30 N.E.3d 1056 (Ohio Mun. 2014), 2013 CVI 19540, Robinson v. King
|Docket Nº:||2013 CVI 19540|
|Citation:||30 N.E.3d 1056|
|Opinion Judge:||LAUREN C. MOORE, Judge.|
|Party Name:||IVOR ROBINSON, PLAINTIFF v. DIANE KING, DEFENDANT|
|Attorney:||Plaintiff, Pro se. Atty. Neil W. Seigel, for defendant.|
|Case Date:||March 04, 2014|
|Court:||Municipal Court of Ohio|
This case was called for a Small Claims trial on January 23, 2014 before Magistrate William F.B. Vodrey. Plaintiff and defendant both appeared and were duly sworn in to testify. The magistrate's findings of fact and conclusions of law are hereby approved and confirmed.
Findings of Fact
This is a case about money given by one person in a romantic relationship to the other such person, and whether repayment is now legally required.
The evidence at trial showed that the parties met in December 2007, while defendant's divorce from another man was pending. They soon began dating. Defendant told plaintiff that she owed $2400.00 for legal fees and car payments, but expected an August 2008 buyout equity payment. Plaintiff testified that he offered to lend, not give, the money to defendant, and she accepted. The next day, he withdrew the sum in its entirety from his bank's automated teller machines in four separate transactions of $600.00 each. He then gave all of the cash to defendant. Plaintiff testified that he also paid for Midas brake repairs on defendant's car; for a party rental for defendant's daughter Ashley
King; and for her portion of their AT& T phone bills while the parties were living together. He testified that the parties put nothing in writing as to their loan or repayment agreement. The parties broke up in April 2008, and defendant never repaid him.
Defendant largely disagreed with plaintiff's testimony. She testified that plaintiff never gave her any cash at all. She said that he had specifically described paying for her Midas brake repair as a gift, had paid for her own divorce, and often let him use her car for free. She insisted that plaintiff never asked to be repaid for anything while they were dating, and she never promised to do so. Defendant credibly denied now owing plaintiff anything.
At trial, plaintiff asked for leave of court to file additional phone records by mail, with copies provided to opposing counsel. The court granted him leave to do so by January 30, 2014. Granting of leave to file an untimely motion or pleading is discretionary...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP