[Judge DiMango] She tells your husband about the issues
- that she's having financially. - Correct.
So you figured that the best bet
was to go to a nonfamily member
to get that money for you.
He was more than just a friend.
You even said she wanted him to be her sugar daddy.
Yes.
I don't think your late husband intended to be a sugar daddy.
He wasn't trying to give her anything for free.
That's like a sugar-free daddy.
[announcer] Now on Tribunal Justice.
["Ride of the Valkyries" plays]
[announcer] Today's case was filed in Murrieta, California.
[Byrd] Your Honor, this is case number 2061
on the calendar in the matter of Schaafs versus Heywood.
- Thank you, Byrd. - You're welcome, Judge.
Parties have been sworn in.
You may be seated.
All right, Ms. Schaafs and Ms. Heywood.
You were actually neighbors at one point in time.
But I'd like to bring something up upfront
because there was something in your answer, Ms. Heywood,
where you said you tried to reach the plaintiff's husband
but you've not been able to.
I think you should know upfront-- do you know that he passed away?
- I found out recently the... - [Judge DiMango] Okay.
... within the last week.
[Judge DiMango] I didn't wanna just throw it out there
because I know you were all friends.
So Ms. Schaafs, you're suing the defendant for her failure
to make good on some promissory notes
drafted by your deceased husband.
During his life, he loaned the defendant $12,400,
which she agreed to repay
at the time she sold her house.
Your husband has since died
and you're here suing for $10,000 on promissory notes
that the defendant received from your late husband.
Ma'am, your position is that he forgave the debts to you
during his lifetime.
Also as a second defense,
it appears from your papers that you're raising
is what we call accord and satisfaction
that you paid him some money
and at that point he said you didn't have to pay him any further.
There is a potential third affirmative defense here,
but at this point, I'm not going to address it just yet.
So let's start with you, Ms. Schaafs.
There was a trust that your husband created
and that was created in 2002.
- Is that correct? - Correct.
In 2011 is when he made the loans to the defendant.
- Is that correct as well? - Yes.
[Judge DiMango] Now, you made a big point
in the beginning of your complaint
that your deceased husband Ray,
you say never dated the defendant.
That was important to you to make that point.
How come?
Because that was the understanding he gave me.
I would say that she thought
the relationship was stronger.
[Judge DiMango] Okay. Well, we have a picture.
We're gonna put it up.
- Is that your wedding day? - Yes.
[Judge DiMango] And what date was that?
- What year at least? - 2016.
[Judge DiMango] Okay. So you got married in 2016.
And when was that taken, ma'am?
[Darlene] That was taken very shortly, uh...
- [Judge DiMango] Before he passed away? - [Darlene] Yes.
[Judge DiMango] He had all his senses
- about him, correct? - Correct.
Okay. So there's no allegation here that he had dementia
- or Alzheimer's or anything. - Oh, no.
- No, he was... - [Darlene] No.
- ... sharp as a tack right to the end. - Right.
[Judge DiMango] Okay. So now, you move into this complex
where Ray and she have been living.
When did you move in?
I moved into a brand new house in 1993
and Ray and his first wife moved in a couple years later.
[Judge DiMango] Okay. And now at some point,
you're paying a mortgage
- on your property and you... - [Sandra] Uh-hmm.
... run into some problems, is that correct?
- Yes. - [Judge DiMango] Okay.
Now you knew that, Mrs. Schaafs.
You knew that Ray and she were friends,
and actually you even said you think
that she wanted him to be her sugar daddy,
- would that be correct? - Really. Yes.
My husband-to-be and I were together one day.
Our niece and nephew was visiting
and she walked in the house and said she needed to take a shower,
and my husband introduced her as the neighbor
and she walked over to the niece and nephew, said, "I'm his girlfriend."
[Judge DiMango] Did you do that?
God, no.
You were not his girlfriend at the time, were you?
I was never his girlfriend.
[Judge DiMango] No, never, never his girlfriend. It was just you.
- Let's clear the air on that one. - That's good.
[Judge DiMango] All right. So now, she tells your husband
about the issues that she's having financially
and you--basically, you said he was a nice guy.
Both of you say he was a very nice guy.
And he agreed to lend you the money,
- is that correct as well? - Yes, um...
[Judge DiMango] How did that come about, that conversation?
The, uh, later part of 2011,
um, I was having some health issues
and so Ray would take me to a couple medical appointments
and, uh, so then I couldn't work
and I had to--I asked him-- I thought it was in March,
because I don't have any papers, of 2012 that I asked him
if I could borrow my house payment when I needed it.
[Judge DiMango] Okay. So to clear that up,
we have the notes that were written and signed by you
indicating that he did loan you the money.
I believe each one is dated and signed
and there's an amount, $1,200, January 2011.
There are ten of them in total,
eight of which are signed only.
Um, the last two checks that I wrote him,
he wrote, "Sent," and mailed them back to me.
[Judge DiMango] Okay. We'll get to that.
Now, the loans were 2011.
You got married in 2016.
But in 2014, he assigned those notes to you
and that was to give you the right to collect on those notes
should he not be there to collect,
- is that correct? - Correct.
[Judge DiMango] All right. Now there is an issue here.
There's eight that we have signed.
The total on that is, I believe, $9,700.
And then there were two notes that are unsigned,
no monetary amount.
You're claiming that those two notes were 1,350 each
and that she would then owe you $2,700
- on top of these. - Right.
So my question to you is,
did he ever give you money where you did not sign
- a promissory note? - Oh, no, no.
[Judge DiMango] So the only time you were given money by Ray,
- you signed a promissory... - [Sandra] Yes.
... note agreeing to pay.
Yeah, I paid a hundred dollars a month.
[Judge DiMango] All right. In your answer,
you wrote, "I paid Ray back a hundred dollars a month
towards the amount that I owed him.
However, when I sent him the hundred-dollar check in November,
it got sent back to me and was marked paid.
The December check that I paid to him
also got sent back to me marked paid.
I think I paid around $600."
Do you have any evidence as to any of these checks
that were marked paid, Mrs. Schaafs?
No. My...
And do you have any of those canceled checks marked paid?
No. Three years ago, I tore 'em up.
[Judge DiMango] Why would you tear them up?
Because my friend said I shouldn't keep anything
over seven to eight years,
and so I threw them away.
All right. So now, the notes that she signed read,
"Party one agrees to give Sandra Heywood
a no interest loan of $1,200."
And then it has that the payback
is when her house is sold or refinanced.
- Ma'am, when did you sell your home? - 2018.
- April 2018. - [Judge DiMango] April of 2018.
Had you seen him from the time he made you the loans
until he died or you sold the house?
Several times and--but once he and Darlene got together,
she didn't care for me, so I didn't see him so much.
- But you did see him. - [Sandra] Yes.
And you're saying that during that time,
had he ever asked you about payment?
- Payback? - Not one time.
[Judge DiMango] So that's why you're saying that
you are convinced that the 600 or whatever
was sufficient repayment for him,
and he was forgiving you the note.
- Is that correct? - That's what I felt. Yes.
[Judge DiMango] Now, did you have a for sale sign up?
For six months.
So your husband knew that she was selling the house.
It was for sale while she was there
and he could have at any moment gone back to her
and said, "Pay me back that money."
Your Honor, he wasn't in any condition.
He, as ill as he was,
he went over there and tried to contact her.
But he had six years to do it in.
- Six years. - [Darlene] He had so much faith that
she was going to do the right thing.
But she had stopped paying him over all of that time.
[announcer] Coming up on Tribunal Justice.
I had my sister. I had my brother.
And did they give you money?
I didn't ask 'em.
So you figured that the best bet
was to go to a nonfamily member
to get that money for you?
He was more than just a friend.
[dramatic musical sting]
[theme music plays]
[announcer] Darlene Schaafs is suing former neighbor Sandy Heywood
for $10,000 in unpaid loans.
Darlene claims her now deceased husband often helped Sandy
with mortgage payments.
Sandy claims Darlene's husband forgave the loans before he died
and even returned payments she attempted to give him.
There is another defense,
it's an affirmative defense in the law,
and it's called statute of limitations.
That she cannot sue you for this money
because too much time has passed.
In California, six years from the date payment was due,
which was when you sold your house in April,
after six years,
the position might be that her cause of action
is time-barred here, that she cannot sue you.
