[narrator] Previously on Tribunal Justice…
The truck had major problems that made it unsafe to drive.
The motor could blow up, potentially.
I'm 100% sure he's lying.
I'm thinking about all the things that you did
that would be textbook how not to buy a car.
I probably should've had it checked out by a mechanic first.
He's selling the truck.
"Truck sounds like a jet and has plenty of power."
So, who is being dishonest here?
[main theme playing]
[narrator] Today's case was filed in McMinnville, Oregon.
All right. I just want to clean a couple of things up, if I could.
-You sold the vehicle. -Yes, Your Honor.
This document was provided by the defendant, right? That was the ad?
-Correct. -[Levy] And you gave this to me,
Ms. Busser, because you wanted to show us that he was being dishonest
when he failed to list the engine problems that he's complaining about right now.
-Right? -Yes.
[Levy] That ad is dated October 24th, 2024.
So, he bought the truck on September 22nd?
-[Aubrey] Mm-hmm. -And he's selling it on October 24th.
On the listing, if you look at the photo, it says about a month ago.
So, he listed it about a month before October,
which was two days after I sold him the truck.
So, that's consistent with what he's saying.
By two days after the truck, he knows
that despite what you specifically told him, and I'm not talkin' puffery,
the truck runs great when it might just run good.
That's puffery, and Judge Acker's 100% right.
But you specifically told him that there were no engine problems, right?
-Yeah. There were not any. -[Levy] There weren't any problems.
You already testified that the mechanic told you there were no engine problems.
[Aubrey] Yeah, correct.
[Levy] But to be quite fair, Mr. Robinson,
you also provided us with a text
that was the text you sent out to people when they responded to this partial ad.
Now mind you, the defendants provided us with this information, right, this ad.
What you said is that this ad is not complete.
-Yes, Your Honor. -[Levy] There were additional documents
that they could've printed out and provided us with
that had your explanation about the head gaskets,
they just didn't print it out.
Yes, Your Honor.
[Levy] On your text message that you provided us with,
this is you responding to one of those people who contacted you.
"I mean, yeah, it runs and drives, but needs some pretty big repairs.
It has low mileage, but I just got it out of the diesel shop,
and it needs two injectors and has leaky head gaskets."
You didn't know that they were gonna come in here,
provide us with a half document to make you look bad.
So, you gave us that text message to prove the falsity
of what they were trying to pull the wool over our eyes. Did I get that right?
Yes, Your Honor. That's correct.
[Levy] On that receipt that we got from your mechanic,
-it was dated June 10th, 2024, right? -[Aubrey] Yeah, correct.
June 10th, 2024, you got this work done. And you sold it September 22nd, right?
Yeah, correct.
And you say that you were driving it every day between June 10th
-until you sold it June 22nd, right? -Yes.
And that mechanic, his name was Zachary Hefflin, right?
Correct.
-[Levy] Did you know him? -No.
[Levy] You, ma'am?
Uh, no, we were recommended by a friend of ours
that takes their vehicle there.
And that friend of yours said this was a good mechanic, honest guy?
-Yeah. -[Levy] He's not gonna rip you off?
-No. -[Levy] You have no reason to believe
why Zachary Hefflin would be biased against you, do you?
No.
Great. I think we have a witness that we'd like to bring in.
Zachary Hefflin.
[dramatic music playing]
[narrator] Coming up on Tribunal Justice…
You said that the truck had 152,000 miles.
Yes, correct.
The Carfax shows 362,000 miles.
So, how do you explain that discrepancy?
[main theme playing]
[narrator] Justin Robinson is suing Aubrey Bogosian
and her mom, Alyssa Busser, for $10,000.
Justin claims that they sold him a truck that was too dangerous to drive,
but Aubrey and Alyssa say it was an as-is sale
and they never misrepresented anything.
-What's your name? -Zack Hefflin.
[Levy] Take a look at these two ladies over here.
-You recognize him? -Yeah.
-[Levy] Who is he? -The mechanic.
I'm gonna make this real clear and simple for you.
Yeah.
Now that you see him standing right there,
is there anything about your testimony you want to change?
-[Aubrey] No. -About what he told you
about problems and engine problems with that vehicle?
-No. -[Levy] Good.
Diggin' in, doubling down.
-How long you been a mechanic? -Ten years.
[Levy] Did you work on this 2005 Ford F350?
-Yes. -[Levy] Is that the truck
that's on the screen that they brought in?
-[Zack] Correct. -[Levy] When they brought it in,
-it was not running, correct? -Correct.
-[Levy] They had to tow it in. -Correct.
