[narrator] Now, on Tribunal Justice…
It looks like you were in a relationship for about 10 years.
She took the car, she left.
So then, pay for half the car and we're done.
Threats of wage garnishment, I'm hiring a lawyer.
The last email he sent called me a liar and a thief.
She sent me an email saying, "I hid the car."
Maybe because you were being so overbearing.
She didn't want to be with you anymore! Get it through your head.
So, one thing you did not provide us was the Bill of Sale. Why?
[theme music playing]
[narrator] Today's case was filed in Sacramento, California.
Your Honor, this is Case #3096, Duckett vs. Anderson.
-All parties have been sworn in. -Thank you, Cassandra.
You may be seated.
[Levy] Okay, Mr. Duckett, it looks like you and the Defendant
were in a relationship for about 10 years.
-And you lived together. -Yes.
According to your complaint, in 2023,
you jointly purchased a car, and you each contributed half.
-Yes. -[Levy] After you broke up,
the Defendant took the car, and you're now suing her
for your $7,000 contribution.
Well, we didn't break up, she left.
-[Levy] I get that. Ms. Anderson? -Mm-hmm.
[Levy] You claim the car is yours, even though he contributed half,
because he had crashed your car
that resulted in the purchasing of this newer one.
-Right. -[Levy] Okay.
So, Mr. Duckett, why don't you tell us the circumstances that led to the purchase
of this car that we're now fighting about, which is what type of car?
A 2006 Toyota Matrix.
[Levy] Let's take a look at that so we know what we're talking about,
#01, please.
-Is that the vehicle? -[Steven] It is.
And you can actually see me and my dog in the back of the picture.
This is when I first found it.
[Levy] What's the name of the pooch?
-[Steven] Tiger Five. -[Levy] Tiger Five?
Yeah. He was a good dog. Unfortunately, he got cancer.
-Mm. -And I was having to take him
-[Levy] Sorry about that. -[Steven] and spent a lot of money
on him at the vet. I needed a car to haul him back and forth.
Uh, I just want to correct one thing on the accident in Linda's car.
Linda was with me. We were at a red light, sitting, and a lady rear-ended us.
-[Levy] Is that right? -I did not wreck her car.
[Levy] All right. Well, that was unclear to me.
Let's put up that car. Go to Eleven.
-Ms. Anderson, this was your car? -[Linda] Yes.
[Levy] It was an '05 what?
Pontiac Sunfire. And it did get totaled.
Did you receive any money as a result of this accident?
I did, and I gave all the money I received from that car to him.
And how much was that?
I think it was $5,000.
[Levy] It was $5,000 that you contributed
directly from the proceeds of the insurance claim?
-Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. -It was $1,000 from your savings.
And $100 checks…
For $1,500.
Exactly, for $1,500. Which represented your one-half share.
-[Linda] Mm-hmm. -Okay.
-Now, back to you, Mr. Duckett. -Yes, sir.
Can we put up #03, please?
That's your check, sir. March 18th, $11,000, correct?
Yes. And two days later I spent $2,400 at Les Schwab getting tires…
everything making it as new as possible.
[Levy] This is a document you prepared for the purposes of this litigation?
-Yes, sir. -[Levy] And this just gives us an idea
as to the items that you added to the vehicle after its purchase, yes?
[Steven] Yes, sir.
One thing you did not provide us with, Mr. Duckett, was the Bill of Sale.
Was there anything on that Bill of Sale you didn't want us to see?
No, sir. It was in her name.
[Levy] So, you agree that the car, after it was purchased on March 18th,
was registered in the Defendant's name.
-[Steven] Yes. -[Levy] Why?
We're both licensed insurance agents in the state of California.
So we understand the liability questions
regarding people driving cars and getting hit.
I had recently inherited a little money.
Uh, that was how I was able to purchase this vehicle.
And at the time, we agreed that since I work from home,
and I didn't need to drive to work, she drove to work every day.
If she got hit, and we were both co-owners,
they could then come after my deeper pockets.
The money that you got from the inheritance,
was it six figures or less?
-[Steven] It was six figures. -It was six figures. All right.
So, at the time we discussed the liability issue,
I said, well, from here on, you will pay taxes and insurance and upkeep,
and we'll put it in your name for the liability issue.
[Levy] Yeah, but first of all, is that correct, ma'am?
He never said anything about the liability purposes.
