I was supposed to get our older son a car
and he was supposed to get our younger son a car.
It was never agreed upon.
Now, he's buying his new wife's kids vehicles.
But so what?
Okay. I'm...
My mom was just trying to be a good mom and give them what they wanted.
You're fighting over this and the bottom line is
when they turn 16, they don't wanna be with either one of you.
[announcer] Now on Tribunal Justice.
["Ride of the Valkyries" plays]
[announcer] Today's case was filed in Moreno Valley, California.
[Byrd] Your Honor, this is case number 2093 on the calendar
in the matter of Montez versus Montez.
- Thank you, Byrd. - You're welcome, Judge.
Parties have been sworn in, you may be seated.
Ms. Montez, the defendant is your ex-husband.
- Yes. - [Judge Acker] And you are suing him
for $10,000,
which is the amount that you say he owes you
for his portion of the price of a vehicle for one of your sons.
- Yes. - [Judge Acker] Mr. Montez,
you say you never had an agreement and you don't owe her a dime.
- That's correct. - [Judge Acker] You were divorced in 2015.
A few years later in 2019, according to your complaint, ma'am,
that's when there's a discussion about what are you gonna do
for the boys and their cars?
You made a big point, sir,
of saying that you wanted to lease cars for your sons.
You didn't want a lease.
You thought it was irresponsible.
Is it material? Like, would that matter?
No, the thing is, is we never came to an actual agreement on anything.
I had brought up the fact that two of my current wife's daughters had,
uh--got a vehicle leased for them for three years.
After that lease ran up,
they were given the option to buy the car if they wanted to.
I mentioned that to her, but it was never agreed upon.
[Judge Acker] Okay. I was just trying to be clear about that.
So then let's keep running through the timeline.
2022, your older son gets his license.
- You buy him a car. - [Susan] Yes.
Um, I was supposed to get our older son a car
and he was supposed to get our younger son a car.
- That's what you say. - [Susan] Uh-hmm.
But where is there evidence of that agreement?
It was when my daughter and I were in the car together.
I was on the phone with him.
We were discussing it and we made an agreement.
[Jason] Absolutely not.
We had discussed that as an option,
but we never came to any agreement on it.
And then cut to a year later,
the younger son wants your car.
- So you give him your car. - Yes.
[Judge Acker] You don't buy him a new car. You don't lease him a car.
You give him your car and then you buy a new car.
And in effect, what we're here over is
$10,000 that you think you're entitled to for your car.
Kind of.
He didn't stand by the agreement,
so I paid $22,000 for my son-- my older son's car.
So I'm just half of that then.
My point to you, ma'am, is you keep talking about an agreement.
But even the evidence that you submitted,
you're like, "You gotta buy him a car.
You gotta give some money for this car." He says, "No.
I can't afford it."
He says that right out of the box. That's in your evidence.
Well, that's--I don't know if you've looked through all of the text messages.
[Judge Acker] I sure have.
- Um, he... - [Judge Acker] January 16th.
"How are we going to work this out?
Do you just wanna give me what you were going to put into his car?
I'm guessing around $10,000."
- [Susan] Uh-hmm. - Unequivocally, he says, "No.
I can't afford it now that I had to go back to court,"
'cause you went back to court and you had to pay more child support?
- Correct. - [Judge Acker] And then your response,
you can do it exactly like you were going to do it for him,
2,000 down and $200 a month for three years.
His response, again, pretty unequivocal.
"No." And then he was like, "I'm not doing anything for his car
now that I have to pay more for child support."
I mean, where is the agreement?
Well, he's saying he's not gonna do it now because X, Y, and Z.
No, not X, Y, and Z. He had to pay more child support.
No, but, now the child support is far less
because my older child fell off.
So now it's just the one child.
He goes snowboarding,
he has school events, he has fuel, insurance.
Sure. But this case isn't about any of those things.
[Susan] No, I know, but that's the thing.
[Judge Acker] No, no, no. But put your facts in context.