[Levy] Tell us about the inspection, what you did,
and most importantly, what you told them, if anything,
about substantial engine problems specifically with the head gaskets.
So, we took the truck in, pulled codes off of the truck.
It had immediate injector codes, low oil pressure codes,
and a ton of other random glow plug codes and similar stuff.
Truck needed a wiring harness.
I recommended we put an OEM Ford harness in it.
Too expensive. They wanted to go with one they provided.
Okay, no problem. We installed the harness.
Found more issues. Now the truck would crank,
still no start. Found bad injectors.
Found a bad fuel injection control module.
Tore the truck back apart.
Talked to them about it. Told them what we recommended,
which is removing the cab and doing the head gasket job.
When you do that, all these little problems
will not nickel and dime you if you do it once.
When you do it once, it's done right. Warranty, no problem.
That head gasket that you told them you wanted to take the cab off to get to,
it was your professional opinion that that needed to be replaced.
-Absolutely. -[Levy] You told that to them?
-Correct. -[Levy] Hm.
I don't want to hear you. I got nothin' to say to you.
I want to hear from him. Go on.
[Zack] Once we installed the new set of injectors,
a used fuel injection control module, trying to save some money.
We did a high-pressure oil pump, which was also not working properly.
Then we did a fuel lift pump. These parts,
one of them was not noted on the invoice because we were trying to help.
They had $4,000 to work with. My repair would've been $12,000,
but I knew they were in a tight spot.
I wanted to fix the truck so they could at least use it or sell it.
So, we did everything in our power to make it run.
But it was not correct. The truck needed a lot of work.
If I understand your testimony, you provided the defendants
with a list of items that needed to be fixed,
including new head gaskets. They ignored your recommendation.
It was declined.
-It was gonna cost an extra $8,000. -Correct.
And they fixed none of the engine problems, and instead
only authorized repairs to the truck so that it could get running and sold.
-Correct. -[Levy] Did you tell them
that the truck should not be driven with a blown head gasket?
Yes.
[Levy] And did you tell them the truck was not safe to drive?
-Yes. -Why would he lie?
I don't know, Your Honor.
Um, this is for Mr. Hefflin.
I never received a list of the repairs that needed to be done.
He called me and talked to me…
He's not telling you he gave you a written list.
He says that he told you verbally.
He told you verbally, the truck should not be driven
with a blown head gasket. It's not safe to drive.
You simply want to get it running so that you could sell it.
-Right? -[Zack] Correct.
In addition to that… Sorry, if I may go ahead…
And there's more?
-Yes. -[chuckles]
When the truck was driven under light circumstances, there presented no issues.
When the truck was driven on the highway under high load,
three-quarter throttle, for example, the turbo would surge.
That was made known. But that's only known out on the highway
and under hard load and acceleration. Once you get back stopped,
the coolant bottle has so much pressure
that coolant will puke out onto the ground.
And did you tell them that turbo was bad?
-[Zack] Yes. -Yes! Engine problem, bad.
Turbo, bad. Head gaskets, bad.
Now, Judge Acker made it very clear, used car, buyer beware.
You're stuck unless you can prove fraud.
Such as, there were no engine problems that existed prior to the sale.
That the sellers were aware of those problems.
The sellers intentionally hid those problems.
And the sellers made false statements
regarding those problems that persuaded you, sir,
to buy that vehicle. That is fraud.
Were you persuaded to buy the vehicle
based upon their now known misrepresentations
regarding the major engine problems?
Yes, Your Honor.
-I'm done. -[pen clatters]
You should be ashamed of yourselves.
Remember, Aubrey, I said that you would do better saying less.
-Yeah. -[Acker] And that includes
-the initial transaction. -Yeah, correct.
Because I have something that I'm a little concerned about too.
And that is, in your ad, you said that the truck had 152,000 miles.
[Aubrey] Yes, correct.
But what the two of you may not know is
that our team does some independent research.
And they pulled up a Carfax, and the Carfax shows
that the last reported odometer reading
was 362,000 miles.
So, how do you explain that discrepancy?
[dramatic music playing]
[narrator] Coming up on Tribunal Justice…
If these things were wrong with the truck, we were misled as well,
because I would've never put my children
in an unsafe vehicle.
[theme music playing]
[narrator] Defendants Aubrey Bogosian and her mom, Alyssa Busser,
are being sued by Justin Robinson for $10,000.
Justin claims the defendants lied about the condition of a truck
he bought from them, but Aubrey says
Justin came, saw, and bought the truck as-is, so they owe nothing.
What the two of you may not know is
that our team does some independent research.
