Your relationship started out as a sugar daddy arrangement.
"He slid into my DMs," amongst other things.
"I couldn't turn it down."
How much sugar? What was the sugar like?
I mean, when we would go out, he was paying for things.
And then your wife finds out about her?
That was stupid.
[announcer] Now on Tribunal Justice.
["Ride of the Valkyries" plays]
[announcer] Today's case was filed in West Covina, California.
[Byrd] Your Honor, this is case number 2055
on the calendar in the matter of Valenzuela versus Arredondo.
- Thank you, Byrd. - You're welcome, Judge.
Parties have been sworn in. You may be seated.
[Judge Acker] Ms. Valenzuela.
You met the defendant online,
and in your words,
your relationship started out as a sugar daddy arrangement.
And then, also in your words, feelings got involved.
The defendant was separated from his wife
and when she found out about you,
she refused to let him see his children.
You therefore loaned him money for a lawyer
which he's refused to pay back.
You also maintain that you paid the utilities
in a home the two of you were intended to share together.
He lives there now on his own
and he hasn't reimbursed you for those utilities,
and you're suing the defendant for $6,500.
And that's for the money for the loan,
for the lawyer, and also for the utilities.
Mr. Arredondo, you maintain you owe her nothing
because over the course of your relationship with her,
you say you gave her an excess of $17,000...
Correct.
[Judge Acker] ... so according to you, it's all even.
Yes.
How did you find her? Were you just online...
Mutual friends, just one of those recommendations
where they pop up, and that was it, correct.
So it was an online, social media generated relationship.
- Yes. - [Judge Acker] Right about that?
- Yes. - [Judge Acker] In fact,
in your answer, sir, I think you say,
"When we first met, I was her sugar daddy."
Tell me about that, Ms. Valenzuela.
Because you say that he started offering you money
to keep him company and that was just too good an offer to pass up.
Yes. It started as we were just texting
and then it was phone calls here and there,
and then he explained to me
that he was separated with his wife.
[Judge Acker] Is that true?
- Were you physically... - Yes.
... separated or were you just separated in your mind?
No. Separated in my mind would probably...
- [Judge Acker] [laughs] That's... - ... be the best way to do it.
- [Judge Acker] I think that's... - But we're--uh,
we were at the end of our relationship.
In fact, in your answer, you say you were married
and you cheated on your ex-wife
- with the plaintiff. - [Peter] Correct.
[Judge Acker] But when your wife found out about the plaintiff, what did she do?
She stopped allowing me to see the boys.
Tell me, Ms. Valenzuela,
because a really key part of the defendant's defense
is that he did so many nice things for you.
You yourself said he was a sugar daddy.
Tell me about the sorts of things-- how much sugar?
- What was the sugar like? - [Victoria] I mean,
when we would go out, he was paying for things.
When we'd go out with friends, he paid the bill for everybody quickly.
Over what period of time was it just sugar daddy, sugar baby?
That was probably, I wanna say three months that it was like that.
But pretty much, we were sitting at a bar one night
and we both confessed our feelings,
and that's when the relationship took off.
And then our children both met, so...
Your kids and his kids?
- [Victoria] Yes. - [Peter] Uh-hmm.
And they all got along, I...
- [Judge Acker] So it evolves, like... - Yes.
... he's paying for stuff, I like him paying for stuff, too.
- Maybe we have a substantive future? - Yes.
Mr. Arredondo, a really critical point in the dynamic
between the two of you seems to be the demise of your business,
because we wouldn't be here
if she hadn't had to give you the money for the lawyer,
and if the issue with the utilities hadn't arisen
because I know in your answer,
you say that you lost almost $300,000 overnight.
- What was your business, sir? - [Peter] Correct.
Telecommunications construction.
Um, we'd build fiber optics substructure,
the underground portion of the fiber optic network.
And so what happened to it?