You want your ex-husband to pay $10,000 toward your car
because you didn't buy the kid a new car.
You chose to give him your family car and you got yourself a new car,
and now you want your ex-husband to pay some money.
I'm not seeing the legal justification for your position.
So when we were married, we bought my daughter a car--
or no, we didn't buy it, we gave her a car,
- and then I got a new car. - [Judge Acker] Uh-hmm.
And then when--during that time,
we agreed that we can't just do it for one, we gotta do it for all of them.
- [Judge Acker] Sure. - And then...
- [Judge Acker] When you were married? - Yes.
Now, he's buying his new wife's kids-- um, leasing them vehicles.
[Judge Acker] But so what?
When people are married and they're living in the same household
and they're pooling their funds
and they are part of a joint community, they say, "You know what?
We're gonna do this. We're gonna do that."
And then they get divorced.
And then the divorce court settles everybody's obligations.
Use your child support money. That's his position.
[Susan] Okay.
We had always agreed. And I don't know--
I really don't know why... [exhales sharply]
okay. I'm... [exhales sharply]
[Judge Acker] You don't know why what?
You don't know why he's denying liability?
Because he said he had to pay more child support.
I'm gonna also say this, you know, I read all of the texts.
- Uh-hmm. - [Judge Acker] And in one of those texts,
I thought this was a little bit,
I don't wanna say shady, you know, divorce gets tough.
And when there are kids involved, it can be tougher.
But there's one point where he says,
"I'm not doing this. I can't afford it."
And you say to him, "Okay, well, you tell him."
And then he does and then you get mad.
You're like, "Well, you're telling him our business."
[exhales sharply] Okay.
[chuckles]
I'm sorry. I am frazzled right now.
- Don't be frazzled. - My son knew
that his father was going to get him a car.
He knew this.
And it was always the agreement.
And I did not wanna bring my kids into this.
- Yeah, you did. You told him to call. - [Susan] But--no, no, no. No, no, no.
You didn't wanna bring your kids into this.
I did not wanna bring my kids into all of this mess.
They don't know what's going on right now.
I told him because my son knew that he was getting him a car,
and he's like, "Ma, I want the family car. I want my--I want your car."
So I'm like, "Okay."
So that's why on the text messages, I'm like, "So how are we gonna do it?"
He's like, "No." He makes three to four times more than me.
I'm a single mom.
- I have... - That's why you get child support.
No, I understand that. But I have to live in a house that, you know,
I--it's--if it was just me, I'd rent a room somewhere,
I would get an apartment.
But I have to because I have children.
Please, I'm not being disrespectful.
But if feels to me like you were re-litigating your divorce
and re-litigating your support obligations,
and this just isn't the platform for it.
Sir, did you not think that you had some obligation
of some sort to kick in for the youngest son?
So I had never came to any kind of agreement for that.
Over the last 15 months, I've given her over $31,500
just in child support,
not including the spousal support,
which is like another 11,000 something.
So that money should be going towards the kids.
[Judge Acker] All right. Judge DiMango.
There is a big picture here.
I wanna just clear up a few things
'cause you said some things that might seem inconsistent.
This young lady is your daughter from a prior relationship.
- Yes. - [Judge DiMango] The two boys,
you are referring to are the children you both have in common.
- Yes. - [Judge DiMango] The two girls
who you are referring to who are leasing a car
are your new wife's children, not yours, correct?
Correct. She had already had previous to our marriage.
[Judge DiMango] Okay. Now, right then and there,
I could see Mrs. Montez saying,
they're not even his kids and he's leasing a car
and he's got these two boys and he's not doing right by them.
I did not lease those cars for them, my current wife did.
And I have the paperwork that shows that.
[Judge DiMango] Okay. So to clear that up,
but everything you say, there's gonna be a counter to.
So the point is, there's a little bit of that going on.
So now I'm gonna turn to you and say,
child support is a statutory amount
- based on your adjusted gross income. - Correct.
