This is not the first time that he's cheated on me.
Did you sign this promissory note?
She said, you're gonna sign these or I'm gonna make your life miserable.
You say, there are a few things that we need to agree on
in exchange for your freedom.
Quite frankly, I view your relationship with him to be abusive on your end.
He's the cheater. He's a liar.
Let it go.
The best vengeance in the world is moving forward with your life.
[narrator] Now, on Tribunal Justice.
[theme music playing]
[narrator] Today's case was filed in Redwood City, California.
Your Honor, this is case number 3080 on the calendar
in the matter of Macariola versus Chartrand.
-Thank you, Byrd. -Uh-huh.
Parties have been sworn in. You may be seated.
Ma'am, have a seat, please.
Ms. Macariola, you and the defendant, Mr. Chartrand
were in a 16-year relationship.
You maintain, ma'am, that when it ended,
he agreed to pay certain of your living expenses.
And you're now suing him because you say that he violated that agreement.
You also claim that after he moved out, you lost your job because of him.
You're asking for our court maximum of $10,000,
which includes your claim for living expenses, rent,
and also for punitive damages.
Mr. Chartrand, you say that she's made demands of you,
threatened you, made up her own rules and forced you to live by them.
You, in fact, have a countersuit against her for $9,018.
You want her to pay her portion of the rent and utilities
that you maintain she never paid.
And you also want her to return certain of your belongings.
You're also asking that we order her to apologize
for insulting your new partner.
[Lionel] Yes.
[Acker] Can we put up Exhibit 13?
'Cause I think it's sometimes nice to start in the beginning,
before things got so volatile.
So, ma'am, this is you and the defendant in happier times.
-[Debbie] Yes. -[Acker] Right there.
You submitted this evidence.
Why was it important for us to see that?
Well, because we did have a relationship.
Though we were not married, we were living as husband and wife.
We had planned for our future. We had planned for our retirement.
-Until... -[Acker] Sixteen years is a long time.
It's a long time.
-You were both living in a rented home? -Yes.
-Who was on the lease? -Both of us.
-[Acker] You were both on the lease? -Yes.
[Acker] So, fast forward 16 years.
Can we put up Exhibit 14, please?
Ms. Macariola, you said, I think you hate me.
And you've made a point, sir, of saying, I don't.
I was hoping we could separate on a friendly basis.
Do you remember around approximately when you sent that text message?
Was it before or after you moved out on November 18th?
-I believe it was before. -[Acker] It was before.
Because at this point, things seem to be fairly civil.
Then we come to the time whereupon you move out.
Can we please put up the promissory note?
-Well, actually, Your Honor... -Yes.
Um, in June is when I discovered
that his now fiancée was pursuing him.
'Cause he is a karaoke DJ at the lounge
where they managed to get me 86'd and lose my job.
We'll address that. Right now, though, I want to focus on the promissory note.
So, November 18th, 2024, this is a note
in which you detail what you maintain will be his obligations to you.
When did you write it? I know that it's dated on the 18th...
I wrote it on the morning of the 18th.
[Acker] You wrote it the morning he was moving out.
November 16, we went out as a couple. We went to a karaoke show.
We even had a romantic evening. That was a Saturday night.
And then, Sunday, he claimed he was gonna go to his job,
and when he came back, he was very quiet, very cold.
And I asked him what are our plans for Thanksgiving.
I don't know. What are our plans for Christmas?
-I don't know. -[Acker] You knew something was going on.
-Something was wrong. -[Acker] You knew there was somebody else.
You also knew that about him. I saw a text message where you said,
when he met you, he was married to somebody else.
-And had a girlfriend on the side. -Yes.
-[Acker] And you. -[Debbie] Yes.
[Acker] Fast forward, here we are.
-I want to talk about the promissory note. -Mm-hmm.
[Acker] Sir, did you sign this promissory note?
Yes.
Can you describe the circumstances under which you signed this?
I was heading out the front door and she was yelling at me.
She says, you're gonna sign these or I'm gonna make your life miserable.
She threatened to turn me into the police department
and she mentioned S.W.A.T. about... I have a collection of rifles and guns.
I'm a sport hunter.
And none of 'em are registered.
In California, it's a voluntary act.
[Acker] So, she made threats. This is the duress that you refer to.
