You say that you purchased this mobile home?
Yes.
I don't understand why you would pay double the amount of money.
I felt threatened that she was gonna take the mobile home back.
No.
With all this, I was just so, like, out of it. Like, um...
We're gonna be really clear about some of the key facts,
because I don't believe you.
[announcer] Today on Tribunal Justice.
[theme music playing]
[announcer] This case was filed in Moreno Valley, California.
Your Honor, this is case number 1139 on the calendar
in the matter of De La Rosa versus Herrera.
Parties have been sworn in. You may be seated.
Thank you, Byrd.
We're here today because of a dispute over a mobile home.
Ms. De La Rosa, you maintain that the defendant sold you her mobile home
in 2014 for $5,000.
Yes.
You then claim that she improperly demanded
additional money from you, which you paid for a bit.
But then at some point you said, "I'm done paying you extra money."
[Nery] Yes.
You then allege that the defendant started eviction proceedings against you.
You were able to get the eviction tossed out,
and she dismissed her eviction case against you.
And you're now suing her for $10,000 dollars.
$1,000 in legal fees for fighting the eviction,
$800 for your lost wages,
and the bulk of your damage claim is for punitive damages.
You're suing for over $8,000 in punitive damages.
And just so we're clear, punitive damages aren't your out-of-pocket damages.
Punitive damages are assessed against a defendant
for conduct that is grossly negligent,
malicious, not just making an honest mistake.
It's for conduct that's intentionally nasty.
That's the layperson's way of describing it.
So that's your $10,000 case against the defendant.
Ms. Herrera,
you maintain that you did not sell the plaintiff the mobile home
in 2014 for $5,000.
You say you sold it to her in 2015 for $13,000.
You point out that you did try to serve her with the eviction papers.
You couldn't evict her for a while because of the pandemic.
She stopped paying you the balance of the amount you say was owed.
The eviction was tossed out because, apparently,
while she was served at the right address, her name was misspelled.
When you went back to court, you dropped the case
because, according to you, she presented falsified evidence to the court.
It became your word against hers.
She shorted you thousands of dollars,
and you maintain that you do not owe her a dime.
That's correct.
Now, you've got the burden of proof in this case.
And so, first things first, I wanna prove the sale.
Show me the contract that you claim is evidence of the sale in 2014.
Okay, well, let's look at exhibit one.
-Is that it? -[Nery] Yes.
[Acker] "I, Marina Herrera, at space 87 have received $800 cash
by Nery De La Rosa on July 28th, 2014,
a payment toward the $5,000,
leaving a balance of $4200 for the sale of the mobile home."
Who wrote that?
Marina Herrera.
[Acker] Did you write that?
Everything looks like it's my writing, but the year is incorrect.
So it should be $5,000 in 2015?
'Cause you said $13,000.
Yes, I sold it to her. The agreement was for 13,000.
So where did this agreement come from?
I do recognize my writing.
If this is your writing, tell me, other than the date,
what you contend is falsified.
For right now, just the date.
So in 2014, you did agree to sell her this mobile home for $5,000?
No.
[Acker] She's saying that this is your agreement.
Can we put up the second agreement?
Because you, Ms. Herrera, have submitted another contract
that you say is evidence of the sale.
Now, this contract is dated about a year later.
It's for a $13,000 purchase price.
And who wrote this contract?
I wrote that one. That's the first contract for 13,000.
So where did the other contract come from?
That's the one you say she falsified.
-Yeah, this one-- -But it's your writing.
[Marina] This is exactly what I'm talking about.
This is where I feel it's falsified because it is my writing,
but the date is just incorrect
because I was still living in that home in 2014.
-I have pictures. -[Acker] Okay, so if I--
Again, if the data is incorrect, but everything else is correct,
does that mean that you agreed to sell her the house for $5,000?
It's important because if she stopped paying you money
that she didn't owe you in the first place,
or if you were demanding money
that she didn't owe you in the first place,
she's got a great claim for punitive damages.
I'm gonna go back to you, Ms. De La Rosa.
For this sale to be valid, I need to see a bill of sale,
I need to see the title,
I need to see the tax clearance certificate,
and there's also a multipurpose transfer form.
These are all elements of selling a mobile home
to a consumer in California.
So show me what you have. I didn't see any of those things.
I only saw two versions of a contract and no original agreement.
No, there's not. The only thing that I--
[Acker] No title?
No, she never gave me the title. Sorry.
