You went into business together...
You emptied the bank account.
Correct.
How did you think she was gonna take that?
-I don't know. -Because you didn't care.
I was also financially being taken advantage of.
Are you kidding me?
I was not allowed to touch the money.
You did. You took out all the money.
[narrator] Today on Tribunal Justice...
[theme music plays]
This case was filed in Albany, New York.
Your Honor, this is case number 1143 on account
in the matter of Rockmacher versus VanDyke.
Parties have been sworn in, you may be seated.
-[Acker] Thank you, Byrd. -[bailiff] Mm-hmm.
Ms. Rockmacher, you and the defendant went into business together.
-[Abigail] Yes, ma'am. -You opened an apothecary.
And then you were forced to shut down
as a result of being advised by a state agency
that you were operating in violation of state law.
Now, as I understand it, you were 25% partner,
and you describe yourself as a silent partner.
You put in a little more money.
The defendant was the operational partner. 75% owner.
When you were notified by the state
that your business was operating in violation of the law,
you, Ms. Rockmacher, emptied the bank account
because you wanted to preserve your assets.
You also maintain that there were some expenses
that the defendant incurred
that you were not advised of and that you didn't agree with.
You dissolved the business
and you are now suing her for $5,000 to recoup your losses.
Yes, ma'am.
Ms. VanDyke, you maintain that after the plaintiff depleted the bank account,
you owe her nothing.
-Correct. -She emptied you out.
-So you're done. -Yes, ma'am.
The business was Jay Street Apothecary
and you sold crystals, tarot cards, candles,
and other personal care items, as you describe it.
Why were you operating in violation of the law?
What were you doing improperly?
So we filed everything with the department,
the New York State Department of Corporations,
and everything, and that everything went fine.
There is a law from New York State Education Department,
that we were unaware of,
that you can only use the term "apothecary"
if you are a licensed pharmacist,
-and we were not. -'Cause that what it means, right?
It's sort of an old-fashioned type of pharmacy.
Yes, ma'am.
So you were forced to shut down.
When you got that notice,
what were your communications with your 75% partner?
Actually, the person from the Department of Education
served the defendant with the paperwork.
I had advised the defendant to take the paperwork
and we would discuss it with our lawyers,
'cause I was busy, I have my own store that I was running...
[Acker] You had another business on the block.
And you were working at a mystic shop, that shop closed down,
-so the two of you joined forces. -Correct.
You were operating just fine for about a year
before you got the notice.
How were things between the two of you during that year?
Did you get along? I'll ask you.
Honestly, no, we did not.
[Acker] There were some disputes about how to run the business.
-[Abigail] Correct. -[Acker] In fact,
you submitted into evidence a letter, I believe from your lawyer,
that detailed some of the concerns you had.
One of them,
you said the defendant was making a lot more money,
but I think you expected that, right?
-'Cause she was doing all the labor. -[Abigail] Correct.
I expected her to do all the labor...
[Acker] You were getting 50 a week and she was getting, like, 500 a week...
Yes, and that was never spoken about.
We had discussed her getting $350 a week.
And when she took over the payroll,
she gave herself a raise without any discussion.
-[Acker] Without consulting you. -[Abigail] Correct.
[Acker] You're here because you did not have a written agreement,
and the both of you just took matters into your own hands
in ways that we'll talk about.
Absent that written agreement,
tell me what right you had to go empty out the bank account?
Because you admit that you did that.
Yes, I was advised by my attorney to empty the bank account
to make sure that there was some funds to help cover the cost of closing.
Being a 25% owner, my hands were tied.
I couldn't get out of the business. I couldn't dissolve the business.
There was really not much I could do.
[Acker] How much money was in the bank account
-when you emptied it? -About $3,000.
Did you advise her in advance that you were emptying the bank account?
-No, ma'am. -[Acker] I don't know how you do that.
So you, the minority partner says I'm gonna take all the money?
-How much money did you put in? What... -6,500. Correct.
-[Acker] How much did you put in? -Ten.
Sorry, according to a tax document, she did not put in $10,000.
She put in less than my initial investment, actually.
Right now, focus less on fighting with her and responding to my questions.
Because you're the one with the $5,000 lawsuit,
wanting to recoup losses.
And it seems to me that you just kinda helped yourself to some funds unilaterally
without any legal basis for doing so.
You, Ms. VanDyke, didn't you file a police report?
I did.
[Acker] Why did you go to the police?
Did you know it was her?
I knew it was her because she was the only one with access,
so I went to the actual bank and asked who took all this money out and why?
And you thought that a good way of resolving the dispute
and taking things down a notch
and making sure that you could take care of your business obligations
was going to the police and filing a report with them?
I did the report just in case we showed up here,
so it wasn't just my word versus hers. I wanted it documented...
[Acker] That's really the best answer you could've given.
So let's go back to you.
According to you, your lawyer tells you to take all of the money...
He put it in an escrow account.
Okay, yeah, right, it was an attorney's escrow account,
to which she did not have access.
And then the next that happened, I find even more baffling,
because you sent a letter or some communication
to all of the business employees.
And you tell them that... I'm gonna find it.
You have to explain to me why you did this.
Because it seems like you're trying to escalate,
instead of trying to resolve this dispute.
You should not get so self-righteous
'cause you did the same thing and we're gonna come to it.
Yes, ma'am.
[Acker] The two of you were walking drama.
Yes, I agree. I was following the advice of an attorney.
Here we go. [laughs]
"Hey, ladies, I'm sorry to be texting you so late.
But as you are aware,
Alysha and I are in the process of dissolving the business.
On the advice of my legal counsel,
I am texting you to inform you that we're closing the apothecary.
Please let me know your hours last week and I'll make sure you get paid.
If you have any questions, let me know."
-You sent that to all of the employees. -Correct.
And you brought all of your employees into this dispute with your 75% partner
putting this all out on the street.
I just acted on behalf of what my attorney advised me to do.
You know, if your lawyer said "Don't talk to her,
take all of the money,
and then tell all of the employees
about all your business and all of your drama",
then I don't know who that lawyer was.
It sounds like somebody who's auditioning for a reality show.
Then you do an internet posting or some social media posting
where you say she's taking all of the food out of you and your family's mouths.
And she's forcing you to close the safe community space.
And then people start coming after her, like, calling her... What? I think I saw,
"How dare this entitled White lady do this you?"
I mean, you both seem like a couple of entitled folks, frankly,
if you want me to be candid.
Why did you send those messages?
You were trying to make sure that you can pull as many people into it,
you wanted as much drama as possible.
You wanted as much attention as possible.
And we're gonna talk about some of your messages.
-I did. I agree with that. -[Acker] Why would you do that?
-Why did you want all of the drama? Why... -Because I had reached out...
[Acker] ...all of the drama and the attention
instead of simply trying to get a good-faith resolution with your partner?
We had attempted the good-faith resolution before that.
So this was all close... Those text messages were sent but not to me.
I didn't even know the business was closed until my employees reached out to me.
I reached out to her multiple times to find out the reason.
Why is this closed? This is the first day that I've heard the reason.
And my point to her was that I think it's absolutely absurd
that you would send a note to employees
advising them that you were doing something
instead of communicating with your partner.
Both of you wanted attention and drama and to escalate.
I think very little of that.
So, going back to you,
help me understand
what these $5,000 in losses are?
I don't see receipts for furniture.
I didn't see the lease that you're trying...
I just don't see any of that.
I have all that. I had to pay over $1,600 in sales tax.
-I had to take care of all the IRS. -[Acker] Where?
-Where is that? -Right here.
Here's the employees getting paid.
-Here's, um, one IRS receipt. -Cassandra, can you get that?
[Abigail] A second IRS receipt. Here's the receipts
for the insurance that I've paid.
-Sales tax, all of it. -[Acker] So during that year,
you accused her of some financial improprieties?
You said that she raised her salary without advising you.
You also said that, what, she was giving discounts to people of color
without advising you.
How did you come to be made aware of that?
-A Facebook post. -[Acker] What did that look like?