-Yes. -[Acker] Now, I want to talk
about the content of the note, ma'am,
because you give him a whole list of things he has to do.
He has to pay the rent, he has to keep you as his insurance beneficiary.
-There's a myriad of items you demand. -Mm-hmm.
Yes.
You say, there are a few things that we need to agree on
in exchange for your freedom.
Now, tell me what you mean by that.
Well, because after...
This is not the first time that he's cheated on me.
This is actually the third and final time.
And I was the one that asked him to leave.
[Acker] Let me explain to you what I see is the legal status of your note
because in order for any contract to be enforceable,
there has to be what's known as consideration.
Right? So, if you agree to do X for me, then you have to get something
in exchange for that. That's the consideration.
The consideration that you're purporting to offer in this note is his freedom.
And that's not anything... You don't own that.
If you go to page two, Your Honor, it also states
in exchange for his freedom, in addition to that,
it says that he can store his stuff there...
That's the right answer.
But in order for that to constitute legal consideration,
it has to be something that was bargained for.
He has to say, you know what, I need to store my things here.
And secondly, if you're on the lease and he's on the lease,
then you don't have the right to withhold from him
the opportunity to store his things.
He's a legal resident and occupant of that home.
Well, until February 18th.
[Acker] What happens on February 18th?
[dramatic music playing]
[narrator] Coming up on Tribunal Justice.
When you first met him, he was married, had a girlfriend,
had this and had you.
You know, there's an expression we use in Brooklyn
which is, "cheat with me, cheat on me."
It's gonna happen.
[theme music playing]
[narrator] Debbie Macariola says cheating ex-boyfriend
Lionel Chartrand agreed to support her after they broke up.
Now, she wants $10,000
for living expenses and punitive damages after he quit paying.
But Lionel claims he only agreed to support Debbie
after she threatened to call the police.
He's countersuing for belongings and expenses already paid.
If you're on the lease and he's on the lease,
then you don't have the right to withhold from him
the opportunity to store his things.
He's a legal resident and occupant of that home.
Well, until February 18th.
[Acker] What happens on February 18th?
I signed a new lease.
[Acker] When do you come to pick up your things, sir?
I think it was a week after.
And then, what happened when you got there?
[Lionel] She wasn't there. I entered the home. I had my own keys.
And I proceeded to the bedroom to remove my bedroom set.
Started dismantling it.
Our bedroom set.
[Lionel] And then, she shows up
and starts readin' me the riot act and yelling at me.
She says she's gonna call the police.
[Acker] You did call the police.
-Yes, I did, ma'am. -[Lionel] Can I clarify that?
Of course, sir.
[Lionel] I asked her to call the police.
Half an hour goes by, approximately, and no police show up.
And I asked her, did you call the police? She said, yes, I did.
So, I said, no, I will call the police.
I called the police and they were there in five minutes.
Any reason why you couldn't come before?
I work for a company, we do power for television, sports.
Whoop-di-do.
[Acker] Were you able to retrieve your items?
I retrieved what I had to have out of the house.
A lot of stuff missing.
But you're now suing for the return of the remainder of those items.
And then, I note that of particular import to you
is a tool set that you have in the basement.
That's correct.
-[Acker] You still have his tool set? -No.
-[Acker] What happened to it? -Sold it.
[Acker] You sold it. How much did you get for the tools?
[Debbie] Two thousand dollars.
[Acker] Why did you think you had the right to sell his property?
Because I gave him notice. Um, Civil Code 1983
which says I can give him 15 days. And after 15 days...
[Acker] Let me interrupt you.
The Civil Code section you refer to, Section 1983 of the California Civil Code,
applies to landlords. What that provision says is
that if the tenant's items are still on the property
-after the conclusion of the lease... -Mm-hmm.
[Acker] ...then the landlord has the right to dispose of those items.
While you are responsible for that property,
that doesn't necessarily give you the unilateral right
to dispose of his property as you choose.
I'm gonna pass the case for the moment to Judge DiMango.
You know, I'm listening to you and your tone and your demeanor,
and you, and I'm watching you.
And this is a very messy, messy situation.
But the truth is, it's your fault.
Because of the way you have engaged in your personal life.
I mean, she's angry. But your anger is really kinda misplaced.
'Cause you're really angry at her. Which is why you insulted her.
And you two ladies, like it or not, are exactly the same.
