She’s essentially accusing you
of embezzling from your joint business.
It’s untrue. I don’t know anything about that.
His previous wife
was handling all of our accounts.
We started struggling with the business.
Sir, any of this sound familiar?
Um, it vaguely sounds familiar, but...
Nobody up here is dumb.
[announcer] Today on Tribunal Justice.
[theme music playing]
[announcer] This case was filed in Bakersfield, California.
Your Honor, this is case #1126 on the calendar
in the matter of Copeland v. Harris.
Both parties have been sworn in.
-You may be seated. -[Levy] Thank you, Byrd.
All right, Mr. Copeland and Miss Harris.
You two were business partners for a period of time.
You ran a skateboard park as well as a retail center
that catered to teenagers and kids and young adults
in your area.
You started the business around 2015.
And when you started the business you had a discussion.
And Mr. Copeland, you had indicated
that according to what you saw,
it was gonna take approximately $87,000
from the defendant to contribute as her capital contribution,
of which, according to the defendant,
she had paid $45,000 of her own money,
and then the $42,811 you loaned her.
-Is that correct? -Yes.
[Levy] Payments were made for a period of time on that loan,
which were $907 a month,
pursuant to the terms of a promissory note.
She paid for a period of time, stopped paying,
and now you’re suing her for $10,000,
which is the maximum allowed in your jurisdiction,
although the more accurate amount is $30,000
that you claim she owes.
-Give or take, yes. -[Levy] Fine.
Miss Harris, your position, however,
is that your understanding of your agreement
with the plaintiff is that the collateral
for that loan was the business itself.
-Yes. -And when the business closed
in or around 2018,
that that was the extent of your liabilities,
that you did not owe anything more
because the plaintiff,
pursuant to the terms of the pledge agreement,
was able to take possession of the business,
which he chose not to do.
That was his choice.
And he doesn’t get to take the business,
what was left of it, as well as the money.
-That’s your position. -Correct.
[Levy] So now, Mr. Copeland, would you mind, please,
going through the different promissory notes
that created the financial obligation
on the part of Miss Harris
that you claim she’s in breach of?
The original promissory note, um, was supposed to be secured
utilizing her retirement for her employment.
May of 2015, pursuant to your papers.
-[Copeland] Correct. -Yes.
And with that came a payment schedule.
That payment schedule, she had a difficult time
making her monthly payments.
So when we got to about a year and a half
after the park had opened,
we amended that first promissory note,
creating an easier payment schedule--
the 907 per month.
And with that,
it was supposed to be a secured loan.
She was supposed to provide documentation
in terms of what that entailed.
And either I don’t have that document,
or that document was never provided.
So as of that date, it was an unsecured loan,
because I can’t find anything that indicates
how she was gonna pay that in the event
that she defaulted.
[Levy] Who prepared the notes?
The second note was prepared by an attorney.
[Levy] And who hired that attorney?
-[Copeland] We both did. -[Levy] So let me understand correctly.
So what you’re saying is,
despite the burden of proof being yours,
-and you recognize what that means... -Mm-hmm.
...that you do not have the documents
from the 2016 amended promissory note
that established the security interest
that secured the loan.
I don’t have a document stating what she is gonna use for money
if she defaults on the loan, yes.
Right. The problem with your case
is that she did have that.
And that was a pledge agreement.
The pledge agreement indicated
that the skateboard park
was the collateral for the loan.
In your original November of 2016
amended restatement loan agreement, sir...
-Mm-hmm? -...it actually refers
to the pledge agreement.
"This note and the maker’s obligation
"are secured by a pledge agreement
"executed between the parties,
attached as Exhibit B."
That’s what you provided was the loan agreement,
but you did not provide the pledge agreement,
which is what she had.
And in that pledge agreement, it makes clear
that the security interest for that loan
was, in fact, as she indicated in her answer,
the skateboard park, correct?
-Correct. -[Levy] And that your remedy,
Mr. Copeland, for her default, which she defaulted,
was to execute on that security, which was to take the business.
The problem is, you didn’t want
-the business, did you? -No.
You had sold your interest in the business.
-Sure. Correct. -[Levy] Right.
You, as part of your evidence, provided us with a timeline.
-Yes. -[Levy] So we have 2015.
We have April. The two of you decide to go into business.
May of 2015, the original loan agreement was signed.
That’s the one that indicated
that you were going to use as collateral,
your retirement account.
The park opens in July of 2015.
