threatened to call the police.
The other girl’s family had already compensated Hulma for the damages, but Mo’nique and her mother, Angela, refused to do the same. This refusal led to the lawsuit filed by Hulma, who is now seeking restitution for the cost of restoring the house to its original condition.
The total damage was estimated to be $3,600, but Hulma is only demanding $2,000 in compensation.
Mo’nique, in her testimony, explained that she and her friend had gone into the house because they were “looking for a house for [her friend’s] parents.” She admitted that her friend had kicked open the small doggy door to gain entry.
While Mo’nique confessed to going inside and helping her friend by spilling some paint, she emphasized that her friend was responsible for most of the damage. The young girl expressed deep regret and embarrassment for her actions, which she described as a mistake.
On the other hand, Angela Baldridge, Mo’nique’s mother, tried to downplay her daughter’s involvement in the incident. Angela claimed that Mo’nique was a model student and had never been in trouble before, framing the situation as a case of “being in the wrong place at the wrong time.”
Angela further minimized her daughter’s role, stating that Mo’nique only got a little paint on herself compared to her friend, who was the main culprit.
Judge Milian, however, disagreed with Angela’s characterization of the situation. The judge pointed out that Mo’nique, despite her mother’s defense, should be held equally accountable for the damage caused, just as her friend was.
Milian also suggested that Angela should have made her daughter work to pay back the damages, emphasizing that this would serve as a valuable lesson for Mo’nique.
The legal issue that arose in this case was whether Hulma, not yet the official owner of the house, had the right to sue for damages. Judge Milian noted that Hulma would need to provide a legal “assignment to sue” from the bank or the current owner of the property for the case to proceed.
This is a technicality in property law that needed to be addressed before any final decisions could be made. However, Judge Milian also pointed out that under California law, parents are legally responsible for the actions of their children, particularly when it comes to vandalism.
Judge Milian agreed that Hulma could not demand money to renovate the house but could claim damages to “make whole,” meaning the cost to restore the property to its original condition. Since the family of the other teenager had already compensated Hulma for part of the damages, the remaining amount to be reimbursed was $1,800.
This amount, along with the $200 Hulma had initially requested, brought the total damage to $3,600.
In her ruling, Judge Milian decided that Mo’nique and her mother, Angela, were legally responsible for the damages. The court ordered them to pay $1,500 to cover the remaining damages. However, the ruling was conditional on Hulma obtaining the necessary “assignment to sue” from the bank or the property’s owner within two weeks. If this was not provided, the case would be dismissed.
Judge Milian concluded by advising Mo’nique to find a job and pay her mother back the money, framing it as an opportunity for her to learn responsibility. The judge further suggested that this experience could serve as a “cleansing of the soul” for Mo’nique and help her build a better character as she worked toward her aspiration of attending law school in the future.
This case serves as a reminder that teenagers, even with seemingly innocent intentions, can make costly and damaging decisions. The involvement of Mo’nique’s mother in trying to mitigate her daughter’s responsibility highlights the ongoing debate around parental responsibility and how it intersects with the actions of their children. It also underscores the importance of teaching young people about accountability, especially in cases where their actions impact others.
Judge Milian’s ruling, which included both legal consequences and a moral lesson, emphasized the need for young people to understand the ramifications of their actions and take responsibility. This case will likely be remembered not just for the damages to the house, but for the lessons it offered to both Mo’nique and her family.