Okay, so no title, no multipurpose transfer form,
no tax clearance certificate.
[Nery] No.
And you didn't get those in 2014 and you didn't get those in 2015?
No. I went to the housing authority,
and they told me that she had to be present for me
to get any kind of information about that mobile home.
Where's the communication from you to her
where you say, "I need the rest of these documents
in order to perfect the sale of this property"?
When we had made a transaction in 2019, and that's when she goes--
-[Acker] Oh, wait, stick with me. -[Nery] Mm-hmm.
What is still missing are a number of documents that are necessary
in order to make this a valid sale.
-You have none of those things? -No, I don't.
And you say that when you tried to get these items,
you were advised that you had to get the defendant's cooperation.
Yes.
[Acker] Yet I have nothing from you, not one bit of evidence,
in which you say to her, "I need you to cooperate
in getting these documents so we can make this a proper sale."
There's nothing on the record about that, so I'm gonna move on.
[Nery] Mm-hmm.
2014 is when you say the sale took place
for $5,000.
How much money did you pay her in total?
I can honestly say that I paid her at least 12,000 altogether.
Now, if it is your position, and I'm gonna want to see evidence
of those $12,000 payments.
If it's your position that you purchased this mobile home for $5,000,
and not $13,000, as she suggests,
why on earth would you give her more than twice that amount of money?
The reason why, 'cause I felt threatened because she would always--
I mean, she would always say that she was gonna take the mobile home back,
that her family was telling her that she needed--
[Acker] Where is all of this?
I mean, she just said these things verbally to you?
Yeah, when we spoke.
So you say that you had a valid-- whoa, wait.
You had a valid sale agreement for $5,000,
but for some reason, because she was threatening you,
you just gave her more than twice that amount of money.
Well, if we look at exhibit, um, the other agreement,
it shows right there that she changed the price on me
and then how much money I had gave her after that.
Well, you say she changed the price.
[Nery] Mm-hmm.
She says you submitted a falsified agreement.
So right now, I'm sticking with your position.
-Your position is that it was $5,000. -[Nery] Mm-hmm.
And what is confounding to me is why,
if you legitimately believed you were buying this property for $5,000,
you would then give her almost $12,000.
[theme music playing]
[announcer] Coming up on Tribunal Justice.
Where's your stuff?
I think you're both full of it.
I mean, you're both standing there like, "I can't believe this is all happening.
I thought I bought a home and I thought I sold it,
and I don't have anything to prove it either way."
[theme music playing]
[announcer] Nery De La Rosa is suing her former friend, Marina Herrera,
for lost wages, legal fees, and punitive damages
after Marina tried to illegally evict her.
Marina claims she sold Nery her mobile home,
but she only paid the down payment.
You knew how to get help when you needed help.
She tried to evict you and you went to a legal aid lawyer.
-Right? -[Nery] Mm-hmm.
[Acker] Who showed you how to challenge the eviction.
Now, when you evicted her, when you served her the eviction papers,
you served her papers at the correct address,
but her name was misspelled.
Her name is Nery De La Rosa, with an "N."
Right.
[Acker] And the papers-- you hired a paralegal.
Right.
And the paralegal sent the papers to Mary instead of--
Mary instead of Nery.
So people can say it's just a procedural technicality,
maybe you did have actual notice, but you weren't properly served.
So then when she reserved you, you went to court
with your 2014 document, which she says is fake,
and then she just gave up.
And now you're saying that what she did is so horrible
that you're entitled to $8,000 in punitive damages.
But my question for you
goes back to your initial understanding of the agreement,
and if you understood this to be an agreement for $5,000,
and you're somebody who knows how to protect your legal rights
because when they tried to serve you papers with your name misspelled,
you knew to go to legal aid and you got legal advice
and you got legal help, which is your right, and I am glad.
God bless legal aid.
But what I'm saying to you is that with that amount of knowledge,
I am just curious as to why you didn't have
the wherewithal and presence of mind,
if you really legitimately believed that you were only buying this for $5,000,
I don't know why you'd keep paying her
instead of going to the legal aid lawyer then
and say, "You know what, I'm being extorted."
And I'm making that point because I don't believe you.
I'm having problems with your credibility.
[Nery] Mm-hmm.
[Acker] I don't know that it was a $5,000 sale,
and you haven't convinced me of that.
[Nery] Mm-hmm.
So you've got two more judges.
Judge DiMango.
I'm noticing in here a document that seems to say
the title to this trailer was transferred on May 27th, 2014.