Now you didn't raise that,
but we may have a right as a court to raise that,
or we may decide that if you didn't raise it,
then you're going to be precluded from doing so.
So I'm not sure.
These are things we're gonna have to look at,
and we're gonna further explore this.
Judge Levy?
Okay. Let's start with this.
Ms. Heywood, uh, you have no papers.
You have no evidence.
You have no documents that you supplied to us
to support your case, to support your defense.
And I get a sense that everything you're saying to us
is based upon your memory,
which is, you would agree, not as good as it probably should be,
especially standing where you are as a defendant
- in a $10,000 lawsuit, right? - Yes.
Good. So let me give you these.
These are the general agreements.
This is not a promissory note.
This is a general agreement
with what purports to be your signature on them.
And I want you to take a look at those.
Do you see your signature on the bottom of those pages?
[Sandra] Yes.
[Judge Levy] So January, $1,200, that's your signature
- on the general agreement. - [Sandra] Yes.
[Judge Levy] February, March, April, May, all $1,200.
June, July, and August, 1,200.
And then there are two blank.
- Okay. May I say something? - [Judge Levy] Sure.
The two blank ones are the two checks he wrote to me
with the--with sent--or paid on the check.
- I don't care what it is. - I'm just telling you.
- That's why they're blank. - [Judge Levy] I don't care about those.
No one gets money for those
because there are statute of limitations issues here.
Statute of limitation on a contract in California is four years.
Statute of limitation on a promissory note
under the UCC is six years.
Can I ask you what a UCC is?
[Judge Levy] It's the Uniform Commercial Code.
It treats things differently than a regular contract.
General agreement, I view as a contract.
The promissory note, this is what your deceased husband, Ray, ma'am,
this is what he gave you,
- an assignment of a promissory note. - Yes.
That doesn't say promissory note.
That says general agreement.
- You see that? - [Darlene] Oh.
He's assigning to you this general agreement.
The fact that he calls it a promissory note
doesn't make it a promissory note.
There's one way to look at it.
If it is, and we'll discuss it in the back,
if it is, this general agreement is a promissory note,
you have six years with which to file.
When does that six years start?
When she sells April 2018.
Correct.
[Judge Levy] Putting all that aside, Ms. Heywood,
you're going through a tough time.
January 2011, you can't make your mortgage payment, right?
And there was a risk that you were gonna get kicked out of your home.
And so you went to the one person who you thought you can count on,
- and that was Ray. - Very nice man.
[Judge Levy] Very nice man.
You became friendly, and when you had nowhere else to go,
you went to him to get money so you didn't get thrown out.
Not true at all.
- [Judge Levy] Oh, really? - Yeah.
Who else did you go to to get money?
[Sandra] Let's see. I had my sister.
I had my brother.
[Judge Levy] And did they give you money?
I didn't ask them.
So you figured that the best bet
was to go to a nonfamily member to get that money for you.
He was my across-the-street neighbor and he was more than just a friend.
[Judge Levy] Listen, I don't care about that.
The fact is you had every intention, based upon the general agreement,
to pay him back
and there was absolutely no doubt in your mind
that you agreed to pay back all of this money
- when you sold the house. - Oh, yeah, uh-hmm.
So why didn't you do it?
Because I thought he forgave the loan by sending the two checks back.
Okay. So we're talking about almost $10,000 in loans.
- Uh-hmm. - [Judge Levy] You seem like
a smart lady to me.
So you would have known,
at that time, if he's gonna forgive the loan,
you get that in writing,
so that someone doesn't have to rely on your representation
- six years later, right? - Yeah.
[Judge Levy] Did you get that? Did you get that in writing?
- No. - [Judge Levy] Why not?
- You didn't choose to ask him? - No.
He didn't bring it up and we just didn't talk about it.
He didn't bring it up? He doesn't have to bring up squat.
You were the one responsible for walking across the street
and saying, "Hey, Ray, thank you so much for getting me out of a jam
when I really needed it and I wanna pay you back
'cause I just sold my house for $430,000."
That's how much you sold it for, right?
That's how much I sold it. That's not how much I walked away with.
[Judge Levy] How much you walked away with?
- Um, $30,000. - [Judge Levy] Great.