When you first met him, he was married, had a girlfriend,
had this and had you. Same for you.
You know, there's an expression we use in Brooklyn
which is, "cheat with me, cheat on me."
It's gonna happen.
-Yes, ma'am. -[DiMango] That's who he is.
Yeah, he's got guns, but he's absolutely right.
In California, the law is that he does not have to register.
They're long arms, most of them.
-[Debbie] Yeah. -[DiMango] They're locked up.
Can we have photos of the guns?
They're in the home, they're locked up. They're safe.
And the law is on his side with regard to this.
You want him in jail? Is that gonna make you feel better?
No, ma'am. What I didn't appreciate
was when he trespassed...
Oh, come on, stop. That's baloney. It's him, period.
May I talk?
What are you going to explain?
I've not been happy for many years.
-[DiMango] That doesn't matter. -You should've left.
[DiMango] Thank you. She's right about that.
But you've got to follow the law.
And the law here is whether or not that promissory note
was voluntarily signed. Whether or not your threats
that you would withhold his property is sufficient as consideration in here.
Because to say while I was living with him and we were sleeping together,
that's not legal consideration.
'Cause that would make prostitution legal.
So, that's not really what this is about.
It's about, could you say to him, you are not legally married.
You know, that's a problem. There's no palimony here in California.
There's no seven years living together rule.
There's none of that. This is just a promissory note.
You telling him, sign this 'cause I want these things.
And basically, he's saying, you know, I don't really have to.
Actually, Judge, the morning of the 18th,
he was the one who told me,
don't worry, I will take care of you.
I will pay for the rent, and I will help support you.
That's what he said, and I put it in writing.
Hold on. Did you say to her that you were going to take care
-of the rent and things? -No.
Did you ever say you were gonna help her in some way because of her illnesses?
-Did you ever say anything... -No.
-Liar! -[Byrd] Miss...
-[Debbie] You're a liar. -Miss, miss, stop.
[scoffs]
[DiMango] Let me say this to you.
You've got to get yourself in a place where you're not this angry,
because you're not gonna be happy with who you are.
Judge Levy?
[Levy] I agree with Judge Acker and Judge DiMango on this point.
That there's no way that I see that agreement as being enforceable.
Well, I just put in writing, sir, what he told me that morning.
[Levy] Okay, that's not true.
Because I know that he's a pathological liar.
This is what he told you that morning.
That he would maintain the joint checking account
because that's where your social security is deposited automatically,
and also that would make it easier to transfer money to you.
These are all things you claim he said in the morning?
-Yes... -[Levy] Is that true?
-No. -[Levy] No, of course not.
He said to you that morning that the reason
he's gonna keep you on the joint account is
because your settlement check will be deposited there.
And he told you that it could no longer be changed.
That is, you had a lawsuit pending.
-Right? -Yes, sir.
-[Levy] Against Johnson & Johnson, right? -Yes, sir.
[Levy] And you told him that he had to keep that checking account
in joint names because your settlement check
could only go to that joint account.
He told you that or you told him that?
-No, we agreed on that. -[Levy] I don't buy that for a second.
You claim also, in that letter,
that he agreed to keep the AARP membership in your name?
-No. -No, I asked him to.
-[chuckles] Did you agree to keep it... -No.
[Levy] No, of course not.
Or that he would agree to maintain your Mercedes indefinitely?
-Did you tell that to her? -Absolutely not.
[Levy] Of course not. These are a few things
that we need to agree, quote, "in exchange for your freedom."
Can you imagine what would happen if a man said that to a woman?
'Cause quite frankly, I view your relationship with him
to be abusive on your end.
[dramatic music playing]
[narrator] Coming up on Tribunal Justice.
How long have you known,
and how long have you been in possession of those unregistered guns?
How long have you been breaking the law along with him?
[theme music playing]
[narrator] Debbie Macariola claims ex-boyfriend
Lionel Chartrand agreed to support her after they broke up,
but he stopped. So, she's suing for $10,000.
But Lionel says he only agreed
because Debbie threatened to call the police.
Now, he's countersuing for belongings and expenses already paid.
These are a few things that we need to agree,
quote, "in exchange for your freedom."
Can you imagine what would happen if a man said that to a woman?
'Cause quite frankly, I view your relationship with him
to be abusive on your end.
How did I victimize him when he's the cheater?
He's a liar.