[Judge DiMango] So if you have two children,
I'm not sure about your jurisdiction, but most jurisdictions,
two children would be 25% of your adjusted gross income.
And then when your older child leaves,
it's 17% for one child.
That's what you would get for child support.
- Okay. - [Judge DiMango] There was no adjustment
in spousal support in this case as best as I can see.
So what is child support for?
Child support is for clothes, food, shelter,
and extra money like cars
is something that in this particular case
based on the agreement I've seen,
you two need to agree to outside the four corners of your divorce.
I did divorces as a judge in New York for three years
and I view anything that we do in these cases with children,
not only in the best interest of the child,
which is what the law mandates that we do as judges,
but also on a fairness principle.
What is fair here?
Is it fair that one boy gets a car and the other one doesn't?
Is it fair that she picks up both?
Is it fair that you hold him to an agreement that he didn't agree to?
By the way, was that car paid for outright, Ms. Montez?
Which one?
[Judge DiMango] The--your older boy's car.
Not outright. I put $10,000 down.
And you made payments towards that car...
- I did, yes. - ... to pay it off.
And you never made any of those payments, sir?
- That's correct. - [Judge DiMango] Now, you got boys.
- Do you love them? - I absolutely do.
Do they love you? You think they do at least...
[Jason] I think they do.
... as much as kids that age love anybody?
Do you think that getting them a car is a good thing?
- I do. - [Judge DiMango] Okay.
Why would you not want to contribute?
[announcer] Coming up on Tribunal Justice.
Did you leave her or did she leave you?
'Cause there's an anger here.
There's something running underneath this.
[dramatic musical sting]
[theme music plays]
[announcer] Susan Montez is suing ex-husband Jason Montez for $10,000.
Susan claims her ex always agreed to help buy their son a car.
Jason claims nothing was ever agreed on,
and his ex-wife is already getting plenty of financial support.
Why would you not want to contribute?
So, uh, when we had originally discussed this in the neighborhood of 2019, um...
- [Judge DiMango] Uh-hmm. - ... she--
we had kind of briefly just spoke about it.
And all of a sudden, he just has a car.
I think I found out about it on Instagram or something and...
[Judge DiMango] Okay. So did you feel that that purchase
was disrespectful of you and your position as their father?
Was it like spiteful? 'Cause I did notice, honestly speaking,
in the text messages when you wrote,
"I can't buy him a car because now I have to pay more child support."
It was kinda like a little spiteful, but spiteful to her,
but really ends up being spiteful to your son.
Did you leave her or did she leave you?
- You left her? - No, I left him.
I left the house, and then, she [indistinct] for--
[Judge DiMango] Yeah. And you had a girlfriend at the time?
- I left him. - No, I did not.
[Judge DiMango] Okay. 'Cause there's an anger here.
There's something running underneath this.
So what do you think would be fair?
If you think your boys should have a car,
what do you think would be fair for you to have contributed to each boy?
I honestly do not--I do not know.
You're not gonna bid against yourself. I got it.
This is, to me, it's always about what's fair
when there's children involved.
I think you've gotta be able to be in a place where you could say,
I think that this would be the right thing for their mental health and development.
And I wouldn't put her up in the stand either
'cause I don't think that any child should have to testify against any parent
whether it's their parent or not.
Judge Levy.
How would you describe his relationship with your younger son?
- Very strained. - [Judge Levy] Okay. In what way?
[Susan] And with the older as way--as well.
Okay. In what way?
Um, they used to go over there
and every time they'd go over, he wouldn't spend time with them.
And so that's why they wanted to pull back and maybe go less,
and I talked to him about it multiple times,
and he would always say, um,
"Oh, well, let's follow what the divorce decree says."
And he brought me back to court to lower the amount.
Hold on. And the divorce decree, by the way,
set up co-parenting time, right?
Wasn't it Sunday morning to Tuesday morning?
Tuesday morning.
And that was all the way back from 2015?
