She caught my eye.
This is a very attractive woman.
She comes in church looking very nice and had on red bottom shoes.
- The Lord looks at those things. - Ooh.
- You get engaged, correct? - Correct.
You break up. You keep a ring.
He wants his ring back.
I was hurt, I was angry, I was distraught...
You know that that was a gift that he gave you
because he wanted you to be his wife.
This could be a birthday gift too.
Which clearly is a lie.
I don't like when people take advantage of other people.
[announcer] Now, on Tribunal Justice.
["Ride of the Valkyries" plays]
[announcer] Today's case was filed in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
[Cassandra] Your Honor, this is case number 2094, Seals versus Thompson.
All parties have been sworn in.
- Thank you, Cassandra. - You're welcome.
You may be seated.
[Judge DiMango] Mr. Seals and Ms. Thompson,
there was a time when the two of you were engaged to one another.
And during that time, Mr. Seals, you bought the plaintiff a ring and a car.
And ultimately, you damaged that car and you paid to have it repaired.
So you're here suing today
because you're no longer engaged to one another.
So you're here suing for the value of the ring,
which was $1,445
and you wanna be reimbursed for the money you laid out
to repair the car that she damaged
and that's $13,661.
So the court maximum is what you're suing for, $10,000.
What you say your defenses are,
one, he gave you the ring as an irrevocable gift,
so you don't owe him anything for that.
And the second thing is, you don't owe him anything for the car because he loved you.
He said he loved you and he wanted to fix the car
and this is about him showing his love for you
and he wanted to marry you
and why would you have to pay him back for the car?
So you don't owe anything, correct?
- Correct. - [Judge DiMango] Okay.
Let's start with the relationship
because that's pretty much what a lot of this is about.
So Mr. Seals, first of all, how old are you, sir?
Sixty-three, Your Honor.
- And proud of it, I could tell. - [James] Yes.
- And ma'am, how about you? - Thirty-nine.
[Judge DiMango] Thirty-nine.
You, sir, met the defendant where?
We met at church, maybe three and a half years ago.
Uh, one Sunday, she caught my eye.
This is a very attractive woman.
She comes in church looking very nice and had on red bottom shoes.
- The Lord looks at those things. - [James] Ooh.
[Judge DiMango] I think the only prayer you had at that time was,
"Will she go out with me with those red bottom shoes?"
No, they just caught my eye.
That was just something that caught my eye, Your Honor.
[Judge DiMango] Because when you pray, you look down,
- that's why you see the feet. - She was a Christ--
she's a Christian woman, a prayer-- a God-fearing woman.
That was more important than the shoes, believe me that.
- Believe me. - I'm happy you're saying that.
- [James] Yes, ma'am. - You met in church?
Yeah. And we--you know, it's like we just--
we got to know each other for a while,
you know, and he seemed, you know, always so nice
- and... - [Judge DiMango] I'm gonna tell you.
I've come to learn that you don't always meet
the most upstanding people in church.
And I remember when my mother was renting an apartment underneath where I lived.
We wanted to be careful about who we were renting to
because there I was--I was a single woman.
And so she rented to this woman
who was--in the church paper was saying she looked for an apartment.
My mother met her. She was, you know, in her 30s, 40s, whatever at the time.
And one day I was outside getting in my car
and all of a sudden some guy walks by, throws an ash can, the thing explodes.
I'm like, "Oh, my God, what's happening here?"
Bottom line is, she was a predicate felon who owed money to loan sharks
and was kind of like hiding out in this apartment.
I make that point to both of you
because it means nothing to me that you both met in church.
But when do you start dating? How soon after you meet?
So we started dating maybe three months after we met.
It was post-COVID.
But six months later, June of 2022, where do you go?
We went looking at rings. Yes.
[Judge DiMango] We actually have a picture of that engagement ring.
In fact, this is the ring you're here suing--
not for the ring.
You said you don't want the ring,
you want the value of the ring, is that correct?
[James] Yes, but either or. I...
- Oh, you'll take either or? - [James] ... would take the ring back--
I would take the ring back or the value of the ring.
[Judge DiMango] Okay. And we do have a receipt in here showing
that you made a payment for the ring and it was for the amount you're asking.
- Yes, Your Honor. - [Judge DiMango] So this is June,
- you get engaged, correct, June? - Correct.
- When's your birthday, by the way? - [Nicole] July.
- [Judge DiMango] July is your birthday. - [Nicole] Yup.
- He proposes and he gives you... - Yeah, in June.
- ... the ring in June, right? - Yes.
And the reason why that's important is why, ma'am?