-Yes. -[DiMango] Can you explain that?
My mom transferred it over to me, uh, as a gift.
Okay, you get it in May,
and then in July, the 2014 note is written.
-Yeah, it-- -That's what it says here.
Now, I know you keep saying the date, the date, but it goes beyond the date.
To me, this almost looks like a down payment.
It doesn't say specifically that the home was being sold for $5,000.
It just says that that money was being paid towards that home.
So that helps you,
except your position is that this note's a forgery.
So it either helps you, or it's a forgery.
If it's a forgery, then we disregard it.
So your position is that this is a forgery. Is that correct?
Now you don't want it to be a forgery
'cause you think it supports your position, don't you?
I was gonna say it was just a date.
I did say in the first place that is my writing.
I did recognize that that is my writing.
With the date,
it just didn't add up to when I sold the mobile home.
But you got the place in May, the end of May.
How long did you have it before you decided to sell it?
So I lived in that mobile home since 2007,
and I moved out, like, in the summer of 2015.
That's when I sold it.
So you just don't give over property.
You have other documents. That's already been pointed out.
It's like a car. You just don't give cars away.
You have to have title, you've gotta have registration,
you've gotta have tax documents.
You've gotta have all of these things.
Where are they in this case, ladies, from each of you?
Because the bottom line here is, you have the burden of proof,
but neither one of you has been able to establish anything, anything at all.
We don't have a value. I don't know what that mobile home is worth.
We looked into it to some extent, and it seems that the value today
for a sale of a mobile home might be over 100,000,
but we certainly don't have any evidence of that here,
and who sells a $100,000 home for $5,000?
So there's home and there's land.
When and if you were to sell that,
did you sell it as one, the land and the home?
Just the mobile home.
How do you sell only the home but not the land with it?
-So the land-- -[DiMango] The land is leased?
The land belongs to the owner of the property.
Were you paying rent to the landlord of the property?
Yes.
From what point were you paying that person?
From 2014 to now, present.
[DiMango] I wanna see that first check from 2014
'cause that's the issue here that's in debate: 2014, 2015.
All you need to do is hand up one document that says,
"Here I am paying a mortgage, paying rent, paying you,
paying somebody on this date on 2014."
Where is it?
What are you looking at him for?
No, because my envelope is right there.
You think it's in there?
I mean, wouldn't you know if it was in there?
You came to court to present a case.
You think you're not gonna-- I'm not gonna stand here
while you make believe you're looking for something.
Don't play that game with us.
"Oh, I... I can't find it, Judge. I can't find it."
It's not there. You don't have anything.
You have nothing to show.
And you have nothing to show. You claim you did sell it to her.
It's not like you're saying, "I never sold it to her."
You're just saying you sold it to her for 13,000 in 2015.
Where's your stuff?
I think you're both full of it.
I mean, you're both standing there like, "I can't believe this is all happening.
I thought I bought a home and I thought I sold it,
and I don't have anything to prove it either way."
Sir, who are you in relation to the plaintiff?
Good afternoon, Your Honor.
[DiMango] Good afternoon, sir. Who are you?
My name is Vito, Vito D'Angelo.
I'm a legal assistant.
She wandered into my office after the court,
uh, rejected her request for documents regarding the eviction case.
They said she wasn't entitled to it because she wasn't named in the case.
Okay, wait, so pause 'cause you're beyond where I'm asking.
I just wanted to know who you are, Mr. D'Angelo,
and who you were in relation to the plaintiff.
And what you are is a legal assistant.
And you're not a witness to anything.
Yes, Your Honor.
[DiMango] Okay, I'm gonna ask you to sit, sir. Thank you.
So the other note that we go back to is the main one.
Which says you're selling it for 13,000.
You say you paid 12.
You're not disputing that, are you?
You see, I got a problem with the two of you.
You both keep looking at me like I'm talking another language.
You have nothing, and you have nothing,
and I don't think I could strain myself anymore.
I'm looking at two women who have come to court
either not being honest with us or totally unprepared.
But either way, the burden is with you.
Judge Levy.
Ms. Herrera, if Ms. De La Rosa today right now wrote you a check, a good check,
for $13,000 for the purchase of the home,
you'd take it, right?
Yes.
[Levy] Right. And so, therefore, if, in fact,
the mobile home was actually worth $100,000,
it really doesn't make any difference
because we're not talking $100,000 and $5,000,
we're talking $5,000 and $13,000.