Um, I had a manager who was running things for me,
and he was billing-- putting in false invoicing,
saying that we did X amount of production that we--wasn't done.
So it was invoiced, so in accounting we were expecting it
as, you know, accounts receivable.
When it came to light,
it was $300,000 in arrear, but it was never...
- [Judge Acker] Oh, it was... - ... it was never actually...
[Judge Acker] ... money that you were supposed to receive...
Correct. Correct.
[Judge Acker] ... but you never got the money?
- No. - And I think at this point,
- you'd even bought a house... - Correct.
[Judge Acker] ... and you wanted her to help renovate
- because the two... - Correct.
[Judge Acker] ... of you were gonna move in together?
Yes, ma'am.
[Judge Acker] And then you lose the business.
Yes.
[Judge Acker] And then your wife finds out about her...
[Peter] Yes.
[Judge Acker] ... and says you can no longer see the kids.
Yes.
So tell me about the loan that you made to him.
So the loan, uh, we were pretty much already in--deep in the relationship.
I adored his children, so I just told him,
"Hey, I'm gonna do this because I'm a mother.
It's devastating you cannot see your children."
- How many kids do you have? - [Victoria] I have two daughters.
And how many do you have?
I have four sons total.
You found out also about the fact
that he'd have this problem with the business.
That was, um, I wanna say April, is when I discovered
that he was having the financial hardship.
That's when I came to him and I said, "Look,
I can pull from my retirement, I will loan you the money."
And he agreed to pay me back.
And we went to the lawyer's office, I handed over the check,
and that's how he was able to see his children again.
Did you know that she was getting this money
- from her retirement account? - Yes, I did.
And we made an agreement I would give her $500 a month,
which I was doing for...
[Judge Acker] Let me just pause you right there.
Can we please see on the screen?
Uh, I believe that's plaintiff's exhibit one.
So sir, tell me what happened.
[Peter] She never acknowledged that I even gave her the money that I did give her.
Did he give you any money toward the debt?
[Victoria] He gave $500 cash.
He dropped it off at my parents' home.
[Judge Acker] She just acknowledged it.
Did you include that $500 in the amount for which you're suing?
- [Victoria] I did not. - [Judge Acker] You did not? So...
It was cash.
[Judge Acker] ... automatically, right off the bat,
I'm going to amend your claim, from a claim for $6,500 to $6,000.
And now, you put the utilities for the house
that he bought in your name.
Did you ever move into that house?
No, we did not.
- And you live there now. - Yes. And...
[Judge Acker] But you haven't reimbursed her
for the utilities that were paid when they were in her name.
They--what was paid, I paid some of that, not all of it.
And then the debt was transferred into my name.
No, it was not.
And I have an outstanding debt of a thousand dollars in the past,
- but I've been... - [Judge Acker] So help me understand.
... making payments to it.
So is it your position that you don't owe her any money
for the utilities because you've now assumed
that bill from the utility department?
I don't think that's right.
I think whatever was in her name they would assess against her.
I don't think they're gonna automatically just transfer the debt
unless you have some evidence of that.
I don't. I was unable to obtain it, so, um...
[Judge Acker] Are you still on the hook for that debt?
Yes.
[Judge Acker] And this is what was interesting.
And at some point, your father was trying to mediate between the two...
Yes.
- [Judge Acker] ... of you? - He was.
[Judge Acker] Can we put up exhibit 408?
The deal that you made with her dad was, "Give me the money,
I'll give it to her, and then I will get you your property."
[Peter] Correct.
[Judge Acker] She doesn't wanna deal with you?
By the way, does your father know
"We met online, he used to be my sugar daddy"?
Yes. He knows.
[Judge Acker] Your dad didn't wanna beat him up?
- Dad... - [Judge Acker] You're a grown woman...
- [Victoria] Dad did. - ... I guess.
He just--he was upset, and he just said, "Never again."
Your father was trying to mediate, so how did we end up here?
- She backed out... - Why didn't you give her the money?