Because, uh--and I don't know if he remembers,
but we discussed too, I was like, "This could be a birthday gift too."
- Could be. - [Nicole] Yeah.
- But it wasn't. - [Nicole] Yeah, it was engagement.
- It was an engagement ring. - Engagement ring.
[Judge DiMango] The whole thing about the engagement ring, sir, is what?
Is that a good thing for you that it was an engagement ring or a bad thing?
That was a really good thing for me, Your Honor,
because I fell in love with this young lady.
I was 60-something-years-old and I fell in love
and I was anticipating having a family.
She's got some beautiful children.
All this from church and a pair of red high-heeled shoes.
- I'm gonna go out and buy myself some. - Yes, Your Honor. Yes, Your Honor.
[Judge DiMango] So, you got a ring that you give her,
and you're saying, you know, it's--you kind of gave it up.
It's your ring in contemplation of marriage.
The difference with that is a regular gift,
if I give you a diamond necklace,
is that it's called a gift inter vivos,
and that means it's irrevocable.
You can't take it back. It's not conditional.
The engagement ring is conditional on what thing happening?
[James] Marriage.
[Judge DiMango] Did you guys get married?
- No. - Then that contingency did not occur,
and he would be entitled to the return of that ring or its value.
But you don't wanna give that ring back, do you?
You know why?
Because I don't have it.
No, you didn't say that in your papers,
but you did say because, "It had such sentimental value to me."
[James] Yes, Your Honor.
- That's what she told me. - So sentiment--right.
Well, she BS'd you, boy.
- Um... - [Nicole] No, that was true.
- That was--yeah. - That's true, but I gave it away?
- [Nicole] No. - I sold it?
- [Nicole] No. - I lost it?
- Yes. I'm a preschool teacher, right? - [Judge DiMango] Yeah.
So I have to take off my ring
so I don't, you know, injure the kids and stuff,
and I put it in my bag, my work bag.
- [Judge DiMango] Yeah. - And I couldn't find it.
[Judge DiMango] Now I feel like that happens with my bag,
because I put things in there, it's like the black hole.
I never find them again.
But the reality is, that's not what happened to that ring.
- That's true. - You know it and I know it.
That's what you'd like me to believe, but I don't for a second.
Now, back to you. How do you go about buying her a car?
So, Your Honor, uh, one morning, I get a call.
She says, "James, I need--I need a new car."
Um, we discussed this a few times.
Then, uh, shortly after that, her car dies.
- [Judge DiMango] Okay. - [James] I took her to the dealership,
and we looked at some cars,
and I took out a loan.
Just a minute. He bought a car.
- He put the two of you down as buyer... - Yes.
[Judge DiMango] ... and co-buyer, because I saw that on the contract.
- Now the loan is not in your name. - No.
- [Judge DiMango] The loan is in his name. - [James] Yes.
[Judge DiMango] But who's making payments on that loan?
You are. Was she making payments on that loan?
- [James] Yes. Yes. - Okay.
[Judge DiMango] And who's paying for the insurance on that?
- You are? - Yes.
- You're paying the insurance. - Insurance and then...
Now what happens is, you crash the car.
- Yes, Your Honor, on my way to work. - And you really smashed the car up.
Let's take a look at the photographs up there
about what this car looked like.
You were the only one in the car, I hope.
Me and my twin daughters.
[Judge DiMango] Were they in the back?
[Nicole] Yes, there's black ice.
[Judge DiMango] She gets in the accident,
car sits at your home for three months, correct?
- Correct. - [Judge DiMango] You're not paying it,
she's still paying it, allegedly.
There's no insurance on the car.
Let's make this clear. You let the insurance lapse.
Right. And I didn't know that until the...
[Judge DiMango] Well, you should have known that.
There's no excuse for not knowing whether your car's insured or not.
Now you then say, sir, "I'll fix the car for you," correct?
- Yes, Your Honor. So it's... - [Judge DiMango] What was your agreement?
Because it is her car. She did cause the damage,
So tell me why you think she owes you the money for this.
You fixed it for her, didn't you?
I did it because I loved her.
I'm gonna tell you something.
A lot of times I come out here and I go, "Scammer!"
But you know what I wanna say here? "Sucker!"
Judge Levy.
[Judge Levy] That was rough.
- [wheezing] - [laughter]
Did you really love her?
[James] Yes, Your Honor.
[Judge Levy] Did you think she loved you?
[announcer] Coming up on Tribunal Justice.
The month the car was in the shop, she got argumentative,
she didn't wanna have nothing to do with me,
and then there's another man in the picture.