So for whatever reason, back in 2014 or 2015,
in your mind's eye, you were happy to get 13,000,
or you at least wrote up a contract, whether the date was wrong or not,
whether or not you just got the wrong date when you wrote it,
for $5,000, right?
So between 5,000 and 13,000,
you would have been happy with for that mobile home, right?
-No. -[Levy] No.
So it's only 13,000. Is that what you're saying?
I'm saying that was a down payment towards the 13,000.
Down payment. So nothing prevented--
And this is your handwriting, right?
Yes.
[Levy] So if, in fact, it was a down payment,
you would've wrote "down payment" and not "sale," right?
-Of course. -[Marina] That's true.
Don't even answer that.
[theme music playing]
[announcer] Coming up on Tribunal Justice.
Who did the judge rule in favor of regarding this document?
The plaintiff.
And so what the law prohibits you from doing now
is to relitigate that issue.
That issue is over.
This is not a forgery.
[theme music playing]
So here's the thing, though, that I wanna make crystal clear.
In your answer, Ms. Herrera, you say that at the eviction proceeding,
-which you participated in, right? -Correct.
[Levy] And Ms. De La Rosa participated in, right?
Correct.
That she presented the judge in the eviction proceeding
with this document, right?
Yes.
And in your answer, you say that you classify this
as a falsified document claiming that you sold her
the mobile home for 5,000 instead of 13,000.
So first of all, in your answer,
at no time do you say it was a down payment, right?
You never say it was a down payment.
So the point is, you went to court, you went before a judge,
you argued your point.
The point that you argued was that this was a forgery.
Who did the judge rule in favor of regarding this document?
You or the plaintiff?
The plaintiff.
And so what the law prohibits you from doing now,
because you were a participant,
had a full and fair opportunity to be heard in that proceeding,
is to relitigate that issue.
That issue is over.
This is not a forgery.
The doctrine of collateral estoppel
prohibits you from arguing that right now.
Period. You follow that?
-Yes. -[Levy] Good.
Now, Ms. De La Rosa, you were asked a bunch of questions.
You were savvy enough to find someone to help you.
The question was asked:
Well, why didn't you feel it necessary to do that back in 2014?
Honestly, I didn't know what kind of help I could get.
And I did go to legal services.
They explained to me that it was too late, that there was no way that
I could've gotten the mobile home, and then thank God that Vito was--
He has a building next to the courthouse,
and that's when I was able to get the help from him.
[Levy] And so why didn't you do that back in 2014, or 2015?
Because I didn't think that this was even gonna come to this point.
In 2022 here, when you're facing eviction,
you got all your stuff packed up
like you're waiting for the sheriff to throw you out.
-Right? -Yes.
[Levy] That's what your paper said.
But in 2014, you weren't afraid of getting thrown out, right?
According to your papers, you said in 2014,
Marina sent you a certified letter stating that you paid her 5,000
and you simply needed to pay her an additional 8,000
for a total of $13,000 to get the motor home.
She said that she would not give you the title
until you paid off the remaining balance.
And you felt like you didn't have any other option.
-That's what you wrote. -Yes, I did.
[Levy] So there's a difference between those two things.
One thing is like, "How am I gonna fight this lady?" Right?
Back in 2014, at least it makes sense to me,
that she's really-- she's got you over the barrel.
She's not gonna give you the title to the home
unless you give her the $8,000.
You don't understand the legal process.
In your mind's eye,
at least from what I could see and what I read,
is that you figured, "I might as well pay her the eight grand,
even though I don't owe her the eight grand,
because this is the contract."
You know, she cannot say with a straight face,
as my mother would say,
that it was not her intent to sell this
'cause that's the word that she used, her handwriting, not yours.
It wasn't a down payment. It was nothing else but the sale.
-Right? -[Nery] Mm-hmm.
[Levy] So she says it's a forgery.
Forgery is that you wrote it out without her permission, that you signed her name.
But that's not what she's saying here.
And if what she said in eviction court is the same thing that she said here,
which is that it was just the date, the date's wrong.
So? People put the wrong date down all the time.
But the details are important.
A sale for $5,000, 800 down,
$4200 to be paid later.
-[Nery] Mm-hmm. -Period.
-Makes sense? -Yes.
-Your Honor, if I may? -[Levy] Yeah. Yeah. Please step up.
Did I get anything about that wrong?
There is an educational issue
where Judge Acker raised some issues that--
I've been in this business 46 years, typing legal documents.