And they pulled up a Carfax, and the Carfax shows
that the last reported odometer reading
was 362,000 miles.
So, how do you explain that discrepancy?
When I got the vehicle, it had about 150,000.
[Acker] Where'd you get it from? You said it was gifted…
I got it from my father. He got it from an auction
probably two years before I had it.
[Acker] But you understand what's going on here?
Like, it all looks really bad.
And, Mom, did you have some way of refuting that?
-Because it's pretty compelling testimony. -[Alyssa] Mm-hmm.
[Acker] It's hard for me to get my head around
why he would just show up and lie.
So, how do you explain that? It's troubling.
Uh, for one, Aubrey really never spoke to Mr. Hefflin.
I spoke to Mr. Hefflin. The only time…
So much the worse. You're Mom.
…she spoke to him is when we picked up the truck.
And, um, he told her, in front of me, to her face,
"You do not have to sell this truck if you do not want to.
This is a good truck. It has a lot of good parts on it."
He said that to my daughter, to the point
where she felt like she didn't need to sell the truck anymore,
and she was conflicted. And that's why she cried
the day that Mr. Robinson was coming to get the truck,
because she genuinely loved the truck.
Now, if these things were wrong with the truck,
we were misled as well. Um, 100% misled.
Because Mr. Hefflin, what he projected to us
was that the truck could be bulletproof
and there would never be a head gasket issue.
He never specifically said, the head gasket is blown,
the head gasket has a problem. If that was the issue,
then why did he go through all these other efforts
of trying to figure out what was wrong with the truck,
you know, in between there?
Okay, I'm gonna stop you there, and I'm gonna let you,
or rather your witness, have the last word.
'Cause it's still your burden of proof.
I did. I said that this would be a good truck
if it had the head gaskets done.
And to speak to the bulletproofing,
that is a slang term used for doing head gaskets.
They're not two separate repairs.
I'm not aware of that.
He was not very clear on that the truck needed a head gasket.
He stated that a friend of his had a truck like that
for many, many years with lots of high mileage
that has never had a issue, so it would be fine if we didn't do it.
-Okay. -Mr. Hefflin knew my teenage daughter
was driving that vehicle every day with not only her
but my other three children in the vehicle every day.
Okay, okay.
If he knew it was unsafe, being a father himself,
I sure hope he would've pointed out, "Hey, Ms. Busser,
this vehicle is unsafe." Because I would've never
put my children in an unsafe vehicle.
-Okay. -[Alyssa] And that's the fact of it.
All right. Judge.
Thank you. I'm just curious, you know he has a family and all.
So, why when you were first asked, do you know him,
why did you both say no?
We didn't know him before.
We don't know him. We live in a very small town.
I think Judge Levy said, have you ever heard of him?
Do you know him?
-We said yes, ma'am. We did say yes. -[DiMango] No.
Did I see anybody say yes? I never saw a yes.
You know they're lying when their mouths are moving.
Ma'am, you both said no.
-Not on a personal level. -That's enough.
So, I'm gonna go back to you, Aubrey.
How long did you have that vehicle not working?
Like, before I took it to the shop?
-Yeah. -[Aubrey] Like…
a few months.
[DiMango] A few months. 'Cause you had the car
according to what you told us, your father bought it at auction
-two years before that. -Yeah, I'm pretty sure.
And in those two years, you only put on 2,000 miles?
We didn't ever drive it that often.
-When I got it… -[DiMango] It wasn't working.
We live a mile from our school.
-[DiMango] Aubrey? -My school is right around the corner
and that's where I drove it.
Okay. So, that brings me to you.
Because I'm guessing that if you said to her,
'cause most mechanics ask those questions,
what do you use the car for?
And if she said to you, I use it to go back and forth from school,
then you would've been correct if you said to her,
then you can keep this car as long as you want,
if that's all you're using it for.
Would that be an accurate statement by me?
Hm, no. The reason I say that is
it is hurting the heads to drive it like that. It will crack them further.
So, it is okay to drive,
but it will have more issues when driven like that.
I still think it's a solid truck if it had the head gasket job done.
I do, I mean, three of these a month.
It's a routine job for this pickup. It's just $12,000.
However you cut it, it's $12,000.
But that truck will run for 100,000 miles after that repair.
Did you ever tell her that she couldn't use it on the highway,
the way it was repaired?
No.
I told them specifically, that the truck was not ready to go down the road, period.
So, they could drive it on the highway if they wanted to.
That's not my… That's not my spot to make an assessment.
[DiMango] That's it. We're gonna retire to deliberate. Thank you.
Court is now in recess. Parties will be recalled.