[dramatic musical sting]
[theme music plays]
[announcer] James Seals is suing ex-fiancée Nicole Thompson
for $10,000.
James says his ex needs to return the engagement ring
and pay for car damages on a car he co-signed for.
But Nicole says the ring was a birthday gift
and she never asked to repair the car,
so she owes him nothing.
Did you really love her?
[James] Yes, Your Honor.
[Judge Levy] Did you think she loved you?
Yes, Your Honor. I thought she loved me.
- Uh, I've been... - [Judge Levy] What do you do?
I'm a preschool teacher.
[Judge Levy] How much do you make as a schoolteacher?
- [Nicole] Not much at all. - [Judge Levy] I didn't ask you
- whether it was not much at all. - [Nicole] Like,
- about $40,000. - I asked how much you make.
$35,000, $40,000 a year.
[Judge Levy] How much was the car?
- About what, $25,000? - Yes, sir.
- And you needed a car, right? - Yes.
- [Judge Levy] Needed a car for your job? - Yes.
[Judge Levy] Needed a car to take around your seven kids?
- Yes. - [Judge Levy] And you didn't have a car.
- [Nicole] No. - [Judge Levy] And the only way
you were gonna get a car is if someone bought you a car.
Not the only way, no.
[Judge Levy] How else were you gonna get a car?
We--so we discussed this.
[Judge Levy] How else were you gonna get a car?
- I was--I could've financed it myself. - [Judge Levy] Why didn't you?
Because the interest would've been cheaper with his credit than mine.
[Judge Levy] That was the issue. She needed you.
- She had seven kids... - No.
... she was making $35,000 a year,
she had no transportation,
and she knew she had you.
Yes, Your Honor. I fell in love with her.
I fell in love with all of her kids.
[Judge Levy] How old are your kids?
Seventeen, fifteen, fourteen,
uh, twins that are, uh, thirteen and twins that are nine.
[Judge Levy] Are they all from the same father?
No. One's deceased.
The other one does not pay support, but he supports them.
He's a father.
He takes care of them, their needs, their education, all that.
She needed you.
No, I didn't need him. And he knows that.
In your answer to his lawsuit with respect to the ring,
you said you're not gonna give it back
because, number one, it had sentimental value,
which clearly is a lie,
but you also said that it was a gift, it was a birthday gift.
That's what you put in your papers, right?
Right. When we spoke, I was like, this could be my gift--birthday gift too.
So you guys broke up at one point
before the ultimate breakup after the crash, right?
Yes, we broke up a couple of times.
When you broke up those couple of times, did she give you back the ring?
- [James] Yes. - "Yup."
She knew it was an engagement ring, which is why she gave it back to you.
- Then, you got back together again. - Yes, sir.
When you got back together again, what'd you do with the ring?
[James] Gave it back.
[Judge Levy] So you now admit that this gift,
birthday gift that you could have kept,
you nonetheless gave it back to him
- when you broke up, right? - Right.
If she believed it was a birthday gift, she'd have kept it, but she didn't.
With respect to this $13,660
that you gave us evidence of what it cost to fix the car,
the majority of your suit is trying to get that back from her,
- correct? - Correct.
[Judge Levy] Do you have anything in writing
indicating how much she was gonna pay back,
when it was gonna start, when it was gonna end,
how much per month
or every other month she was gonna pay back?
- No, sir. - [Judge Levy] All right. Judge Acker.
[Judge Acker] Thank you, Judge Levy.
And you, Mr. Seals,
you know, the defendant submitted this text message from you
where you basically say,
"We need to close this whole deal and move on.
We don't need to go to court.
I will eat the loss and we'll go on with our lives."
So what happened?
Yes, Your Honor. That was at a point where everything was chaotic.
We had split up.
Everything was horrendous.
I was emotional, she was emotional.
I was just trying to get through this thing.
I was--I was hurt, angry.
I was--I was distraught.
I just wanted to close the door on everything.
So why did you decide not to do that?
Because I'll also point out to you, sir,
that you said a couple of things both on your complaint and in court today,
which make me think that you didn't have a good faith basis
for thinking you were getting this money back.
I mean, in your complaint, "I stepped up
- and took the car to get it fixed." - Yes.
[Judge Acker] Because your name is on the title.
So, all I know is that I see no basis
for you to impose on her a legal obligation to pay you back.
I just don't see it.
I mean, did you ever attempt to give him any money?
Did you pay him anything toward these repairs?
- [Nicole] No, I did not. - [Judge Acker] So if you'd done that,
if she'd made a practice of paying you,
then one might say, "Okay, perhaps there was an implied agreement."
But there wasn't that.