I wasn't even aware of all the transfer documents
that she described.
So for a layperson that has no legal background at all--
Now it sort of sounds like you're arguing on her behalf,
more like a lawyer than you are a legal advisor.
-[Vito] Okay, I'm sorry. -That's all right.
Now, let me ask you this last question
'cause you also have a claim for $1700 for legal fees.
Were those legal fees pay to you?
Well, to my company. Yes, Your Honor.
-And you were assisting her with-- -Just the paperwork.
Yeah, just the paper-- I got it. I have nothing further. Thanks.
Where are you living now?
-In the mobile home? -[Nery] Yes.
And you've made no further payments to the defendant?
No.
-[Acker] You said you paid about 12? -Yes.
[DiMango] Okay. Thank you. We're gonna retire to deliberate.
Court now stands in recess. Parties are excused.
[theme music playing]
Here's how I see it.
For the plaintiff to prevail, she has to demonstrate that the defendant
had no good-faith basis for believing she was entitled to more money
and that the defendant set about these eviction proceedings maliciously.
Exactly.
And I don't see that because the plaintiff is continuing to pay her.
She pays her almost twice the amount of money.
We're getting nearer the amount that the defendant says
the property is worth than we are what the plaintiff says.
So the plaintiff is continuing to go along
with what the defendant sees as a $13,000 sale,
until she doesn't.
COVID hits, she stops paying, the defendant tries to evict her,
the eviction's thrown out for all the reasons that we know,
plaintiff is in the house and now wants punitive damages,
and I just don't see it.
I think that if anything, the defendant, also unsophisticated, confused,
and maybe thought she had more of an entitlement to money
based on the second document, not aware of collateral estoppel
or the controlling element, the controlling nature of that agreement.
The defendant was wrong, but I don't see punitive damages.
-I don't see legal fees. -[DiMango] I agree.
I see the same thing, and I'm also thinking that the argument she might
have made in front of the other judge might have been different,
so she thought if she changed her argument here somewhat,
that she was able to relitigate--
'Cause that puts her in a better position.
Right, that certainly didn't.
But still I thought the best part was when I go,
"So if I look at this as a down payment, is this a forgery?"
-No. -No.
[both laugh]
Exactly. Exactly.
No, it's not, and I think that really both of them were very confused.
And based on that, I mean, the plaintiff does not prevail
in her argument by a preponderance.
I just can't find that she did.
I agree.
Great. So we're unanimous?
-Yes. -Yes.
Wonderful.
[theme music playing]
Court is back in session.
Parties are reminded you're still under oath.
-Thank you, Byrd. -[Byrd] Mm-hmm.
We've deliberated and we've reached a unanimous verdict.
Ms. De La Rosa, in order for you to prevail in your case,
you would have had to have demonstrated to us
that the defendant had no good-faith basis
for acting as she did, and we just don't find that true
as a matter of law, and because of the prior court proceedings,
we have to treat that first document,
the document that you originally claimed was falsified
before you said it wasn't falsified-- doesn't matter.
Because of the findings of the prior judge,
we have to treat that document as valid.
So $5,000 sale, however, you continued to pay her,
and we don't see any evidence of extortion.
We don't see any evidence of you saying,
"You know what, why are you asking me for this money?"
You continued to pay her in accordance with the agreement
that she said was the controlling agreement.
She said it was $13,000, you paid her nearly 12.
But you didn't get to 13, so she tried to evict you.
That was thrown out.
She lost on that substantive matter.
But for you to get punitive damages, you would have to show us that she had
no good-faith basis for believing that she had a right to do it.
You haven't shown that.
I mean, in fact, as the facts have come out in this case,
she would have been entirely justified, frankly, in saying,
"You know what, I think I'm entitled to 13.
She paid me 12. She stopped paying. I'm going to evict her."
So you failed to meet your burden in this case,
and we are dismissing your complaint in its entirety.
You have a home. Good luck to you and enjoy it.
-That's the verdict of the court. -Thank you.
-[gavel bangs] -This case is now concluded.
Parties are excused. You may step out.
She put me through a lot.
I was not harassing her.
Oh, I went through stress, just everything,
telling my kids that they had to get evicted.
I was just trying to get in contact with her
just to get monthly payments like we agreed to.
I feel like I was entitled to what I was asking for.
Don't trust anybody. Get all the money up front.
[announcer] Having a family dispute?
Let Tribunal Justice decide your case.
Find us on social media at Tribunal Justice.
[theme music playing]