... she backed out of that deal with her dad.
Why didn't you wanna just get the money from him
and then give him back the property?
He wasn't consistent with paying. He just paid that one time.
And sad to say, I think the roles did reverse.
I think I was the sugar momma and he was...
- [laughs] - ... the sugar baby.
- [Judge Acker] And so... - I turned into a sugar baby.
[Judge Acker] ... which is where I'm going with you.
Why shouldn't I just see this as, "Okay, we're together now,
- you had money before, now I've got..." - [Victoria] Now my turn.
"... some money, I'm gonna look out for you."
Well, it was a sugar daddy gone wrong, so unfortunately,
he was just, uh, drinking too much.
And I just couldn't have that around my children so I just asked,
"Hey, just pay me back and that's it."
The query for you is whether or not
your expectation of repayment was reasonable.
You knew he was broke.
Judge DiMango?
First of all, from your end, sugar daddies give gifts.
That's the whole purpose. What were you looking for in return?
- Oh, no. I... - [Judge DiMango] Come on.
... found what I was looking for in return.
- Sex and company. Give me... - [Peter] Okay.
... a break. Of course that's what you were looking for.
And you, that's prostitution.
You were willing to get paid to give him sex.
[announcer] Coming up on Tribunal Justice.
You lied when you told the court that for one year
before filing for bankruptcy, you were not a party to any other lawsuit.
You have, like, 30 and you just lied to them.
You go to jail for 20 years for this!
[dramatic musical sting]
[theme music plays]
[announcer] Victoria Valenzuela is suing her former sugar daddy, Peter Arredondo,
for a $6,500 loan she gave him when his business collapsed.
Peter claims he spent thousands of dollars
showering her with gifts and trips, so they're even.
Your first sentence in your papers when you said to us early on,
"Peter and I met on social media. He slid into my DMs"--
amongst other things-- "to tell me that I was pretty."
[laughs]
[Judge DiMango] "I wasn't interested because he was married.
But when he started offering me money to keep him company"--
therein lies the prostitution-- "I couldn't turn it down."
It started like a sugar daddy arrangement.
No, it was a sugar daddy arrangement.
And after a while, you began dating.
Now, that's not to say that you guys didn't get involved
and you couldn't get feelings or whatever,
but it's like you're both surprised.
You claim, "I gave her more than $17,000," right?
- That's your position? - Yes.
[Judge DiMango] And therefore this should be a wash.
And you, on the other hand, you were willing to do all of this.
You wanted him enough that you were willing to pay to have him
bring a lawsuit against his wife for visitation.
Now--but let me ask you both a serious question.
You said, "I'm a mother," I quoted you on my papers,
"I'm a mother. That's why I gave him the money
- to get visitation..." - Loaned him...
- [Judge DiMango] "... with his child." - ... the money.
[Judge DiMango] The point I wanna make on that is,
you think his wife was wrong to not want her kids around you?
Do I think she was wrong?
[Judge DiMango] No, you don't have to repeat it.
- Just give me... - Yes...
- ... the answer, you don't have to think. - ... she was wrong.
You think she was wrong?
He's having a prostitution relationship with you,
but do you really think she was wrong to say,
"I don't want my kids around this woman because she doesn't have strong values?"
She didn't know of the arrangement.
How do you know what she knew? You don't know what she knew.
You don't know how many lies he's told her.
- You think you're the first and only? - No, I'm not.
[Judge DiMango] You make these arrangements with other women?
- No, ma'am. No, ma'am. - [Judge DiMango] Yeah, you're full of it.
- [laughs] - What about you?
No. This was my first time.
- That you're the sugar baby? - [Victoria] Sugar baby and sugar momma.
- [Peter laughs] - And the last time.
[Judge DiMango] So what are you complaining about?
You spent some time being the baby, then you grew up, you became the momma.
- What do you about--complaining about? - Well...