Um, it was Indigenous People Day
and she made a post that we were giving POC and BIPOC, um,
like, I think 15%, I would have to find the original post,
which is on social media.
But your concern was that she was, in effect,
discriminating by charging White people more
than Indigenous people
-on Indigenous People Day. -Yes, ma'am.
[Acker] What were the other improprieties?
Basically, a lot of personal things like gas, she bought clothes.
She bought food, alcohol. Um...
I have no idea. I used everything for the business.
I have every receipt and every invoice since we were ever open.
I'd like you to explain to me,
assuming there are $5,000 of losses,
why don't I just subtract the $3,000 that you helped yourself to?
[Abigail] I used the $3,000 towards it
and then I had $5,000 exceeding that.
So, I'm suing for the excess, I guess.
I'll start to look at these receipts.
I, frankly, have no idea why I'm just only today
getting evidence of precisely the damages that you're claiming. I don't understand.
I'm gonna let Judge DiMango have some fun with you two now.
-Judge. -[DiMango] Ladies,
it's business, not personal.
And you two acted like you were in, for lack of a better term, a cat fight.
Over money.
And you can't go into the world
and think you're going to be business women
if that's how you're going to act.
[narrator] Coming up on Tribunal Justice...
If you would've only just been nice to each other like you started off,
you both wouldn't be in here today embarrassing yourselves.
Who's racist? Who isn't? I mean, that wouldn't be out there.
[narrator] Abigail Rockmacher claims her former business partner,
Alysha VanDyke,
owes her money after closing their business.
Alysha says Abigail closed the business account and left her nothing.
Now, this is a loosely-framed partnership agreement in my mind.
You each had, what was going to be your 25% versus your 75%.
You say you were a silent partner.
Apparently not that silent
'cause the government found out
that you guys were functioning as an apothecary.
-Tanya, that was it? -Apothecary.
I have trouble with that word. Apothecary.
And you didn't have a pharmacist.
And the Education Law says that if you're operating
under either the pharmacy term or apothecary,
you must have one pharmacist, at least, on call
while your premises are open.
And failure to comply with that is a crime.
-Yes. -[DiMango] So I would guess that
the immediate closing of the premises was probably the right thing to do.
However, there are certain things that happen
when a partnership dissolves or unwinds.
Somehow in this, before this all occurred,
there was a distrust that arose.
Which, I think, was the foundation,
or preceded the reason why everything went awry.
You taking money without notifying her.
You doing things without notifying her.
And that's where it became personal.
When you dissolve a partnership or you close it,
there's an order, or a sequence, in which debts are paid.
-Correct. -[DiMango] You pay off your debts
and your liabilities to third persons first.
So that would probably be your employees,
taxes, stores that you made advance purchases from.
Those would be the people that would get paid first.
-Did you pay those people? -Yes, I did.
And I just gave Judge Acker all that information.
Okay. So I'll ask you, have any of your employees come forward to you
to say "We didn't get paid"?
-No. -[DiMango] Okay.
Did you have any other responsibility to any other third parties?
-Yes. -[DiMango] Who?
The tax accountant was not paid for the 2020 taxes.
And then, obviously, when we needed to do the taxes again
-she would need the payment for... -And how much would that be?
[Abigail] One bill was for 675, which I believe was 2020.
And the other is for 760, I believe.
[DiMango] All right, 760. So we're looking at about 1,435.
Did you pay out any money towards the accountant?
-No. -You're saying that you did
and we have proof that you made payment to the accountant?
Yes, ma'am.
What other third parties would you owe money to?
-Sales tax. -Did you pay sales tax?
I did, every quarter. This is the first I'm hearing of this as well.
The sales tax I'm referring to is for the last quarter
that we were in business.
Did you pay the last quarter? Maybe that's the only issue.
-How much would that have been? -It could've been the last quarter.
-How much? -Um...
[Alysha] 1,698.75.
[DiMango] 1,698. Okay.
Any other third parties?
The IRS. New York State.
-[DiMango] You wanna pay them. -Yes.
All right, so now, in the funding that you took, that $3,000,
did you use that money to pay down any of this?