This is what he said to you on August 13th in a text.
He says, I slowly lost my love for you, it will never come back.
I'm not angry with you. All your threats drove me even further from you.
You responded, you had not only a wife when we met, but a mistress too.
You dropped the other two like hot potatoes
with regard for their feelings.
Only cared about chasing the love you needed to have,
which is ruled by your penis. Here you go again. That's what you said.
Yes.
[Levy] You go on; I also heard you sing your songs
to me then and to her now. That's his new girlfriend, right?
-[Debbie] Yes, sir. -[Levy] You told him
I made you look good. I taught you how to dress.
You were trailer trash when I met you.
-I taught you table manners. -[Debbie] Yes, I did.
I had to make you acceptable to my family and friends.
And finally, this issue with the guns. 'Cause that's really important to me.
You provided us with a photograph of the guns, right?
[Debbie] Yes, I did.
You knew that these guns were not registered, correct?
How long have you known and how long have you been in possession
of those unregistered guns?
You!
They're his, they're not mine.
[Levy] Doesn't make a difference. You're both in possession of them.
You both live in the house. You both have access to them.
How long have you been breaking the law along with him?
I'm done.
-[DiMango] Any further questions? -[Acker] Yes. Ma'am...
What's your name, please?
Wilhelmina Malinao.
If you could please, take the stand briefly.
And this dovetails to some extent, sir, with your countersuit.
Because you are countersuing the plaintiff for rent, for utilities,
and you want us to order her to apologize for calling your new partner
a name that I don't think is worth repeating here.
But why should I impose on her a rental obligation at that point?
Because it seems like, listen, you're still on the lease.
You felt badly that she felt badly.
And this is separate from whether or not that agreement is enforceable.
I'm just saying, I don't see any basis for now saying she has to pay rent.
Like, you were paying for things. When she got a new lease,
then she pays the rent.
I understand what you're saying. I would've never taken it this far.
But because she brought me here, this is why this all came about.
All I want her to do is just walk away.
It was really kind of, you're suing me,
so I'm gonna throw something back atcha.
That's candid. And then, the final point with respect to your counterclaim,
there is a Facebook post, ma'am, that the defendant submitted
where you made reference to his girlfriend breaking up your family.
And you don't deny making that post.
No, I don't.
-[Acker] She uses the term "home wrecker." -Yes.
I don't know that we have jurisdiction to order her to apologize,
um, that that's necessarily actionable, but I'll discuss it with my colleagues.
I don't have anything else.
Do you really feel that that's important to you,
or have you been able to put this into perspective, ma'am?
Um, I would just like to stop her
from going where we go.
'Cause for the past three years that they were together,
as a DJ, she never attended any of the shows.
But when I came to his life, she started coming along.
So, you're upset about that. I understand that.
You all have to stay...
Yeah, you all have to stay out of each other's business.
And ma'am, do you understand that she's not to blame
any more than you were to blame in your situation.
Do you understand that?
It's nothing about you. Let it go.
The best vengeance in the world is moving forward with your life.
Okay, that being said, we're gonna retire to deliberate.
-You can have a seat. -Yes, ma'am.
Court now stands in recess.
This case will be recalled. Parties are excused.
Let's start with the complaint. The promissory note is,
to put it mildly, problematic. There's no consideration.
Even if you were to suggest, as I think she tried to,
that his storage of the property there was the thing he bargained for,
he still had some right to have his property there.
So, the agreement, I think, is clearly unenforceable.
I'm not prepared to impose any sort of punitive damage liability
on the defendant. You know, I don't know that she really elaborated,
but I guess what she's referring to when she says that she lost her job,
it's because he DJs at a place,
and I think she may have worked there as a bartender.
She was tending bar two days a week, and they took those days away.
-Yeah, because... -There was conflict.
There was conflict. She was creating a scene.
So, I'm not gonna blame him for that.
I would dismiss the complaint in its entirety.
I would absolutely dismiss it in its entirety.
There's no legal basis for the document she had him sign.
I mean, I looked carefully at the California law.
There is no palimony. There is no seven year,
if you live together, we can treat you as a husband and wife.
She is not entitled to anything. There was no consideration in that.
The storage situation; she's not his landlord.
He did have a right to keep the property there, he was there awhile.
And there was no agreement. Listen, he is what he is.
He was a liar and a cheater from the beginning.
