He was interested in the vehicle.
He just wasn't interested in paying for it.
[announcer] Now, on Tribunal Justice.
You just kept the car, right?
Yes, if you say, yes.
What the hell are you saying?
So I have it under good authority that I never signed anything.
You have an attitude like that with somebody else
who's not family, someone's gonna hurt you.
You can take that on good authority.
["Ride of the Valkyries" plays]
[announcer] Today's case was filed in Salt Lake City, Utah.
[Cassandra] Your Honor, this is case number 2036
in a matter of Hollen versus Broadbent.
Thank you.
All parties have been sworn in. You may be seated.
All right. Ms. Hollen, you sold the defendant
your 2002 Nissan
and agreed to an installment payment contract.
He failed to make even one payment and you took the car back.
I did and on top of that, there's a lot of damages
to the vehicle when I picked it up.
[Judge Levy] That's what I read in your complaint.
So you're suing him
- for the cost of the repairs, $636. - [Emma] Yes.
And the three and a half months that he had the car,
at a hundred dollars a month that he had agreed to pay,
that was $350.
So the total amount of your suit here is $986.
Yes, that is correct.
[Judge Levy] Okay. Mr. Broadbent, according to your answer,
you don't owe anything because you borrowed, not bought the car.
And as for damages, you said it was sort of a piece of junk
when you took it and it was a piece of junk when she took it back.
That is correct. Um, in my defense,
I'd like to say that the car when I received it
was not only filthy,
there were several things, uh, damaged and wrong with it.
Uh, not limited to, there was dents on the car
that, uh, she had arrived at the house
and blamed me for that I know for a fact was not me,
because I had taken pictures beforehand,
uh, when receiving the vehicle at first on my dad's recommendation
to know what damage was already on it.
So I have it under good authority that I did not cause any of those damages.
[Judge Levy] Well, that's all well and good.
We're in a court of law. What we like to see is evidence.
So Ms. Hollen here presented evidence to us,
although you did not, ma'am, present us
with the way the car looked like before you sold it.
- That is correct. - [Judge Levy] Only after.
Yes. However, on page 28,
I did send him a text with a list of all the cons of the vehicle
and none of which listed anything that I am suing for in damage.
[Judge Levy] Uh, I get that. The best evidence of
that would've been the way the car looked...
- [Emma] Yes. - ... but that's okay.
Because Mr. Broadbent here, he has those photographs.
I'll take them now.
I did not bring them with me, but I would also like to just...
So hold on. Did you not bring them with you today on good authority?
No. I didn't bring them because they were earlier in the year
and I felt that that wouldn't, uh, that wouldn't be good
for clause of the fact the damages that did happen to the vehicle
that were not my fault occurred during the winter.
And I felt that if I showed a picture from the spring,
it wouldn't be sustainable,
because it doesn't really show the damage
- that would've occurred on that season. - Okay. You know what,
I'm gonna get back to you, Mr. Broadbent,
- because we're gonna unpack all of that. - It's a lot of words.
[Judge Levy] You can take that on good authority.
So, Ms. Hollen, how do you know the defendant?
He's my cousin.
Um, I used to babysit him when he was a little kid
and then as we became adults,
we really didn't spend a whole to of time together.
- But I still... - [Judge Levy] So what's the relationship?
It's your father and his father?
- Yes, they're brothers. - [Judge Levy] Okay.
Tell us when it was that you decided to sell your car and why?
So it was in September of 2022.
I had two older vehicles
and I decided to sell them both
and just buy myself something a little nicer
and I had gone to pick up my new car
and I left the Nissan at my father's house
until my husband could come with me to pick it up,
and that's when Griffin had texted me
- and asked if he could buy... - Griffin being the defendant.
- Yes. - [Judge Levy] Okay.
So Griffin was living at the house?
Yes, and he saw the car out there
and that's when he asked if he could possibly purchase it from me.
I never borrowed it to him,
we talked about payments as you can see from all my texts quite a bit
with a lot of excuses.
[Judge Levy] Okay. So we know that you agreed to sell it to him
- for how much? - For 2,000.