-Yes. -[DiMango] You do that first.
So let's just say the 1,698 and the 1,400, that would bring you to 3,000.
-And so that's done. -[Abigail] Yep.
The money over and above that that would still be owed
would be how much?
For you to be getting 5,000 you'd have to be showing us
$10,000 worth of money that you would owe.
-Yes, I... -[DiMango] Or--or her percentage of it.
The IRS was almost $2,000.
New York State would be, like, $375.
The payments to the employees...
One employee was $266.47.
The other employee was $199.22.
Anybody beyond that?
The insurance...
[DiMango] By the way, do you see this?
Because these moneys are due.
-You have an obligation as a business... -I agree.
...to make these payments.
If, in fact, over and above the 3,000,
there was $10,000 worth of debt,
then there is a certain proportion, obviously,
that you're responsible for, as is she.
[Alysha] I've never been provided with any of these expenses.
[DiMango] Is that your whole position here?
Had you known, this would've all been handled?
I would've handled all of this.
[DiMango] And instead of you both smearing each other
on the social media sites and all,
if you would've only just been nice to each other,
like you started off,
you both wouldn't be in here today,
embarrassing yourselves for this kind of situation.
And putting out all your dirty laundry
and all the things that people say about each of you and your situation.
And who's racist, who isn't. I mean, that wouldn't be out there.
So I ask you,
what is the total that you say is outstanding
that you need to be recompensated for?
-If you subtract the 3,000 that I took? -[DiMango] Yes.
It would be close to $9,000.
And of that, do you agree that there's a proportion,
that would be a percentage proportion over the $9,000?
I find the $9,000 to be really high,
but if it was, then I would say absolutely.
I'm gonna say right off the bat, and we're looking at it,
you've got 2,000 for the IRS, 375, 266, 199,
we're already up to 3,000.
So with the additional, and I wanna see that sheet...
It was the last page of exhibit 14.
[DiMango] That would be the way we would figure out,
if anything, what was owed back and forth. Judge Levy?
[Levy] Ms. Rockmacher, let's see if I understand your position.
You're the plaintiff. So this is all your burden.
-She doesn't have to do a thing. -[Abigail] Okay.
[Acker] So you say that you contributed 6,500
and she says that she contributed 10,000.
-And you dispute that? -Yes.
[Levy] And you dispute that she contributed 6,500?
-Yes. -[Levy] That would've been put out,
laid out clearly in an operating agreement.
It also would've indicated in the operating agreement
what to do in the event of dissolutionment of the business.
What the process is, so that someone's not going to raid bank accounts.
And take them out. By the way,
had you ever taken money out of the bank before?
Out of...
-[Levy] The business account. -The business account? No.
-[Levy] So this was the very first time? -Yes.
And how to liquidate whatever inventory you have
to pay off third-party vendors, employees, things of that nature.
I do not have the inventory. That was taken out of the store
the same night that I had withdrawn the bank account.
You don't find that to be surprising, do you?
-No. -[Levy] No.
Because when you took the money out of the bank account,
you didn't give the 75% owner of that business notice of that,
-did you? -[Abigail] No.
[Levy] How did you think she was gonna take that?
I was just acting on behalf of legal counsel. My...
Stop.
-...hands were tied. -Stop. Stop.
Okay.
[Levy] I didn't ask you whether you were acting on behalf of legal counsel.
Did you say to your lawyer, "Wait a minute,
if I take out all the money from the bank account,
which I have never done before,
and that's going to exacerbate this problem?"
Did you tell that to your lawyer?
-No. -[Levy] Because you didn't care.
I was in fear of getting arrested for running an apothecary
that I was not allowed to be running.
-The defendant... -Are you sure?
Are you sure you wanna stick with that story?
'Cause I'm about to show you how that is nonsense.
-You sure you wanna stick with that? -[Abigail] I don't know.
-I'm, I'm confused. -[Levy] Exactly. Exactly.
Listen, I don't want you to be confused.
I want you to be honest.
-I am being honest. -[Levy] No, no, no.