- You know what... - [Judge Levy] So you have plenty of money
to pay him back and you just choose not to.
Judge Acker.
[Judge Acker] If it's any conciliation,
Ms. Schaafs, I don't think that your late husband
intended to be a sugar daddy,
'cause I've never seen a sugar daddy make the beneficiary
of his attentions sign a contract saying you're gonna pay me back.
I mean, that's like the least-- that's like a sugar-free daddy.
He wasn't trying to give her anything for free.
I think that that prickled you a little bit, you know,
maybe because you lost a great love of your life.
But, seriously,
he wasn't your sugar daddy.
He made you sign a contract.
He was a very nice man that everybody cared about.
[Judge Acker] Tell me why, even though you had these other relatives,
why'd you go to Ray?
Why him?
Let me back up.
My mother died and my dad died four months later
because the love of his life passed away.
And Ray was married
to the love of his life.
And when she died,
my daughter and I went over there to see if we could talk with him
and he said--he shook, no.
By the third time, he opened the door and let us come in.
I didn't want him to give up on life like my dad did.
[Judge Acker] So you felt like he was a bit of a father figure to you?
Very much.
So I'm kind of like if he took pains to put that in writing,
why wouldn't you want some confirmation of the forgiveness of the debt?
Well, that same year, he also bought me a recliner because I couldn't walk.
In 2013, he recarpeted my home
because he didn't want me to live there without any carpet.
I didn't ask for any of that and nor did he ask me to pay him back.
That proves the plaintiff's point,
because when he wanted to forgive you a debt,
he made it perfectly clear.
When he said to you, "You know what? You need a recliner.
I wanna get you a recliner because I'm a nice guy."
He didn't say, "Sign this note.
- Make sure you pay me back for that." - No, he didn't.
[Judge Acker] He did it because he was a nice guy.
So when Ray wanted his money back,
Ray made his intentions very, very clear
by presenting you with some paper.
Sign your name on the dotted line if you want this check.
And you did it.
[announcer] Coming up on Tribunal Justice.
You never went to Ray and said,
"Does this mean I don't have to pay you back?"
[dramatic musical sting]
[theme music plays]
[announcer] Darlene Schaafs claims former neighbor, Sandy Heywood,
took advantage of her husband's generosity
by skipping town after he loaned her over $10,000,
but Sandy claims Darlene's husband returned any payments
she made to him and forgave the loans.
Ray made his intentions very, very clear
by presenting you with some paper.
Sign your name on the dotted line if you want this check.
And you did it.
If Ray changed his mind,
I feel like Ray would have put that in writing.
Well, see, that's where I misunderstood
that when he sent the last two checks I wrote him,
paid, back to me and he put them in the mail back to me.
[Judge Acker] Yeah. And I think that's ambiguous
and I think that you may have proceeded with a misunderstanding.
I think you may have proceeded
- upon a misunderstanding. - I would have never hurt Ray
or anything, nothing.
- You wouldn't hurt Ray... - [Sandra] No.
... and you wouldn't disrespect his wife, would you?
- No. - [Judge Acker] Thank you.
- I don't have anything further. - [Judge DiMango] Ms. Heywood,
you should have started payment back April, 2018.
You understand that from the notes that you signed.
- Yes. - [Judge DiMango] Okay.
But you chose not to do that without any conversation.
Once you got something back that said paid,
you never went to Ray and said,
"Does this mean I don't have to pay you back?"
Because I think you didn't ask that question
'cause you kind of knew that's not what it meant and you...
- Neither one of us said anything. - But you're the one
- that owed him the money, so... - [Sandra] No, I understand that.
[Judge DiMango] You know, he was the kind of guy, it seems,
that wasn't gonna come banging on your door to say,
"Gimme, gimme, gimme my money."
No, if it was a misunderstanding, it was a misunderstanding.
Okay. Thank you. I don't have any other questions.
- No. - Okay.
Then we're gonna retire to deliberate.
- Thank you both, ladies. - Uh-hmm.
[Byrd] Court now stands in recess. This case will be recalled.
Parties are excused.
[dramatic musical sting]
Let's start off with the allegations that there were 10 notes.
Two of them we clearly know
are not going to be awarded to the plaintiff for two reasons.