He just said, we're gonna put it in your name since you drive it to work.
[Levy] Okay. Tell us the circumstances, ma'am, of you moving out.
Well, the place that we lived was just, um, the electricity didn't work.
I had to turn everything off to blow dry my hair.
Blow fuses, always having to go and do fuses, and things like that.
Um, he had inherited some money,
but made no attempt to try to improve our lifestyle at all.
Um, the place was constantly cluttered. So, I found this room to rent.
And it's a really nice room. And so, I moved out.
But I was still driving him around in the car.
But he wasn't paying for any of the fuel or anything.
Is that consistent with your understanding?
Kinda. She was… When Tiger, when I had to put him down,
she told me at the time, she wasn't gonna go through that with me again.
I got a rescue dog, and ended up having to spend $3,000 on him.
And you used your inheritance to do that.
And you weren't all that thrilled with him using the inheritance in that way.
-No. -[Steven] I would like to say,
that when she moved out, she sent me pictures
of the water bowls and the dog beds and said my house was too cluttered.
And she said to me, several times, I like the dog hair-free zone.
She's never been what I would call a dog person. [laughs]
Yeah. I just couldn't live in that house anymore.
-[Levy] Okay. -It's a rental, by the way.
I don't have the right to change anything. So, [chuckles], anyhow…
What I think Ms. Anderson is saying is she was hoping for an upgrade.
[Steven] Well, what am I supposed to say?
You know. "Oh, please, come back." No.
So, I said, okay. So, she did. And then, November 3rd,
she texted me that hey, she's at the airport,
and she's going on a cruise to Jamaica, and don't text or call her.
And then, when she got back, she emailed me.
"I went on this trip, I didn't tell you about it.
I knew you'd be upset because," you know, she's been coming around my house…
That's okay. "I knew you'd be upset…"
[Steven] Because I've been feeding her.
I felt sorry for her 'cause she's always got money problems.
That's why she kept coming around. I was feeding her and felt sorry for her.
What about the car?
Well, then she sent me an email saying, "I hid the car."
[dramatic music playing]
[narrator] Coming up on Tribunal Justice…
This was the one that was name-calling. And I kept saying, hey…
[Acker] You got mad, and I'm quoting you.
"She never had any money. I had to feed her."
He makes you sound like you're some kind of stray puppy he rescued.
[theme music playing]
[narrator] Steven Duckett is suing ex-girlfriend Linda Anderson,
claiming after they bought a car together, she left him and took the car.
He wants over $7,000, his half of the car cost back.
But Linda says they only bought the car because Steven wrecked her car.
So, she owes nothing.
What about the car?
[Steven] Well, then she sent me an email saying, "I hid the car.
I went and hid it 'cause I was afraid when I came back
-you wouldn't give it back to me." -[Levy] Is that right, ma'am?
Well, partly. And partly because the cars had been hit twice in that spot
where we park it at his house.
And I was worried somebody was gonna hit it again.
Okay. But you knew if he took it back…
-I might not get it back. -Exactly.
-Thank you. Judge Acker. -[Acker] Thank you, Judge.
I'm not gonna hold my cards too close to the vest.
The title, to me, is somewhat dispositive.
So, it's your burden to prove that I should discount
a document that says it's her car.
I'd also ask you why the heck you think you're entitled to the full value?
I mean, cars depreciate.
Okay. She sent me emails saying that she owed me the $7,000.
She agreed that was the price of the car.
Maybe because you were being so overbearing.
I was not being overbearing. I was very polite in those emails.
As a matter of fact, she was the one that was name-calling.
And I kept saying, look…
[Acker] You got mad, and I'm quoting you.
"She never had any money. I had to feed her."
He makes you sound like you're some kind of stray puppy he rescued.
But I noted, ma'am, that you indicated
that you had some property that you'd contributed to your…
-Household? -[Acker] …to your household,
-that he still has. -Yes.
-The treadmill. -The treadmill.
I spent $1,000 on the treadmill.
He thinks it's his because it replaced an old broken one.
-Uh, you bought the new one. -[Linda] Mm-hmm.
It actually worked. She, we used it for two years.
Then, when it broke, she bought a new one.
With her, "she never had any money, and she was always having money problems."
I put her through bankruptcy already once, Your Honor.
It seemed like you really want to put her through that again
with the threats of wage garnishment, I'm hiring a lawyer.
-I explained to her, I told her… -[Acker] No, no…
I said look, could you please make payments…
Sir, you didn't say, could you please make payments.
I'm gonna read your messages right now.
"You will now need to pay me $200 per month
until you have paid the amount of $7,000 for the 2006 Toyota Matrix,
which you have taken!"
Yeah.
[Acker] "I will be paying the attorney $2,000
and a court filing fee of almost $1,000 to bring suit against you.
If you do not pay me for my car, I will include those charges
and your debt will be $10,000."
Now, does that sound like, "Would you please, just contribute?"
Why do you think that the car should be appreciated
at a value from several years ago?
Cars depreciate.
They do, but the loans and the banks don't…
You don't go to the bank after you've bought a car a few years…
-[Acker] You're not a bank. -I was the bank.
You're not a bank, you were her boyfriend.
Some of the money to purchase the car was hers, sir.
-No, it wasn't. -[Acker] Did you contribute $5,000?
[Steven] After I had purchased the car.
She gave you $5,000 of her money. Now you're being petty.
I do not see how, even if you have an ownership interest at this point,
that we can value a car in the same way we did two years ago.
I know you'd like to see yourself standing in the stead of a bank.
And I have a legal document that says whose car it is.
That's why we have such legal documents.
I don't have anything else. Judge DiMango?
When was the last time you saw one another?
The last time I talked to him, when he,
at the last email he sent called me a liar and a thief.
And I've not talked to him since.
[DiMango] How long ago was that? It's been awhile?
Awhile ago. Yeah.
I like to look at a big picture. You're together 10 years.
In the course of those 10 years, you shared your life.
Sometimes you paid more, sometimes you paid more.
Sometimes you didn't pay at all.
But anyway, so now, you have this car.
And you want to pay the least amount of insurance.
You both know what the insurance companies are looking for.
So, you put it in her name.
Because she's judgment proof, basically. You've got nothing.
So, when Joe hits the back of your car
and he thinks he's got a bad back or whatever and he sues you,
he gets nothing.
If he sued you, he'd be looking at a six-figure amount.
-Yes, ma'am. -You both wanted to protect yourselves.
-Would I be right? -[Steven] Yes, ma'am.
-Would I be right? -Yes. I just needed a car.
So, you gave $7,000.
You gave $5,600, plus $1,000, plus some other money.
-And you admit it was $7,000. -Yes, ma'am.
So, the vehicle cost $11,000, and the $3,000 in extras.
You paid $14,000. You paid for it. You paid cash for it, right?
-Yes, or no? -Yes, I wrote a check.
I would like to say, I didn't even ask her for the money she owed me
when she moved out the beginning of the month.
I didn't include any of that.
She just left, and I didn't…
She didn't want to be with you anymore. Get it through your head!
[dramatic music playing]
[narrator] Coming up on Tribunal Justice…
You mentioned just now that the car was involved in an accident
and she paid for it. Was she driving?
[theme music playing]
[narrator] Steven Duckett says ex-girlfriend Linda Anderson
left him one day with the car they bought together.
He's suing for the money he paid plus rental costs
totaling over $7,000.
But Linda says Steven totaled her old car.
The new one's hers, and she's not paying anything.
[DiMango] She took the car, she left.
She just wanted out because she was not being fulfilled by you.
You know that. Am I right?
Right. So, pay me for half the car and we're done.
-That's all I ask for. -[DiMango] That's the point we're making.
What is that half value, if you get it at all?
She had major money problems, and she was having billing problems.
So, she told me she was gonna save money by moving to this new place.
She was lying to you. She wanted to get away, okay.
That's what made me mad, she lied.
I never said that.
But the reality is, you both half-own this vehicle.
So, when you take the whole car, in my mind this is now.
When you take the whole car, he's entitled to something.
But he's not entitled, in my view, to $7,000.
That was years ago.
The value of that car today is about $4,700.
So, even if I were to think that you would buy him out of the car…
Mm-hmm.
…you might only be selling that car for $4,700.
Now, for me, I just need to decide how much it is,
if you want to keep the car,
how much it is that he would be entitled to, if at all.
And so, that's where my mind is at this moment.
I'm done.
So, Mr. Duckett, if I understand you correctly,
in response to Judge DiMango, you would say, "No, she owes me $7,000
-because she agreed to $7,000." -Yes, sir.