Your story is that you closed this business,
you raided this bank account
'cause you were afraid of getting arrested.
Because you got a single letter from the New York State Department of Education
that said that you were in violation of some silly, stupid rule
that was designed to protect the public.
They don't want people to be confused with legitimate pharmacists
and people selling stones and incense
and whatever else the apothecary that you guys were involved in.
So the purpose of the rule, and I'm very familiar with that rule,
had absolutely nothing to do with your business.
Nothing. Zero. All you had to do was change the name.
-Right? -Yes.
Now, clearly, there wasn't a snowball's chance in hell
that you were going to jail over this ridiculous little issue
that could have been resolved with a name change.
So there was another reason why you decided to raid the account
and close the business,
and the answer is 'cause you were pissed that she was making more money than you.
Right?
I was being financially taken advantage of, yes.
That's fine. That's the reason why.
So I'm glad we got that out of the way.
[narrator] Coming up on Tribunal Justice...
If a silent partner, who's never been to the bank before,
goes to the bank and empties out our bank account,
and I'm a 75% owner, without calling me,
are you kidding me?
-I was not allowed to touch the money. -[Levy] Well, you did.
You took out all the money.
In exhibit four that you provided in your evidence
there was a store closing notice that you wrote.
"Remember, there are always two sides to every story
and not everything you read on the internet is true."
Why did you write that?
That was my response because I was getting harassed on social media
from what the defendant was posting.
And I was advised to just...
[Levy] She posted that you basically raided the account.
As a result of you raiding the account and leaving no money
and closing the business,
for a reason we now know was fictitious,
this "I'm afraid of New York State Department of Education",
that five employees who relied on your business
to put food on their table and to put a roof over their heads
and clothes on their backs, were now out of work.
She also put on social media that you did all that without notifying her,
despite the fact that she was the majority shareholder.
That you had basically nothing to do with the business,
except put your name on a lease and take care of the books.
And that as a result of what you did, she, likewise, and her two children,
now had no way to earn any money to put food on their table,
clothes on their backs, or a roof on their head.
That's what she said.
And then you started getting attacked on social media.
-Right? -[Abigail] Very badly.
And you wanted to change that narrative.
Nobody knows how she was treating me throughout the year.
[Levy] You were trying to change the narrative.
-Sure. -Now, exhibit nine, page 42.
This is now the defendant to you and your accountant,
"It seems that the both of you must be reminded
that you have dismantled my entire livelihood
without a single conversation.
I've lost my life savings, my career,
my entire investment, and my best friend.
My children lost stability
and their sole source of financial support.
Shame on both of you
for your lack of discretion and humanity."
The names of your two children "and I have lost much more
than either of you in this impulsive and unnecessary act."
Great, great email.
Thank you.
I was also financially being taken advantage of,
so yes, this had to do with a cease and desist order,
but it also had to do with protecting my own assets
and my own financial stability.
You got what you deserved.
That's what happened.
You got what you deserved because you, as a 25%...
I have partners in other businesses.
If a 25% partner goes to the bank and empties out our bank account,
and I'm a 75% owner, without calling me,
without notifying me,
are you kidding me?
-I was... -[Levy] Are you kidding me?
I was not allowed to touch the money. I...
Well, you did. You took out all the money.
She was emotionally abusive to me, it was really a horrible time in my life.
Like, I had to do to protect myself,
my financial future and...
I'm sorry. I acknowledge I had to put people out of work,
but I also needed to protect myself.
-Are you really sorry? -[Abigail] Yes, I am.
-I'm really sorry... -Yeah.
Let me explain something to you. Your effort to change the narrative,
right, by coming here and by presenting your case,
only to be exposed for the manipulator that you were,
-has not done you any good. -Okay.
[Levy] I have nothing else.
[DiMango] We're gonna retire to deliberate. Ladies, thank you.
Court now stands in recess, parties are excused.
I don't like what the plaintiff did.
However, I believe her,
and I think the evidence is undisputed that she did take those moneys
in order to satisfy the business debts.
The defendant even conceded
that there were some outstanding business debts.
She just wasn't sure how much and how many of them there were.