[Judge Levy] And what were the monthly payments?
- $100. - [Judge Levy] The agreement that you had,
was that ever memorialized in writing in like a bill of sale?
No, it was not and that was my mistake. I definitely learned from that.
Uh-hmm. Yeah.
What was the condition of the car? Describe it.
It had some dents, it had been in a fender bender
which I had gotten fixed for the most part.
Um, it is an older vehicle, I had about 180,000 miles on it.
Let's take a look at the way that the car was
when it was returned to you.
That was not the way that you sold the car to him
- in September '22? - [Emma] No.
No. The spare was underneath the car where it was stored when I left the car.
[Judge Levy] And other than that, does that look like the condition
- that you gave it to him? - Yes.
[Judge Levy] Do we have another photograph?
So we have on the right, we have some type of moulding, is that correct?
- That's popping off? - [Emma] Yeah.
That's the handle, the driver side handle.
It was totally fine when I was driving it.
[Judge Levy] Okay. And the vehicle, did it have a radio
- when you gave it to him in September? - [Emma] Yes, and it works just fine.
[Judge Levy] What about you, Mr. Broadbent?
Uh, when you got the car, did it have a radio?
The radio was, uh, broken,
so I left it in the trunk upon her request,
- so that it could be replaced properly. - [Judge Levy] I got it.
So you heard according to your cousin,
the agreement was for $2,000 for a hundred dollars a month.
Do you agree or disagree with those claims?
I disagree, it's not in a contract. I never signed anything.
[Judge Levy] Okay. So, just so we're clear,
contracts don't have to be written.
They could be oral
as long as there was an understanding, a meeting of the minds.
And so there are text messages that I know that you guys exchanged.
Yes. We had made plans,
but I never agreed on a solidified deal
due to me getting registered into surgery on September 9th,
which rendered me unable to work.
And I had explained that to her in those texts,
and she responded saying that I could make payments
as soon I was allowed to get back to work.
[Judge Levy] Do you remember that?
I do and he had let me know when he started going back to work.
- And did you go back to work? - I had not, no.
And I looked through our texts merely an hour ago
and I know that that is not in there.
Well, when you say that you hadn't gone back to work,
what were you doing in September of 2022?
I had a double brain abscess and I was registered to medical,
uh, bed rest, I was not allowed to leave the house.
Okay. So for how long?
Uh, three and a half months...
- [Judge Levy] From when... - ... which would've been,
uh, October 2nd was the day
that she tried to ask for the first payment,
and I wasn't allowed to leave the house until, uh, January 13th.
- Is that correct? - I did know that he had surgery
and there was actually one text in there where he said
his head is totally healed and he was ready to start working...
- [Judge Levy] Right. So... - ... so I just don't know
- what he was doing during the whole... - [Judge Levy] Uh, I get that
because now we're at September, so October you want a first payment,
he's not feeling well, he has this medical condition.
You say that lasted about three months. We'll give you four months.
So, it's October, November, December, January.
Did you start working in January?
I started working February 3rd...
- [Judge Levy] Okay. - ... again at the state liquor store.
- [Judge Levy] At the state liquor store. - Yes.
That was my previous job before my surgery.
All right. And did you start making payments then?
Uh, no, I had not because at that point, we had made it personal
and it felt that it was about, uh, showing her--
showing me from her side
that, uh, she was in the position of power and that I needed to be dealing with it,
uh, like an adult, uh, as she said in her text.
[announcer] Coming up on Tribunal Justice.
The $1,200 in my mind would always stand as what I thought...
How much of your mind was removed during the surgery?
- Do you wanna know the real answer? - Because I think you're only functioning
with a small portion of it.
[dramatic musical sting]
[theme music plays]
[announcer] Emma Hollen is suing her cousin Griffin Broadbent
for failing to make payments
then damaging the car she sold him.
Griffin claims brain surgery kept him
from working so he could pay her.
Plus, the car was in bad shape to begin with.
[Judge Levy] Let me ask you a question. When we started out,
I said to you that your case is pretty much as follows
that I don't owe her anything
because I just simply borrowed the car and I didn't buy it.