And she agreed to $7,000 in an email on November 11th.
[Steven] Yes, sir.
[Levy] That's not what the email says.
Let's put it up. It's really small, but let me do this.
So, on the top, the Defendant is listing items
that she paid for during the relationship.
Treadmill, shed, lamp, shelf, curio cabinet, dishes.
She says, "I think it's interesting that you want to sue me over $7,000
when the car is registered to me.
I was looking at getting a loan to pay you,
but you've gone over the deep end again.
And why still $7,000?
You've had use of the car for over a year."
She's making the depreciation argument right there.
You would agree that up to that point, there has been no agreement to $7,000.
In that conversation, no.
This is the only evidence of that $7,000 agreement that you're relying on.
And she paid me her half for $7,000.
[Levy] It doesn't make a difference.
All I'm doing is showing you proof that you provided us
that contradicts that testimony.
The amount was never agreed to, correct?
Correct.
When there's not a meeting of the minds,
there can be no contract.
-You agree with that? -Yes.
[Levy] In addition, my question to you is
was the vehicle, in November of 2024,
in the exact same condition as it was in March of 2023?
No, it was better.
It was better?
I spent all that money to make it a brand new vehicle.
[Levy] What about an accident? Was it in an accident?
-It was. -[Levy] It was in an accident.
And she had to pay to fix it.
[Levy] It doesn't make a difference.
Let me ask you this, since you are in the insurance business.
When a car is involved in an accident, does it make its value higher or lower?
-It depreciates. -[Levy] There we go.
You acknowledge the depreciation.
And you acknowledge that the reason why you put it in her name,
and only her name, was to protect yourself
from anyone ever coming after you and your inheritance.
So, that means, that if the two of you were together in the car,
you were driving, and there's a crash, and someone sues successfully.
They sue the owner of the vehicle, correct?
Yes, sir.
-[Levy] That's her. -Right.
[Levy] And because you're not listed anywhere on the ownership paperwork,
that person would have no way to collect from you,
but can go after her, garnish wages from her.
-Right? -Mm-hmm.
So, what you really did, with all due respect,
is shoot yourself in the foot.
'Cause what you did was by trying to absolve yourself
of any and all future liability
gave up all rights, title and interest in that vehicle to her,
so that any liability attaches to her and protects yourself.
No, that was the whole intention of putting it in her name
was to protect my money from that.
It was our money, basically.
-You know? -[Levy] I got it.
So, that was the whole point.
[Acker] Quick question for you, sir.
You mentioned just now that the car was involved in an accident,
and she paid for it. Was she driving?
No, it was parked.
-[Acker] It was parked. -Somebody hit it.
Somebody hit it, and she paid for those damages.
Yes. Her insurance paid for it.
Your insurance. So, it's a mark on your insurance?
It was the second time my car got hit in front of his house.
[Acker] Thank you.
We're gonna retire to deliberate. Thank you both.
Court is now in recess. All parties will be recalled.
[theme music playing]
The way I see it, he's arguing breach of contract.
Breach of an oral contract that she agreed to pay $7,000.
And therefore, she should be held to that agreement.
I think we've all been through it. There is no meeting of the minds.
There was no agreement as to the $7,000.
So, his breach of contract claim, in my opinion, must fail.
Then, there's unjust enrichment.
That would she be unjustly enriched by having exclusive use of this vehicle,
despite the fact that he made a substantial contribution.
Well, no. Because it's solely in her name,
and he wanted it solely in her name,
it was giving him a benefit.
Both of them a benefit.
Well, both of them, but most certainly him a benefit
because it was only him who had inheritance money.
The fact that he wanted her name, and only her name,
benefited on the title, the insurance, all that,
really only benefited him.
And so, his unjust enrichment argument so too, should fail.
And while there are a lot of people that may say,
as you did, you should give him something,
because he contributed to it,
I say, unless there's another cause of action that I didn't think about,
-I don't think that that applies. -Mm-hmm.
When he put her name on everything, he was thinking right there.
And he wasn't considering what was gonna happen if they split up.
'Cause he didn't see that happening. Well, that happens.
And so, as a result of all of that,
I believe that his lawsuit should be dismissed.
I'm right there with you. I think that the decision
to put her name solely on the title, I don't think those were like shenanigans,
or they're playing fast and loose, I think it was a choice.