- [laughter] - And I'm here thinking,
"Why would I wanna give either one of you anything?"
Because you might have paid $10 more for her than she paid for you?
And now that you're mad at each other,
you want us to come in and say, "Okay, fine. Okay, fine."
But the fact that your children were brought into this
is really extremely troubling to me because no matter how you feel,
you may not love your wife and she may not love you anymore,
but the kids always love both of you,
and you serve them no service by making them middlemen
in a story like this, or making them feel that they're going to have to take a side.
That's cruel.
[Peter] No one put anything towards the kids.
We never put them in the middle of it. They happened to be in the middle of it,
but it wasn't that we, at any point, anyone put anything in their head.
I'm sorry to say, but I can't imagine that on any occasion
that these children did not get the impression
that somebody was doing something wrong,
and that they were in the middle.
They're children. They are in the middle just by virtue
of their place in the relationship.
I mean, I think this is something you really have to own up to.
Judge Levy.
Ms. Valenzuela, do you dispute the figures that the defendant gives us,
$17,000 approximately over the course of your relationship?
I don't think it was the amount that he's saying.
- How much do you think it was? - I think it was probably less than that.
[Judge Levy] Listen, I think you might have something going here.
You know, he gives you all this money
and then it was only because of your relationship with each other
that he lost the right to see his kids according to his wife, right?
- Yes, sir. - But that was--that was his choice.
[Judge Levy] I get that.
So I'm asking you during this eight-month period,
how much would you say that he gave you?
- I don't think that he really... - [Judge Levy] How much?
You can't really put a dollar amount to it.
- He was giving--he was inviting... - So you can't?
So you know what, she can't. It's on you.
Do you have evidence of the monies that you claim to have given to her?
Because if so, it's really important that you give them.
It was--no, it was just money spent.
The majority of it was in cash.
[Judge Levy] Like when you went out to restaurants?
- Correct. - [Judge Levy] The check came, boom.
- Cash, you paid it, done. - Always.
[Judge Levy] Yeah. Always.
So let me ask you then, when you met her,
you said in your answer
that you were doing very well for yourself.
How much did you make in 2021?
Because I wanna know whether or not you had the kind of income
to spend on her.
2021, I made 270,000.
270,000. What about 2022?
2022 was closer to 300,000.
- 300,000 in '22. - Yes. Yes, Your Honor.
And then in '23, up until things went sideways.
Up until April, it was right around $90,000.
Yeah. So we had the disposable income.
Now you said that--Mr. Arredondo,
you said that you lost $300,000
- almost overnight. - Correct.
But you said you're not being sued for that.
No. I was never paid for it. We invoiced for it.
The manager was stating that the work was done and it wasn't done.
- [Judge Levy] Got it. - [Peter] Things of that nature.
So you weren't paying for the lawsuits,
- nothing like that? - No.
And would you say that your business relationships were pretty good?
You had no financial problems.
Correct.
[Victoria] He did.
I went through his phone. He owes a lot of people money.
Did he give you permission to go through his phone?
- [Victoria] Yes. - He gave you permission
- to go through his phone? - He gave me his passcode.
- Well, that was stupid. - [Peter] Yes, sir.
[Judge Levy] But it is true that despite what you just testified to under oath
that your financial world since 2018 has been crumbling.
- Yes. - [Judge Levy] Yeah.
2018, you're sued in small claims court in California.
2019, two other small claims cases filed against you on the same day in California.
November 2019, breach of contract.
November 2019, breach of contract, debt collections.
January 2020, breach of contract.
January 2020, breach of contract, debt collection.
January 2020, breach of contract, warrant issued for your arrest.
2021, debt collection. Tort action.
Breach of contract in Michigan.
2021, contract, debt collection.
Breach of contract.
Small claims, small claims, breach of contract.
And then in November of 2022,
you were sued by Ford Motor Company, and they took your wife's car.
That was the car that she used to drive the kids around with,
- right? - Correct.