So, the problem with that though is that in your answer,
you say that we agreed on a price of $1,200.
That would have been a theoretical price that I discussed with her father,
not with her face to face.
[Judge Levy] Were you taking advantage of your cousin?
I don't believe so.
[Judge Levy] Yeah. Thank you. Judge Acker.
Thank you, Judge. When did you have your surgery?
[Griffin] Uh, September 9th was the day that I was admitted to the ER
and I didn't have surgery until about a week later
after my diagnosis was properly covered.
I had to visit the ER about four times.
What is a little bit confusing to me is that given the fact
that if you were on bed rest, you didn't even need the car.
So, I would be expecting to see some message from you
to your cousin advising her
that you weren't gonna be able to make any payments
because you couldn't work
and you couldn't drive, come get the car. Where's that text?
Um, I didn't send it because, uh, due to the brain surgery,
I couldn't be exposed to light,
so I couldn't use my phone, I couldn't use my computer,
I couldn't sit in an open room. I had to stay in my bathroom
for almost three weeks straight,
which there is a, uh, text that I could show you about...
[Judge Acker] No, I am not here to adjudicate your medical condition.
Hope that it's resolved and that you're healthy.
- Fully recovered. - [Judge Acker] So, let's talk about
what happened before September 9th,
when all of this happened to you.
Because I know that you said to Judge Levy
that it was a theoretical price,
and I would like to direct your attention
to exhibit four of the plaintiff's evidence.
It's an exchange of text messages.
August 28th, several days before you became bedridden.
Your question to your cousin was,
"What's your bank account number
and routing number for the bank you use?"
Now, was that a theoretical question about a theoretical bank account
for a theoretical payment that you maybe theoretically owe her?
No, it wasn't. Her father asked me to go
to my bank of choice to make sure that we had all the right numbers,
so that if we agreed upon a payment, I could get her paid right away,
because he was trying to kind of
be the mediator and make sure that things kept...
[Judge Acker] So, this was just because you wanted
to get her financial information
so that when you finally made a deal,
you would be able to wire her the money?
- It'd be handled properly. Yes. - [Judge Acker] That's interesting
because then just a couple of hours later you say to her,
"The bank accountant says it will take
one to three work days to get the money
through Zelle system into your account."
And this is you saying to her.
"Feel free to let me know if you don't see it
by tomorrow morning. I'll get on their ass about it."
Theoretical?
That would've been the payment that I talked to her father about.
[Judge Acker] And the payment that you didn't make.
- I did not, no. No payments were made. - [Judge Acker] Because you continue,
instead of reiterating to her the things
that you said to Judge Levy
when she asks you for updates,
I know what you do not say is,
"Hey, I'm still trying to work out this theoretical deal
and if we work out this deal then maybe I'll give you some money."
You don't say that.
Do you recall what you said when she asked you for updates?
- No, I do not. - [Judge Acker] I'm gonna remind you.
"Waiting for my boss to let me know that my check has arrived.
As soon as it does, I'll let you know. Should be very soon."
Doesn't seem very theoretical to me.
In fact, a lot of your defense
seems like word salad, you know,
when people are just throwing stuff at the wall.
I know. I found it funny too, but I bet it's not funny to your cousin.
So, have you already had the car repaired?
Yes. And I got it sold.
- Um, however, I never... - How much did you make on the car?
I made $1,500 because the stereo never worked.
So, I just sold it as is with the stereo
that I bought and told them that they could try to fix it.
[Judge Acker] Tell me about the conversation
where you agreed on that price of $2,000,
because I'll hear your testimony on it.
Um, so before--so in exhibit eight,
it shows all of our original text messages together
where I had also mentioned $2,000
and we had a conversation about it in person.
And I just told him that $2,000 with payments would work for me.
And then he said that that worked for him. And so I just trusted his word.
Do you feel like you were taken advantage of?
Absolutely. I feel completely disrespected.
- Judge DiMango. - I absolutely think you were.
I mean, I'm reading your text messages
and you are one big joker here.