She got involved with him. She knew he cheated on her too.
I don't know what she wants punitive damages for.
I don't see any basis for recovery on that promissory note,
or by any other oral or written agreement that they have.
I agree that there's no way to enforce that coercive letter.
The only thing I would add is that I believe
that he did make out his burden of duress and coercion.
And she was vindictive, and she was angry,
and Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.
[Acker] Which brings us to his countersuit.
He says in his countersuit, I'm not looking for money from her,
but he actually is looking for money from her.
He's looking for money that he paid
pursuant to this clearly unenforceable agreement.
Because he was afraid she was gonna go to the police and have him arrested.
-That's the whole duress. -And ruin his life.
And call the police about the guns.
I was originally inclined to dismiss the countersuit.
Order her to return whatever property she has.
It's not clear she has any of his property,
or what state his property would be in,
given the tensions that exist between the two of them.
I'm still inclined, I think, to dismiss the rent claim.
Because at some point, even when he moved out,
he was still on that lease for a number of months,
and he had some obligation to pay.
And I'm troubled by the unenforceable agreement
that she forced him to sign under threat.
I'm leaning toward giving him at least $2,000
because she said she made that on the transaction.
I'm willing to give him all he's asking for.
If you look at the list he broke down, he moved out on the 18th.
And he's documented the bills that he paid from his time of move out.
November, December, January, February. March for the cable.
He was paying the auto insurance from November through February.
I mean, so, he really did exceed the amount that he's asking for.
So, I'm willing to give him what he's asked for, $9,018.
I agree.
Um, let me give it a think.
-You think about that. -All right.
See maybe where you could sell your tools.
[both laugh]
Court is back in session.
Parties are reminded you're still under oath.
-Thank you, Byrd. -Mm-hmm.
We've deliberated and we've reached a verdict
that is in fact unanimous.
I'm gonna start with the complaint, Ms. Macariola.
You came to court suing on the basis of the promissory note that you drafted.
But that agreement, such as it is, just doesn't comport
with the legal requirements to be a valid contract.
There was no consideration.
He did have some right to continue to store his belongings there
for some period of time. You did not have the right to sell them.
So, even if that were the consideration for which he was bargaining,
that wouldn't be sufficient,
because he did had a right to still keep his property there.
And you did not have the right to withhold from him his freedom.
-You didn't have that right. -Yes, I know that.
You're certainly angry, and I'm not saying you don't have a right to be.
But those things just can't support a lawsuit.
So, ma'am, we are unanimous in dismissing it.
Mr. Chartrand, I was actually conflicted about your countersuit.
Because you are suing her for rent and some other obligations
that on the one hand, I'm like, maybe these are things he agreed to do
as he'd been doing them when they were together.
But upon hearing further testimony and consulting with my colleagues,
I do believe, as both Judges Levy and DiMango do,
that you made those later rent payments and other payments that you made to her
because you were under the impression that you had to comply with an agreement
that one, was not only legally unenforceable,
but that we do believe that you signed it
because she was threatening to go to the police
and to report you to authorities for things that could've been compromising,
-even if there was no basis for them. -Yes, ma'am.
So, we are unanimous in sustaining the terms of your countersuit.
Ma'am, it's horrible that you have to be caught up as a player in this,
but you also knew what you were getting into.
Yes, ma'am.
-It cannot feel good. -Yes, ma'am.
But everybody has to move on. Sir, we are unanimous
in sustaining your countersuit for the entire amount you've requested,
the $9,018.
And frankly, I think that we're beyond the point of apologies.
Everybody just needs to cut ties, move on,
and have the best lives that they can.
Judgment in favor of the defendant on his countersuit for $9,018.
-Good luck, everyone. -[gavel bangs]
[Byrd] This case is now concluded.
Parties are excused. You may step out.
No contract holds in court apparently, even though it is agreed on and signed.
That's what I would've decided on.
Well, this all stems from his now fiancée because she doesn't like me around him.
She talks individually to every member of the church
and bad mouths me.
I called her a home wrecker.
And then, she calls me like...
transvestite.
Because I loved him and I had compassion for him
because when I met him, he had nothing.
Yeah, I just want her to stay out of our lives.
And for us, I want us to move on.
[narrator] Did someone break an agreement?
Let Tribunal Justice decide your case.
Find us on social media.
[theme music playing]