[Judge Levy] And then November 16th, 2023,
you filed Chapter 13 bankruptcy court.
- Federal court hearing California, right? - Yes.
[Judge Levy] Hmm. That's your problem.
You lied when you told the court
that for one year before filing for bankruptcy,
you were not a party to any other lawsuits.
They have to take that into consideration
when deciding whether to discharge your debt.
You have like 30 and you just lied to them.
You go to jail for 20 years for this.
I didn't lie to them, no, because I didn't fill that paperwork out
and the reason I filed the bankruptcy was to get the debt under control
because it was--I have litigation-- or not litigations.
I have judgments against me.
And on your bankruptcy petition,
you were supposed to list all of your creditors.
She was a creditor. She's claiming you owe her $6,500.
You did not list her. Why?
I didn't think I owed her the money.
By not including her on there, you committed fraud.
[announcer] Coming up on Tribunal Justice.
There was another reason why your wife didn't want you
to see the kids unsupervised, right? Yup.
- Yes. - [Judge Levy] Why don't you tell us now?
[dramatic musical sting]
[theme music plays]
[announcer] Victoria Valenzuela is suing her former sugar daddy, Peter Arredondo,
for a $6,500 loan she gave him when his business collapsed.
Peter claims he spent thousands of dollars showering her with gifts and trips,
so they're even.
How come in that bankruptcy petition
when they asked you where you lived during the last three years
and whether or not you have lived anywhere other than West Street, you said, "No."
That's the house that he was gonna move in with you, right?
Yes, that's the house.
[Judge Levy] So you lied to the bankruptcy court
when they asked you over the last eight years
had you been living with your wife in California
which was a community property state.
Remember what you said to that question?
- No, sir. - [Judge Levy] You said, "Nope."
- I didn't fill that out, Your Honor. - Nope,
because I don't have a wife
and I most certainly wasn't living with her in a community property state.
And then, you lied when you told the judge that your gross income in 2022,
when you told us that you made $300,000,
you told the bankruptcy judge you made $60,000.
And in 2022, you made $75,000.
That's what you wrote under the penalties of--listen, understand something.
Federal bankruptcy court--
- they'll come after you. - Okay.
[Judge Levy] Now, with respect to your claim
that the only reason why you lost the right to see custody of your kids
was because of your relationship with her.
- You remember that? - [Peter] Yes.
Well, there was another reason why your wife didn't want you
to see the kids unsupervised, right? Yup.
- Yes. - [Judge Levy] Why don't you tell us now?
- Go ahead. - [Peter] Yes.
She made statements that I drank
- and that I take drugs and... - [Judge Levy] Not only drank,
you were a habitual drunk.
You know how many times she mentioned you in her petition?
Zero.
What she said was that he would not say where he was taking the boys
when it was his time,
and she needed to know where the boys were because he was a drunk
and he abused medication and illegal drugs.
That's what she said. I don't know whether it's true or not,
but I most certainly know
that what you said to us here in court is a big fat lie.
I'm done.
Then we are going to retire to deliberate at this time.
Thank you, both.
Court now stands in recess. Parties are excused.
[dramatic musical sting]
I think it's pretty clear
that he gave her money with no expectation of repayment.
And she had every expectation of repayment.
In fact, he said, "I'm gonna give you this money back."
He commits to giving her the money back.
She amended her request from $6,500 to $6,000.
I'd award her all of that and what say you two?
You know, I know that he gave her the money
without an expectation of repayment,
but I think their expectations for what they did
were always personal to them.
And I just wanna let them go on their way
and not reward her in any way for all of what occurred in here,
giving him money to bring an action against his wife.
She had his phone--she said it in the end.
"I went through his phone."
She was looking to see whether or not he was probably cheating or lying on her.
And I kind of feel like why are we interceding in this--in this situation?
So I'm leaning towards not giving her anything.
I respectfully disagree.