Let me tell you, really.
First of all, why did you put in your answer that you agreed with her
to pay her $1,200 when there isn't anything in these papers
that confirms what she did agree to,
but for your own statement?
You locked yourself into that.
I put the $1,200 in my statement
as a precedent of where to start
with what I thought was unreasonable,
not for what I thought she deserved.
No. That's not at all what you did.
- What do you think, we're nuts up here? - He just makes this up.
I know. You think we're nuts up here.
We'd have to be nuts to listen to that crap.
I mean, the whole thing is she was listening to it
and that tortured me, but I got you standing there saying,
"What the precedent for the [indistinct]..."
what the hell are you saying?
For goodness sake. I mean, really.
You said here, "We agreed on a price of $1,200.
Again, I was really nervous and stressed about buying the SUV,
but Emma told me just to give her some money towards it
when I could and not to stress."
The $1,200 in my mind would always stand as what I thought...
How much of your mind was removed during the surgery?
- Do you wanna know the real answer? - Because I think you're only functioning
with a small portion of it.
I know you think you sound intelligent...
- It was an eighth of my brain. - [Judge DiMango] ... because you're using
words that have multiple syllables,
but the reality is they're not in the right place. I know. It's funny.
It's funny for us too to listen to it,
but even you can't stop yourself from laughing.
It--I can't.
[Judge DiMango] I know, but I need to go back to you, Ms. Hollen.
What would make you think that this deal should be consummated
with a--consummated, good word for you to use.
What would make you think that you could close this deal with this guy?
I don't know. I mean, honestly I didn't trust it the whole time,
but I really--I care about my family, you know.
[announcer] Coming up on Tribunal Justice.
- He was very convincing. - Oh, come on. Look at him.
- You think this guy's convincing? - Well...
[Judge DiMango] Look, he's a con man.
[dramatic musical sting]
[theme music plays]
[announcer] Emma Hollen is suing her cousin Griffin Broadbent
for failing to make payments
then damaging the car she sold him.
Griffin claims brain surgery kept him
from working so he could pay her,
plus the car was in bad shape to begin with.
Why are you here?
[Mikeal] I'm a witness.
Step up. What are you a witness to?
I'm Emma's husband.
I got to witness the entire event,
uh, from the beginning till the end.
And... if he wasn't family,
this situation would not have happened.
[Judge DiMango] Why are you saying that?
Were you a witness to what? What aspect of it?
The fact that he was interested in the vehicle in the first place.
- Oh, he was interested in the vehicle. - Yes.
He just wasn't interested in paying for it.
[Mikeal] Yes. About a month and a half
into this verbal deal,
uh, he was very convincing.
Very, very convincing.
Oh, come on. Look at him. You think this guy's convincing?
- [Mikeal] Well, now, we know. - [Judge DiMango] Really?
Now, we know the truth.
But about a month and a half in,
I started to get wary myself
and I advised my wife to--
like we need to go pick this car up.
And we gave it time, you know,
- like we wanted to believe you. - I know. Look, he's a con man.
"I deep cleaned the entire car with a couple of friends
and put $60 of gas in it
and used it to run some errands and stuff.
It drives great and I really like it.
Honestly, once I'm back to work,
I would be thoroughly interested in starting the payments."
Bottom line is this could just have a big B and a big S on it.
I'm finished with you.
So, the only--the only thing I'm gonna add is that, uh,
I read you a text September 29th when you said
to the defendant, "Uh, yeah, I'm selling my Subaru Forester.
I've listed it for $3,000, but I can definitely lower it
if you like or try to get $2,000 out of it."
So, that $2,000, was that for the Forester
or was that for the car that you eventually sold him?
It was for both. So when he was interested
in the Nissan, I let him know that I had another car
that he's, you know, okay to look at if he wanted.
[Judge Levy] And they were both the same price?
- Yeah. I told him... - [Judge Levy] And so that was...
... either one he chose, I could give him a deal of $2,000.
[Judge Levy] So, that was September 29th.
And then, again on October 2nd, in another text that you sent to him,
you again mentioned the $2,000.