I don't even hear you ever say that she said that she would pay you back.
- You're just hoping. - [James] Your Honor,
she did say she would pay me back.
She--she's the type of person
that doesn't want to take anything from anybody for nothing.
- She always tried... - Yeah, but I need him.
She always made every attempt
to get money to pay for the repairs of the car
while we were together.
But when we broke up, she didn't want to have anything--
And I had the car. She said, "I'm done with it."
You got the car,
- so you're stuck with it. - [Judge Acker] You have the car--
so you have the car, correct?
- Hold on. I'll get to you. - So, yes, but the reason
I have the car, Your Honor,
the month the car was in the shop, she changed dramatically.
She got distant, she got argumentative.
She didn't wanna have nothing to do with me.
And then there's another man in the picture.
This other man is all over her, all over her social media.
Is--hold on. Is this the person
- that you ultimately married? - Yes.
How soon after you broke up with the plaintiff,
uh, did you get married?
Um, two months, three months.
[Judge Acker] So you break up with him and you get married
- two or three months later? - Yes.
[Judge Acker] So this is why we're here.
You hurt his feelings.
He's still brooding over this old relationship.
And you decide to keep a ring, which frankly, that was pretty callous.
You know that that was a gift that he gave you
because he wanted you to be his wife.
And so for you to keep it and then go on to marry somebody else,
no wonder he's like contriving legal obligations from whole cloth.
He was mad.
[Nicole] Can I speak? Like he just said, I don't need for nothing.
I don't ask for nothing, so I didn't use this man.
I was with this man three years.
He said out of his own mouth,
I'm the type of woman that don't ask for nothing.
So if I was using this man, I would have got everything I could out of this man.
That's one.
Two, he has the truck.
That's why we broke up
because what happened is-- we were--I was distant, right?
But that's because we broke up before.
And he's the type of a person-- he's a--he--that's conditional love.
That's what I tell him.
- Everything has condition. - [Judge Acker] Honestly,
it really doesn't matter.
He got you a car. He paid to get the car fixed.
He wants his money back. He wants his ring back.
[announcer] Coming up on Tribunal Justice.
Two days after you two break up, you're online with some guy,
posting pictures of yourself with him in all sorts of places.
[dramatic musical sting]
[theme music plays]
[announcer] James Seals is suing ex-fiancée Nicole Thompson
for an engagement ring and car repairs after the two broke up.
Nicole says she never asked James for anything
and that everything he bought and did was on his own,
so she owes nothing.
[Judge Acker] It never occurred to you that after all of this drama,
you thought you had no obligation whatsoever with respect to the ring?
[Nicole] Well, Your Honor.
We broke up in October and then got the ring--the truck fixed.
I had paid him the payment-- the car payment,
and then he held the truck.
He wouldn't give me the truck back.
So I'm like, "Well, I paid you for this month
and you ain't--you're holding the truck over my head
and you won't even give it back to me?"
And I told him, "If you give me the money for this month--"
[Judge Acker] But you understand the liability and risk
that you exposed him to
by having possession of the car on which both of your names are on title
and you didn't keep up the insurance.
So if instead of having that accident,
- what if you killed somebody... - [Nicole] Right.
... and then this man who thought that he was starting a new life with you
would end up bankrupt.
So of course he's gonna take that property back.
You weren't responsible enough in order to keep it.
He took it back because he's got to protect himself.
- I don't have anything else. - [Judge DiMango] I do.
Because I don't like when people take advantage of other people,
especially who they know have feelings for them
to a larger degree than you do.
Now you're saying, "I was upset about the truck."
Meanwhile, two days after you two break up,
you're online with some guy?
You're posting pictures of yourself with him in all sorts of places.
- It was five days later. I was... - Come on. You were too.
- All of the things... - I was hurt.
[Judge DiMango] ... that you're saying are to suit you
and why you think you shouldn't pay him back.
But I was thinking of something,
because something you said and something more that you said.
He fixed the car because he loved you,
- right, according to you? - [Nicole] Right.
He fixed the car
- because he was gonna marry you, right? - Right.
If he wasn't gonna marry you, do you think he would have fixed the car?
- Yes or no? - No.
[Judge DiMango] Did you fix the car
- because you were gonna marry her, sir? - [James] Yes.
[Judge DiMango] So there's nothing in the Civil Rights Law Section 80,
which controls gifts in contemplation of marriage,
there's nothing in that which would prevent you
from getting more than one gift in contemplation of marriage.
And it doesn't have to be a ring.
If I found that that was a gift in contemplation of marriage,
who do you think would have to pay back, you or him?
You.
I don't have any other questions.
Are we ready?