There were some very rudimentary efforts
between the two of them to communicate,
but instead, they just decided to fight on social media,
which was just immature.
I believe there's evidence of $5,000 of expenses
-on top of the $3,000. -The three.
And I'd be inclined to give it to her,
but I also just don't like the messiness of the arrangement.
We are actually closing up the business for them
in a way they should've been able to do
if they just had an operating agreement
-like grownups do. They don't. -But they don't.
They're young girls who, I wanna say,
they, to some extent, did things intentionally
against one another for spite.
But I think, in the long run, it was really improper advice.
I think that she took the $3,000,
didn't personally take it, which I thought that she put it in escrow,
show that she had been listening to somebody,
and did use that money first
to start paying off third-party debts and liabilities.
And they all agree with that.
And I agree with you they do exceed the amount,
so, yes, I believe that she's entitled to the 5,000.
Should she have done that?
Was her sole purpose, Adam, because she was afraid she was gonna go
"No is a good legal basis to hang it on,"
but I believe that she felt mistreated and wanted out.
I can't penalize her here because there's nothing for that.
But rightfully, on the law, I think she's entitled to the 5,000 as well.
[Levy] These are all business debts.
They're debts to the business that the plaintiff chose to close unilaterally,
without authority, secretly.
And now she's coming to us and wants us to pierce the corporate veil
that protects the defendant because these are business expenses.
Despite the fact that she, the plaintiff, has unclean hands.
She admitted it with respect to the reasons behind why she closed it.
It had nothing to do with that stupid letter
from the New York State Department of Education.
It had nothing to do with that.
She felt slighted 'cause she wasn't making enough money.
That's why.
And she wants us, on her behalf now, to pierce the corporate veil?
Not on my watch. I don't think the plaintiff gets a nickel.
That's my position.
-I think we have a dissenter. -No worries.
-I'm on the majority. -Good.
Court is back in session.
Parties are reminded you're still under oath.
We've deliberated and we've reached a verdict.
And our verdict is not unanimous.
When people take things down a notch,
like if instead of all the social media posting,
and you writing to all the employees,
and putting all your stuff on the street,
if the two of you had just been a little more respectful with one another,
you wouldn't have been here.
If the two of you had operated this business properly,
and just had an agreement,
you wouldn't be here either, I don't think.
So, lesson learned, and now we're going to fix everything.
Judge Levy, Ms. Rockmacher,
wants to dismiss your entire lawsuit.
He thinks you have unclean hands
and that it was entirely inappropriate
for you to take all of the money from the bank account.
Judge DiMango and I agree,
however, we believe that because you used those funds,
and the evidence is undisputed,
that you used those funds to clear the business debts,
we are not going to penalize you for that.
We also credited the evidence that you provided
of the business debts that you had to satisfy
once the business was closed.
We did something, Judge Levy referred to it in deliberation,
it's called "piercing the corporate veil".
When you don't have an agreement,
if you're not some sort of entity that keeps the business separate from you,
people can do what we're doing, which is piercing the corporate veil
and we're holding you personally liable for some portion of those debts.
You have made your case.
The judgement in this case is for $5,000 in your favor.
Good luck to you.
Be smarter next time. Be more careful, both of you.
And social media is not gonna solve your problems.
It just won't.
Good luck to you both. I hope things work out.
-That's our verdict. -[Abigail] Thank you.
[bailiff] This case is now concluded. Parties are excused, you may step down.
I think the judges were really fair.
I love that they did listen to all of us and they worked together.
I'm happy with the judges' decision today.
I actually haven't heard any of the reasonings from Ms. Rockmacher
for closing the business or taking the money until today.
So that was a huge relief just to hear it from her mouth,
and what her real motivations were.
She's an evil person.
I think she looks silly.
You can just look at all the social media
and how she made me out to be this horrible person.
Money. Jealousy. It's always money.
I mean, yes, it is about money.
At the end of the day money does make the world go round.
[narrator] Having a family dispute?
Let Tribunal Justice decide your case.
Find us on social media at Tribunal Justice.
[closing theme plays]