November of 2016,
the amended loan agreement was signed.
That’s the one we just discussed.
November 16, the new agreement provided
for a $907-a-month obligation on her part.
And November of ’16, all the same time, Mr. Copeland,
you sell your 50% share in the skate park
-to the defendant. -Correct.
Why do you do that?
We weren’t really generating a profit.
We were putting a lot of money back into the business.
So after about a year and a half,
-my family decided to... -[Levy] To move on.
-...step away, yes. -[Levy] I get it.
And the problem is that what you did not know at the time
was that the pledge agreement that you had signed earlier
provided for the security interest of that loan
to be the business itself,
which you now just sold your interest to, to her.
-Right? -I didn’t understand it
-to be that way, yes. -[Levy] Okay.
So number one, you have an issue with respect to--
Just the way I see it. I don’t know what my colleagues are gonna say.
But that the remedy that you had
was clearly memorialized in the documents
prepared by a lawyer that both of you had hired,
and that you chose not to execute on that
when the default occurred.
The second problem I have is the time of the default.
It says here "October 2017, payment of 907 received.
No more payments received until December 18."
That’s a typo. It should be October of ’18, roughly.
And that’s one of the things I wanted to speak to you about,
because you were very clear
the park closed in ’18, correct?
-Yes. October ’18. -[Levy] October of ’18.
And it was closed before the 31st of October of 2018.
-That’s correct. -[Levy] Right.
So you had defaulted, you failed to make further payments.
-Correct. -[Levy] And then you didn’t
bring this lawsuit until four years later.
I didn’t bring the lawsuit until four years later because--
And that's important because that’s a statute of limitations
on a written contract.
My understanding in the way that I was doing it
was I was giving her an opportunity to pay the loan
until the end of the loan term,
which she stated she was gonna do.
Even October of 2020,
when I sent her an invoice she replied to that invoice
and stated, "I’ll pay you when I can."
I get all that. I know you were trying to be a nice guy.
But there’s something about trying to be a nice guy
and then being a business person.
[announcer] Coming up on Tribunal Justice...
You, sir, conveniently forget to attach the pledge agreement.
It’s not a personal loan,
as you try to get us to believe in your complaint.
You underscore this. "It’s a personal loan."
"It's a personal loan."
Nobody up here is dumb.
[announcer] Gunter Copeland claims
his former business partner, Suzanne Harris,
owes for an unpaid skate park loan.
Suzanne claims Gunter had the park as collateral
for the loan,
and this agreement ended years ago.
[Levy] The other thing that I want to bring up
is just a piece of evidence that we just got.
And this was by you from the other day.
You had provided us with invoices and certified letters...
-Mm-hmm. -...a stack of them,
regarding letters that you had sent to the defendant
consistent with your testimony,
trying to resolve the outstanding monies.
And I know that you were trying to be thorough and helpful
when you provided those to us,
but I’m afraid that perhaps
they kind of did just the opposite for you.
And I’m gonna ask you the following.
-Okay. -You say the total loan balance,
past due plus penalties and interest,
was $117,962.
That was based upon an original promissory note
of 42,000,
for which you paid down
-approximately down to 30. -Mm-hmm.
So according to this letter that you’re giving to her,
you’re saying that that 30 is now $118,000.
I’m just saying that that was a pretty big figure
-that you sent to her, and say... -Sure.
...that this is penalties and interest and all that stuff.
But then in August of 2022, you sent her a settlement letter
and you say that if you pay me $20,000 now, cash,
certified check...
-I’ll agree to take $20,000. -Mm-hmm.
And then the next month, September,
this $117,000 original invoice you gave her
that now went down to 20,000, you sent her another one saying,
okay, to settle these matters,
-I’ll take $10,000. -Mm-hmm.
Is the reason that you agreed to accept $10,000
in September of ’22
was because you knew, number one,
that the pledge agreement allowed and provided for
the security interest of the skateboard park
to be used to make you whole
as to the loan, number one?
And number two, you recognized
that the statute of limitations had run?
Is that why you were willing to take 10,000?
-No, that’s incorrect. -I’m gonna let Judge Acker
finish up with that point, thank you.
-I’ve run out of time. -Okay. No problem.
[Acker] 'Cause I don’t think you were being a nice guy at all.
I find it very suspicious that you conveniently omit
the pledge agreement, which makes very clear
that you don’t have a lawsuit here.
You were already repaid when you reclaimed the collateral.
I find that very curious.
I don’t think that that was a mistake,
that you happened to not include
a pertinent part of the agreement.
You were in business before the two of you
started this business, weren't you?
-The two of us, yes. -[Acker] You were the one--
You had the scooter shop.
-[Acker] You were the scooter mom. -[Suzanne] Mm-hmm.
This was your passion project,
and you wanted to make it a business.
And so when you started this skate park,
you didn’t have all the cash up front, right?
You borrowed 45 grand from him,
which was secured against the skate park.
And then you, sir, conveniently forget
to attach the pledge agreement to your contract.
Am I supposed to think that’s a coincidence?
You just forgot? You forgot about it?
I didn’t have it.
It’s not a personal loan,
as you tried to get us to believe, in your complaint.
You underscore this. "It’s a personal loan."
"It's a personal loan."
Nobody up here is dumb.
There’s a pledge agreement that you happened to forget about
that makes clear you have no case.
So, no, I don’t think you’re a nice guy.
Now, Miss Harris, there were some transactions
that took place while you were in business with the plaintiff
that you didn’t know about.
A secret credit card, in fact,
that he and his wife opened up
that you would have been liable for.
How did you find out about this credit card?
And tell us about this transaction.
His previous wife was handling all of our accounts,
and I had asked for documentation
prior to tax season
just so that I could review things.
And one of the statements had come up
for the credit card.
And this credit card was taken out
in the name of your joint business?
It was taken out in her name,
but used and paid for through our business.
[Acker] Oh, personal credit card
that they were using...
-...your business funds to pay. -[Suzanne] Right.
Maybe-- Sir, any of this sound familiar?
Um, it vaguely sounds familiar,
but, um, that was an issue with the bank that,
which we corrected.
[Acker] So did you put the money back into the business
-that you took to pay... -Yes.
your personal expenses?
-Yes. -[Acker] Do you have evidence of that?
-No. -Interesting. Nice guy.
You hang around with people who are this nice,
you’re gonna go broke real fast.
What are all of these things on your table?
-[Acker] What’s all that? -So these are receipts
from the skate park, our daily totals.
I was seeing a little lapse in difference
in, um, monies coming in on a daily basis.
So I, um, sat down one day, took the three months
from March, April, May, June,
and the days that he worked
with either his previous wife or son
and the days that my son and I worked.
There was a difference between those four months
of $39,000.
[Acker] So what you’re saying is that
when you were working,
somehow you guys were making lots of money.
But when he was in charge of the till,
for some reason you were coming up short?
-Yes. -[Acker] You know what?
My advice to you is you should stay away
from people who are this nice:
stay away from this kind of kindness.
You’re under no obligation, sir,
but, um, I’ll give you a chance to respond to that,
because she’s essentially accusing you
of embezzling from your joint business.
It’s untrue. I don’t know anything about that.
Right. Is that something you forgot about,
the same way you forgot about the pledge agreement?
Yeah.
Judge DiMango.
Had the business been making money,
would you have had issues with your payments?
No. We started struggling with the business
around June of 2017. Um...
-[DiMango] I’m sorry to interrupt you. -[Suzanne] Yes.
Let me get a little something in my head.
You go into his store,
and you get into a conversation.
You talk about your passion for this skate park and scooters.
And you’re the crazy scooter mom and all.
And you want to make money.
I mean, that’s what’s in the papers.
You need $87,000 from her.
How do you come up with this amount?
[Copeland] She provided estimated costs to open it.
So you went out, you looked, you found a place,
you got whatever it is you use in a skate park.
And you said it’s going to cost us $180,000
to get this open and to do this. Would that be correct?
[stammers] We had a rough estimate
of what it would cost.
And then when we hired the builder that came,
it was all built from scratch.
It was going to cost a little bit more.
And how much money do they make, generally?
It just depends on...
We did events every, almost every month.
-Do people pay as they come in? -[Suzanne] Yes, they--
Because I’m not familiar with this at all.
-[DiMango] So I'm trying to get some... -Yes, they pay an entry fee.
So they rent the use of the park.
They come in with their skateboard under the arm,
they go in and they say here’s, what, $20 for a half hour?
-Twelve dollars for two hours. -[DiMango] Twelve dollars or two hours.
That-- I mean, that sounds like
pretty reasonable entertainment time for children.
The money comes to you, I would think,
in a business like that,
especially because you’re probably dealing
with a large number of young people,
-it’s a cash business. -Yes.
Who collected the cash at the business?
Whoever was working the register.