- Yes. - And you never said no.
You never said it's only $1,200.
You just kept the car, right?
It's only a yes if you say yes.
What?
- [Griffin] It's only an agreement. - Let me explain to you something.
You have an attitude like that with somebody else who's not family,
someone's gonna hurt you
and they're gonna put you down.
I have nothing further.
[Judge DiMango] I think we're gonna retire to deliberate.
Sir, you can take your seat.
Court is now in recess. Parties may exit.
[dramatic musical sting]
You know, he thinks this is all fun and games.
And it's a real bad way to start off your life
when you're gonna start entering into agreements with people,
strangers, family, friends, what have you,
and that's the attitude he's gonna have.
He's in for a rude awakening.
Having said that, I do agree
that there was an agreement for $2,000.
She put it in the text messages several times
and there wasn't one text message where he said no.
She said $2,000 and he took the car.
So by his action,
he was agreeing to the $2,000.
As far as the damages go, we didn't get into the damages,
but she provided us with the proof of $636.
She sold the car for $1,500
and that means that to get her to where she would've been
with the sale with this knucklehead,
in order to make her whole,
we should award her $500.
That would give her the original price of $2,000.
And that's what I would recommend.
So... I like her theory
of just getting those payments from him.
That's $350.
Her testimony regarding the new tire,
that was $200. The radio's $150
and that door handle is $286, right?
So, if we believe her,
then I'm with $986.
I'm gonna go by Tanya's theory,
which is I think that she's entitled
to what she laid out for the car and if she made money on the car,
she made money on it. Whatever it was, it was.
I just wanna give her the $986 and call it a day.
I do too. I would give her the $986.
So, I'm gonna join in awarding her damages.
I'm gonna say $500, but I'm in the, uh, the descent.
It's only yes if you say yes.
- [laughter] - No.
He's a very wise young man, I must say.
But just out of-- just along the lines here,
whether or not he bought the car
or didn't buy the car, it was damaged while he had it.
If we believe that, it doesn't even matter
- if they had a contract for sale. - Right.
[Judge Acker] Yeah, I'm with you on that.
All right.
[dramatic musical sting]
Court is back in session.
All parties are reminded that you're still under oath.
- Thank you, Cassandra. - Uh-hmm.
All right. Here's where we are unanimous.
- Ms. Hollen. - Uh-hmm.
[Judge Levy] We found you credible. The $2,000 agreement
was corroborated by the text messages
and he agreed by his action
- by keeping the vehicle. - Yes.
[Judge Levy] So, you made out your burden of proof
that the vehicle was sold for $2,000.
- Thank you. - Mr. Broadbent, we are also unanimous
in that we didn't believe a thing that came out of your mouth.
Where we are not unanimous, however,
and that's not a bad thing, are the damages.
- [Emma] Yeah. - So, it is my position
that you sold the car for $2,000.
To walk out of here whole,
you should be awarded the full $2,000.
Therefore, you got $1,500 from the sale
and to make you whole for 2,000,
- I would've awarded you $500. - [Emma] Yeah.
I was overruled by my colleagues
and they agreed that you should be entitled
to all of the money that you put into fixing it.
And those repairs clearly indicated
that you spent $636 for those repairs
and the $350 for the three and a half months
that you used the car without paying anything pursuant to the contract.
So, it is the decision of the majority
that you pay the plaintiff $986.
- [Emma] Thank you so much. - Thank you, both.
[gavel bangs]
[Cassandra] This case has concluded.
All parties are excused.
[theme music plays]
I never settled on anything with her.
He has a sense of entitlement. [laughs]
I would hope that it doesn't damage the family
even if it hinders our relationship.
If he ever wants to take accountability,
I am always open to, you know, a friendship.
I'm okay with that. I'm forgiving. [laughs]
I have my own life to live and things to focus on.
Don't trust people without proof. [laughs]
Good for her.
[announcer] Got family drama?
Let Tribunal Justice decide your case.
Find us on social media
at Tribunal Justice.
["Ride of the Valkyries" plays]