Everything that came out of his mouth is a lie.
And not for nothing, she should contact the bankruptcy court, the trustee,
as well as his ex-wife
and let them know what he said here.
I don't think she should contact his ex-wife at all.
I think she should stay away from that.
She's got no reason to reach out to that woman and deal with her.
- Not for nothing. - But by her testimony alone,
she said, "Hey, in the beginning, he took me out.
We went here, we went there.
All my friends, he paid for all our dinners."
So, you know, she didn't wanna put an amount on it.
But you could bet he was spending
- more than $6,000 on her. - [Judge Levy] It makes absolutely--
listen, the only reason why I said all that in the beginning
- was to set him up. - Oh, of course.
Was to--was to show that he lied,
perjured himself in a federal action
- and a state action. - But that's a whole separate thing.
- [Judge Levy] Hold on. - She said that he was playing out
- all this money for her. - No, but she specifically--
listen, there are times when people say to each other, listen, this is good.
I don't wanna expect anything back from this.
She could not have made it any more clear
that that money for the lawyer was to be repaid.
That's why there was a promissory note.
Today, May 23rd, the defendant agreed to a personal loan
from her in the amount of $4,500.
This amount will be paid directly from her to the attorney, which she did.
And he agreed to $500 per month payback until debt's paid in full.
I mean, it cannot be any more clear that that was,
in my humble opinion, a loan and not a gift.
Right. I think if I understand what may be your dissent
that you think that they were kind of both in a messy business
- with this arrangement. - Absolutely.
She's, you know, here, let me give you the money.
You'll get your kids.
Everything will be great here and, you know, and so on.
And she also created the risk and she assumed the risk.
And I would bet any money if they didn't break up
and they--and he got the kids
and everybody was moving along fine as a new family,
I don't think she would've said give me back my $4,500 at all.
So are you still dissenting?
I'm just saying I don't wanna enforce that contract,
that promissory note, based on the circumstances here
and what was exchanged in exchange for the money, for the services.
Everything that they did was a quid pro quo
for something in their relationship,
and that's what undid it.
Are you in favor of awarding her the full amount,
- $6,000? - Every bit.
So then Adam and I will deliver the majority opinion
and you my friend are dissenting.
- [Judge DiMango] Thank you. - Very good.
[dramatic musical sting]
[Byrd] Court is back in session. I remind parties you're still under oath.
- Thank you, Byrd. - Uh-hmm.
We've deliberated and we've reached a verdict.
Our verdict, however, is not unanimous.
Judge DiMango is the dissenting opinion in this case
and she, ma'am, would dismiss your complaint in its entirety.
She believes that under the circumstances
under which you made the agreement with the defendant
whereupon he was to repay you
that you had no legitimate and realistic expectation of repayment.
And her view on that is further confirmed
by some of the points that Judge Levy made in his examination,
that because of the defendant's financial circumstances,
which you certainly must have been aware of
that you did not think
that you really were gonna get the money back.
So she is not willing to enforce the agreement
between the two of you.
Judge Levy and I have a different opinion.
We do believe that you are entitled
to the full $6,000 that you've requested.
Regardless of what those circumstances were,
you made commitments to her and you executed a promissory note
that Judge Levy and I are very comfortable enforcing.
That's the judgment of the court. Good luck to you both.
- [gavel bangs] - [Victoria] Thank you.
[Byrd] This case has now concluded.
Parties are excused. You may step out.
[theme music plays]
When the shoe is on the other foot, you know, true colors came out.
It's a lesson learned for myself
to never get involved with anyone on social media ever again.
As soon as me and her stopped seeing each other,
everything worked out.
I get to see my kids regularly and, you know, life's okay.
Unfortunately, I caught feelings and now we're here.
Outta the sugar business.
[announcer] Got family drama?
Let Tribunal Justice decide your case.
Find us on social media at Tribunal Justice.
["Ride of the Valkryries" plays]