[DiMango] Would that be a friend? A relative? Either one of you?
They were all relatives.
The Copelands, and then when I was working,
it was my husband or my son.
And what did you do with the money when it came in?
-Where did it go? -It went mainly back into the business.
So what money did you get? Or either one of you.
What money did you make in the course of this business
over these few years that you were together?
Sir, how much did you make, if anything?
Not very much at all.
[theme music playing]
[announcer] Coming up on Tribunal Justice...
She had made two payments of $160.
I don’t recall making those payments.
Oh, so you think he’s trying to use those payments
to extend the statute of limitations?
-Yes. -That would be pretty underhanded.
[theme music plays]
-What kind of money were you making? -[Copeland] I mean, I...
...I can’t even really say, because,
like she said, we put it back into the business.
So that’s one of the main reasons
why it wasn’t working for me any longer.
Because we weren’t making, really, a profit.
Yeah, and this park, I mean, was,
it was well known in your neighborhood, right?
In fact, I think we might have
-some photographs and blogs. -[Suzanne] Yeah, it was--
[Suzanne] It was known all over the world.
We had, um, world scooter competitions.
Um, we had people from Japan, Australia,
to come to our park to train and to compete.
And what made your park so unique
that people from outside the country
would want to come here and use it? I mean, that's...
It was 19,000 square feet of ramp space.
Obstacles were built in a way that professional riders
-could practice or train... -[DiMango] Mm-hmm.
...for a larger venue for world-class competitions.
Could you have sold any of those things that were in there
to recoup some of your losses?
Were you able to sell and make any money
from any of the things that were inside the Ronka Bowl?
No. I had, originally, um, had been approached
by a private school in Tijuana, Mexico.
Um, they were wanting to build a skate park,
and that fell through, that never happened.
When did you come across these either things that occurred?
The credit card?
How were you not aware of these things?
-[Suzanne] I had sent-- -And did you confront...
the plaintiff about them?
[Suzanne] I had sent emails asking his previous wife
to provide those statements for me.
And she kept telling me, in emails,
which I do have as evidence,
that they were in the drawer.
They’re under the folder.
And I continued to look for those.
I only found a few months’ statements.
And so that-- I just went with the few months that I had
and saw that there was what I’m thinking as negligence
and false, um, use of those funds.
So according to your statement in court,
she owed you approximately $30,000.
Why did you bring it in small claims court?
Why were you so willing to accept this loss?
I mean, to be honest, I couldn’t afford
to go to civil court.
Wouldn’t you have had to pay based on your recovery?
A lawyer wouldn’t have taken this...?
No, I had consulted with an attorney,
and based on the retainers that they had let me know about, I...
[DiMango] You would have taken a $20,000 hit?
Because you’re taking, according to you,
a $20,000 hit here.
And I am thinking about this issue of statute of limitations,
because when I first looked at the case, I thought, wow, this is--
You know, breach of contract is four years from the breach,
and I was wondering why you delayed so long
in bringing the action.
Like I said, when the park closed
and the 907 payment stopped,
she had made two payments
-of $160 after that... -[DiMango] Right. And then--
and then the cash payment of $50 after that.
[DiMango] I saw that.
But the breach occurred before that,
-according to your papers. -[Copeland] Correct. Correct.
I mean, she was like, "I’m gonna pay you
when I can, what I can."
And it just never transpired.
So at a certain point,
-I was just like, I’m tired of waiting. -[DiMango] Okay, thank you.
Your Honor, I have a question regarding those, um, payments.
I don’t recall making those payments, so...
[DiMango] Oh, that he’s giving you credit?
So you think he’s trying to use those payments
-to extend the statute of limitations? -Yes.
[DiMango] That would be pretty underhanded,
and probably not inconsistent
with some of the positions taken here.
Did you pay by check all the time? How did you pay?
[Harris] It was always paid by check
-so that I had a paper trail... -[DiMango] And there was--
-and I do have that as evidence. -[DiMango] And there's no check.
Do you have any checks for that? You said there was--
What, the $50 was cash, and the other...?
The $50 was cash.
She had called me on the phone,
said that her and her family were struggling.
There was a possibility of the house going under foreclosure.
And she basically said that she could make a $50 payment,
but not to tell anybody about it
because she didn’t want her husband getting mad at the time.
-For $50? -[Copeland] So she brought--
[Copeland] She brought $50 over to my house
and hand-delivered it to me.