One, they're not substantiated by any written document,
and even if we were to assume there was an oral agreement,
I believe that would be precluded.
So we're looking at the January of 2011
to the August 2011 notes.
So the total there is $9,700.
That being said, they don't become due,
whether it's a contract or whether it's a promissory note,
they don't become due until she sells the house,
which would be April of 2018.
If we determine that it's a promissory note,
then she would have six years
from that date to call in her debt on all of those.
If we decide that it is a general note,
then there would be a four-year statute of limitations, in which case
all of these would be precluded.
Now, I had looked up promissory note,
the definition, and it says, "If the instrument is a promise, it is a note.
And a negotiable instrument is an unconditional promise
or an order to pay a fixed amount of money,
with or without interest or other charges if it's payable to the bearer
or to order," but this is to bearer,
"Payable on demand or at a definite time." We have a definite time.
"And does not state any other undertaking or instruction."
And so therefore, by this definition,
I believe that these are promissory notes.
That being said,
they all become due immediately upon the house being sold
in April of 2018
and so the plaintiff would have six years
from April 2018 to bring this lawsuit,
which she has, because they're all due at the same time.
Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to recover all $9,700
of the notes that we have proof were signed, dated, sealed,
and due upon selling the house.
I happen to agree with that.
I know that I brought up the possibility of a general agreement
not being a promissory note.
And that's true.
It doesn't read promissory note.
But as you very correctly stated, a promissory note is a promissory note.
You can call it a potato if you want to.
It indicates the date,
who the parties are, the amount of money...
- Correct. - ... and the really important part,
which is that there's a date certain that the money has to be given back,
and that date certain was upon the sale of the home.
Defendant knew.
She took the position,
"Hey, if he ain't gonna ask for it, I most..."
- I'm gonna put my head in the sand. - "... I most certainly
am not gonna bring it up to him."
And that's pretty horrible,
especially because when she needed help, he helped her.
Shame on her not to pay back him and most certainly the estate, so I...
And therein lies the reason for small claims court.
- [laughter] - Yeah. So I agree--so I agree with you.
Well, I'm just gonna call it a misunderstanding. [laughs]
That's nice. I prefer that.
I'm gonna call it a misunderstanding, but I certainly agree with you both.
Okay. We're done. Unanimous.
Misunderstanding not being a sugar daddy
- or sugar baby? - [laughter]
[dramatic musical sting]
[Byrd] Court is back in session.
I remind parties you're still under oath.
Thank you, Byrd.
Well, ladies, you do have something in common.
You both chose to have a form of a relationship
in one way with a man who seemed to be a very lovely, thoughtful person.
He thought enough of you, Ms. Schaafs, to assign
any of these debts to you during his lifetime.
He did that.
So you are here. You're suing for $10,000.
Originally, you were talking about 10 notes.
Those 10 notes exceeded $10,000.
But it was pretty clear from the questioning here
that the last two notes remained unsigned, undated, incomplete,
and so therefore they would be dismissed.
Now, that leaves $9,700 for the eight notes
for which we have proof that, ma'am,
you signed, dated, put down the terms and conditions of
along with Ray, and so therefore those are valid.
The timeframe within which you could sue for those,
Ms. Schaafs, was six years from April 2018.
So that means that all of those notes
fall within the six-year statute of limitations.
We did find this to be a promissory note and not just a general contract...
- [mouthing] Thank you. - [Judge DiMango] ... and so, therefore,
you will receive in this lawsuit
$9,700, thanks...
- Thank you. - [Judge DiMango] ... to the well-written
documented notes of your late husband.
- Congratulations. - [Darlene] Thank you.
You have prevailed unanimously in this.
- $9,700. - [gavel bangs]
Thank you. Thank you.
[Byrd] This case has now concluded.
Parties are excused.
You may step out.
[theme music plays]
I was surprised because I thought the statute of limitations was up
and I was also surprised to learn that he just died.
I so appreciate getting justice for my husband.
I misunderstood and that was that.
And I'm sorry to Ray that I misunderstood.
I think Ray can rest in peace.
[announcer] Did someone break an agreement?
Let Tribunal Justice decide your case.
Find us on social media.
["Ride of the Valkyries" plays]