[dramatic music playing]
[theme music playing]
Bald-face liars.
I mean, the mom was a co-conspirator in committing that fraud.
What is she teaching her daughter? I mean, her dad's in prison.
Her mother is telling her it's okay to lie and commit outright fraud.
Grand larceny. What she did was grand larceny.
I mean, it is absolutely insane.
But for the fact that we were able to secure the testimony
of that mechanic, Mr. Hefflin,
who I believe was super impressive…
-He was good. -Super impressive!
He was good.
We would've been in a position to say "as-is" sale.
Insane.
Now, he bought the truck from them for $15,000.
He sold it for $6,000.
My math… erhh… $9,000 is what is damage.
I would award him ten, and give him $1,000 for punitive damages
based upon the outright lies and the fraud
that not only that the two of those people committed
when they sold the truck to him, but the fraud on the court.
[Acker] I'm troubled by the evidence that came out.
And good on the plaintiff for having his case together,
because he had an almost insurmountable burden.
I mean, it is very rare that we unwind a used car sale.
But I think based on these facts,
and the facts that our own team uncovered about that Carfax,
which showed that the last reported odometer reading
was almost twice as many miles as the defendants represented.
So, I have no problem with the $10,000 verdict.
Oh, I have no problem with it either.
I think that there were misrepresentations by the defendant
to the plaintiff when he was making the purchase.
I think that a lot of this was done way under the cover,
based on the timing of the whole situation by the crying, the whole theatrics.
But on the other hand, I think that what we were doing
with the plaintiff is a lesson learned.
-Mm-hmm. -Mm-hmm.
You can't buy a used car at 9:30 at night,
negotiating prices before you even see it,
come across desperate because you want it,
not verify the information that you're being given,
that there was a mechanic that was warranting the work that was done.
So, I think that our Plaintiff, who might've been shooting from the hip
on a lot of prior car sales, learned here the hard way
that this was not the way to make a used car purchase.
I don't care how cute, little and young the seller appears to be.
Sometimes, looks are deceiving. And in this case, the truck looked good,
she looked credible, but they were both being deceitful and lying.
This is fraud at the inception. And when there's fraud at the inception,
it's our job to unwind the deal. Ten thousand seems fine.
[Levy] Thank you.
Court is back in session.
Parties are reminded that you're still under oath.
[Levy] Thank you, Cassandra.
We have deliberated, and we have reached a unanimous verdict.
First, thank you, sir, Mr. Hefflin, for coming in
and testifying, and informing and enlightening the court
as to the truth and the facts behind this case.
But for your testimony, this case, and I think that you know this, sir,
would've turned out much differently. You understand that.
Yes, sir. Yes, Your Honor.
[Levy] Now, Ms. Bogosian and Ms. Busser,
I'm gonna give you a little bit of free legal advice
from a former district attorney.
And I know that this is probably gonna hit home to you
because of where your dad is right now.
Mm-hmm.
What the two of you did was grand larceny by trick
based upon the fraud that you committed
by selling that truck and making material misrepresentations
to fool an innocent purchaser.
And you did it for money. And you, ma'am, as the mother,
to act as a co-conspirator with your teenage child.
If this case happened when she was 17,
and the authorities found out about it,
Child Protective Services would be involved.
You'd be dealing with them.
Now, you were suing for the jurisdictional maximum of $10,000.
Here's the problem with that. You bought it for $15,000.
You sold it for $6,000. That leaves $9,000.
-Right? -Yes, Your Honor.
But the court has decided that based upon your egregious conduct,
not just by committing fraud against him,
but coming into this court and committing fraud on the court
that punitive damages are appropriate.
A thousand dollars. So, it is the unanimous verdict of this court,
judgment in favor of the plaintiff for $10,000.
Good luck to you, sir. Do better.
-[gavel bangs] -[Justin] Thank you, Your Honors.
[Britt] This case has concluded. All parties are excused.
The image of my daughter right now is very incorrect.
She's a very honest human.
Once I realized on messenger, she just blocked me, it wasn't gonna go that way.
There was a lot of lies told in the courtroom today,
and they were not by us.
Verbal agreements should always be written down.
We would've never ripped somebody off in that manner.
Oh, I feel like I got stabbed in the stomach.
Mr. Hefflin, um, was not very clear on the facts.
I was trying to help. I gave them a discount.
And it bit me in the ass.
-No. -I'm glad it's over.
She might sell used cars, but I will not.
I will.
Apple doesn't fall far from the tree.
[narrator] Have you been scammed?
Let the majority rule in your favor on Tribunal Justice.
Find us on social media.
[theme music playing]