She would be on the hook for potential liabilities,
and the flip side of that is that it is her car.
So, I'm with Adam.
I think they did it both for themselves.
I think it was a benefit that was going to inure both of them.
I think they didn't count on breaking up. So therefore,
his several hundred thousand dollars
was going to be in a pot that they were all going to use.
She had nothing, so they were gonna be living off of that.
I think that she made it clear that she was willing to give him
some of the money that he contributed.
I think she made it clear it wasn't gonna be $7,000.
And I think that he is entitled to something.
He's basically selling her his portion of the vehicle
that's valued at today's value. And so, I feel very comfortable
giving him a buyout amount that would reflect that sale.
Do you think she offered to pay him something?
But I think that those were offers to try to settle a dispute.
I wouldn't bind her to those.
I don't think he has any legal entitlement.
And just to put a further pin on it,
as we just established before we left the bench,
there was an accident. She's bearing the burden of that accident,
it's on her insurance.
So, he just wants to like, get all of the benefits of owning something
without really having to step up on the other side.
I agree with that. And also, Pat, to your point,
about this was an agreement that they had.
The car was gonna be put in her name and they were both gonna use it.
And she was gonna benefit by the additional monies that he had from…
That they were protecting in case of something.
But at the same time, what she was expecting
was a little better lifestyle. She was expecting a bit of a better place.
They both screwed each other in the relationship,
but that has nothing to do with the legal aspect of the case.
She had dog hair and no electricity.
She hated that.
Listen, I understand your position, and I disagree, that's all.
Okay. So, I am willing to give him back something.
The car is valued right now at $4,700.
I'm willing to give him about $2,350.
-I'm at zero. -I'm at zero.
-Okay, I'm willing to do that. -[Levy] Okay.
Twenty-three and zero.
Zero. Got it.
Go away.
Court is back in session.
All parties are reminded you're still under oath.
All right. Well, we have deliberated, and we have reached a decision,
but it is not unanimous.
I have two things I want to mention.
One, I'd like to put up on the monitor please, #02.
Just want to put that photograph up and say, rest in peace, Tiger Five.
-[Steven] Yeah. Thank you. -[Levy] All right.
[Levy] You're welcome. I know it's tough.
The other thing I wanted to mention, Mr. Duckett,
we've been asked by Ms. Anderson, to send a very polite message
that right now, she would much prefer
to have no further communication at this time.
And if there is gonna be further communication in the future,
let it come from her.
-Great. -[Levy] Fair?
-Mm-hmm. -[Levy] Thank you.
Now, back to the case.
Judge DiMango's position, taking depreciation into consideration,
she would award you $2,350.
And that it would in effect be unjust for you, Ms. Anderson,
to take full 100% control of a vehicle that's been fully paid off
that he contributed money to.
However, the majority between Judge Acker and myself,
we discussed the email, and we now know she never agreed to $7,000.
So, there was no meeting of the minds.
Then that last issue then becomes one of unjust enrichment.
Is she being unjustly enriched by getting a car
that you contributed half to?
Part of your burden under an unjust enrichment claim is
to prove that the circumstances surrounding all of this
are unjust. And that she in fact, had the benefit
by getting possession of this vehicle.
But the benefit that you were receiving was that you were liability free
and that she was assuming all liability for future accidents.
And so, your unjust enrichment claim cannot succeed.
You agreed to have the vehicle put solely in the Defendant's name
to protect you from any and all liability.
Therefore, the judgment of the court is that your claim
for $7,000, denied. And your lawsuit, sir, is dismissed.
-Thank you. -[gavel bangs]
This case has concluded. All parties are excused.
[triumphant music playing]
Basically, I get nothin' for a car that I bought.
He thought I was robbing him.
Yeah, she'd been taking stuff out of the house and I noticed.
And then, she just left.
There were dog beds everywhere. There were clothes everywhere, piled.
I would clean the kitchen, and then it would be cluttered again.
I offered to take her to dinner last night, and said,
we won't talk about anything, we'll just have a friendly dinner.
She didn't want to do that.
Because we're broke up. And he's suing me.
She doesn't like me now because I asked for my money.
I don't ever want to see him again.
Life goes on, and I'm pretty unhappy.
[narrator] Did a bad breakup cost you more than a broken heart?
Commit to letting Tribunal Justice make it right.
Find us on social media.
[theme music playing]