Then we are gonna retire to deliberate.
- Thank you both. - Thank you.
This case is now in recess. All parties will be recalled.
[dramatic musical sting]
First of all, I see no way
to find otherwise than the engagement ring was a gift
in contemplation of marriage.
And to think that she lost it by putting it in her bag
and has never found it ever since--
she's just not trustworthy in my view.
She manipulated the situation and him.
So I'd like to return the ring value at least
because we can't do much else.
The car.
Would you both be on board with finding that that was also a gift
in contemplation of marriage
which would require her to repay him for that?
I--it's a stretch.
[Judge DiMango] Why? Because it is.
I mean, she claims that she wrote it in her papers,
"It's because he loved me and he wanted to marry me."
No different than giving the ring over.
It doesn't say you can't have more than one.
But I think a gift in contemplation of
is different than a gift because of,
- right? - Yeah.
So, I'm giving you this in anticipation
- of our getting married... - [Judge DiMango] Right.
... is different than, "I love you a lot
and now I'm gonna give it to you
- because I care about you so much." - Like they need to be both gifts.
- Yeah. Yeah. - I see the distinction, I see it.
But I think that he wouldn't have even made that as a gift
but for the fact that they were going to get married.
And I'm pushing it.
I know I am, but I just feel in some way she doesn't walk away from this
being penalized for her actions, and that bothers me.
So I'll hear you all, I'm still open.
Someone else is eventually gonna end up judging her.
Hmm.
The red shoes aren't gonna get her in, you think?
Her red shoes are most certainly, maybe. It depends where she goes.
Maybe the red shoes will be good
- where she's going. - That's true.
- Uh... - [laughs]
Yes, sir.
[laughter]
Listen, she lied clearly about that ring.
It was not a birthday gift that she believed was hers to keep.
It was an engagement ring, which is why she gave it back
- when they broke up the first time. - I saw that in the papers as well.
I said, "Look, she gave it back after they broke up."
[Judge Levy] It was so obvious.
And she came in here and she lied about it.
And so he gets the value of that ring, which is $1,445.
As far as the, uh, the money that he spent to repair the car,
- that... - You can't--you can't...
- [Judge Levy] I can't... - ... just push yourself a little bit.
[Judge Levy] I can't, not under the circumstances.
You know, he was blinded by love
and this is his lesson that next time don't be so blinded.
[Judge Acker] Yeah, I think I'm with Adam.
I guess the lesson is you have to be more careful
before you step up like that.
So my legal acumen keeps me in check with the fact that, you know what?
It would have been a nice theory. I looked at it.
- It was. - It was. It was after I was listening.
I liked the theory. I was hoping we could stretch it.
- It wasn't a bad theory. - It wasn't a bad theory.
- It's not a bad theory. - But it was just--
I wouldn't want the world to say,
- "Really, she found that was it?" - Under these facts, right?
- Just not on--not on these facts. - [Judge DiMango] Okay.
We're going to just return the money for the ring
and, um, call it a day.
- Sounds good. - All right, ready.
[dramatic musical sting]
[Cassandra] Court is back in session.
All parties are reminded that you're still under oath.
Thank you, Cassandra.
I really was stretching, trying to find a way
that the repairs were a gift in contemplation of marriage.
But in reasoning it through with my colleagues in the back,
I just couldn't set aside the reality here,
which was that you did this because of how you felt about her.
So sir, the only remedy here for you
is the return of the value of the ring,
$1,445, which is due to you
because this was a gift in contemplation of the marriage
and is indeed something that you were entitled back.
As to the money you put out for the car, you're a good man.
You get it out of the goodness of your heart.
But the bottom line is you have the car, you can sell it,
reimburse yourself for it.
So to that extent,
I don't feel as bad that the law is not in your favor in this case.
But I think you've got to go into situations
with your eyes wide open, not looking down
to see whether or not they're wearing Louboutin shoes or not.
So sir, the verdict is in your favor.
It's unanimous, $1,445.
Spend it wisely.
- Yes, Your Honor. - [gavel bangs]
This case is closed. All parties are dismissed.
[theme music plays]
He's hurt.
Then I moved on quick, that we're not getting married.
No. Um, there's no jealousy about that, no.
It's the only reason he's doing it.
No, no. She jumped into a rebound deal
and we know that that stuff don't work.
The heart wants what the heart wants.
You know, I've forgiven her. I haven't forgotten.
I've forgiven her, but I haven't forgotten, so...
[announcer] Got family drama?
Let Tribunal Justice decide your case.
Find us on social media at Tribunal Justice.
["Ride of the Valkyries" plays]