[DiMango groans]
All right, I’ll sit with that thought.
Doesn’t sit right with me, but--
Unless anybody has any questions.
Yeah, Mr. Copeland, if I could,
based upon an answer that you just gave to Judge DiMango...
So, you consulted with a lawyer or a law firm
regarding this matter?
-Yes. Last summer. -[Levy] Yeah. Yeah.
And they were the ones, also, who explained to you
what the statute of limitations was
on a written agreement, on a contract?
They said it was questionable. It could go either way.
And so you knew that when you brought this action?
-Possibly, yes. -[Levy] Yes. No, not possibly.
That’s just from what you just said.
So when you came in here, you would want to make sure
to have buttoned up, as best you can,
the issue of the statute of limitations,
so that it wouldn’t go the wrong way,
and it would go the right way, in your favor.
Well, I think any plaintiff wants...
-...to win, yeah. -[Levy] Sure. Of course.
And so the point that everyone is making,
that I want to make sure that you get,
is that you knew that by putting in that $50 payment,
and the $160 payment,
that that extended
the statute of limitations.
That what would have been a dead case
on statute of limitations ground
could have been resurrected
if we believed that she had, in fact,
made those small payments.
You understood that, right?
-No, I did not-- -[Levy] Oh, okay.
I did not know that those payments
-would extend anything. -[Levy] Okay.
[Levy] Number one, they would have,
if you could have provided evidence of it, which you can’t.
But it could have. Thank you.
[DiMango] At this time we’re going to retire to deliberate.
-Thank you both. -[Byrd] Court now stands in recess.
Parties are excused.
In my opinion,
from based upon the reading of all the contracts,
the ones that he had and the ones that he did not have,
the ones that the defendant had,
he’s out of luck on both those grounds.
Number one, his sole remedy was,
pursuant to the terms of the pledge agreement,
to take back her interest
in the Ronka Underground Skatepark.
That’s stated on page one of the pledge agreement.
-[DiMango] Mm-hmm. -[Levy] Number two:
statute of limitations.
Those little payments that he claims she made
would have extended the statute of limitations.
I’m not going to impute any ill will on his part.
I don’t have to. It doesn’t make any difference,
because if it was true and he knew about it--
his lawyers clearly told him
about the statute of limitation problem--
he would have brought us proof of those payments.
He didn’t, so he loses, I believe, on both grounds.
And I would just move to dismiss his case.
-I’m going to impute ill will. -[laughter]
-So you’re dissenting on that fact. -[DiMango] Mm-hmm.
I am 100% with you.
I think his case goes nowhere.
I agree. I mean, for him to say that it wasn’t worth the money.
He took a $20,000 hit.
How much were his lawyers going to take?
Even if they charged him, or took a third, or whatever,
he still would have been ahead of the game.
So I have to say that he was kind of more on the edge
of thinking he was going to fail on any one of the two grounds
that we’ve just discussed, and I’m not willing--
To your point, though. It wasn’t just the 20,000.
It was the $117,000 that he claimed he was owed
pursuant to the terms of the contract.
Any lawyer would have taken that case.
So it’s even worse for him.
Either way, I think that--
Can you impute some ill will now?
-That I will. -[DiMango] I’m not gonna impute, but...
She’s imputing enough.
[theme music plays]
[Byrd] Court is back in session.
Parties are reminded you’re still under oath.
[Levy] We’ve had an opportunity to discuss the matter
amongst the three of us, and we are unanimous.
Mr. Copeland, pursuant to the terms of the pledge agreement,
this pledge agreement and the note that you had
with the defendant will be secured
by the pledge of the defendant’s membership interest
in the underground skate park.
And you understand what that means.
And because of that,
as well as the statute of limitations issue,
it is the unanimous verdict of the court
that your request for $10,000 from the defendant is denied.
The case is dismissed. Thank you.
[Copeland] Thank you.
[Byrd] This case is concluded.
Parties are excused. You may step out.
Well, obviously, I’m disappointed.
I’m happy with the outcome.
It’s my fault for not having
the right documentation.
This has been a long few years
of emails, and, um,
just a lot of heartache, I think, for me.
I just pretty much bit off
a little bit more than I can chew.
Honestly, I would love to still have the skate park.
Be careful who you go into business partnership with,
and, uh, don’t loan anybody money.
So I’m happy with the decision.
[announcer] Having a family dispute?
Let Tribunal Justice decide your case.
Find us on social media at Tribunal Justice.
[theme music playing]