Yes.
[Judge Levy] And now, all of a sudden, in 2022,
and your younger son is how old now, in '22?
- '22, he was... - He was 15.
[Judge Levy] Fifteen.
You, for some reason, decide to go back to court
to reduce, formally,
the visitation schedule from Sunday to Tuesday
every week to alternating weekends,
Friday to Sunday. Why?
He ended up getting weekends off
and he wanted to take the kids every weekend.
I don't wanna lose my weekend time.
[Judge Levy] Why not just say, "Let's just come up with a schedule
- that our son feels comfortable with?" - Exactly.
[Judge Levy] Just change it, modify it. Did you object to that?
- [Susan] Yes. - [Jason] I did.
- [Judge Levy] Okay. - I wanted to see them more.
I love those kids.
[Judge Levy] So she had to go to court to get that reduced.
- Yes. - [Judge Levy] Okay.
Well, I get it, that was probably not a good move.
[Stephanie] Can I interject real quick?
If you have something to add on that point?
- [Stephanie] Yeah. - Sure.
So, them being my siblings--
sorry, I'm getting a little emotional.
No, you can't ask to come up here and talk and then cry.
You can't do that.
[Stephanie] Them being my siblings, we do talk often.
Knowing them wanting to change it,
my mom was just trying to be a good mom and give them what they wanted.
That's all she was trying to do.
And if he wanted to see them,
he would've actually made the time.
And they've voiced that and-- to both of us.
[Judge Levy] I get it.
Can I tell you, in the new court order?
He was, um--
said he can have two times a month to go to dinner with my younger son.
- Doesn't ever do it. - [Judge Levy] I get it.
And you'll eventually end up paying for that, if that is true.
But that's not the point here.
But when you, in your text messages, you say to the defendant,
"Call your younger son right now and tell him
that you're not getting him the car."
What did you want him to tell that to your son for?
Because my younger son already knew that his dad was going to provide him a car.
Okay. So he already knew it and now he's not gonna get it.
So you tell your ex-husband here,
"You call your son and you tell him why he's not getting a car."
And then, four days later on January 20th,
you text him, "You shared parental issues with our son.
Why would you think that's okay?
That's between you and I, not a child."
But you told him to speak to your son.
- Why--as to why--like... - [Judge Levy] Yeah.
... tell him you're not getting him a car.
- I mean, that's all he had to say. - [Judge Levy] Okay.
- And that's his responsibility. - "Hey, I'm not gonna get you a car."
And he would've done that. And he would've explained everything.
The point that Judge Acker was making earlier
was that you can't play both sides of the fence.
Now, what you're saying is that there was a valid agreement
that you entered into, an oral agreement.
So in 2019, when you had this agreement, allegedly,
your younger son was 12.
The purchasing of the car was not gonna take place for four more years
- for your younger son. - Yes,
- because... - Hold on, that's important.
Oral contracts are absolutely enforceable.
But when you have a party who is denying
having a meeting of the minds, you are the plaintiff here.
- It is your responsibility... - [Susan] Right.
... to prove what the terms were.
How much he agreed to give,
when he agreed to give it,
what type of car he was going to purchase.
These are the things that must be agreed to for there to be a meeting of the minds.
I know there was no meeting of the minds
because of what you said in one of your first texts,
January 16th,
"Your younger son wants my car when he gets his license.
How are we gonna work this out?
Do you just wanna give me what you are going to put into his car?
I'm guessing $10,000."
"I'm guessing $10,000," means
could've been more, could've been less, right?
Well, what he said he did for the other kids,
he was gonna do for our kids.
[Judge Levy] By the way, that amorphous,
nondescript agreement is not a meeting of the minds.
And what he's saying is because there was a change in circumstances,
regarding you taking him back to court,
that that even though you may not agree
and that may not be the greatest thing for your relationship with your son,
that's a completely different story...
Uh-hmm.
[Judge Levy] ... as far as contractually.
I just don't believe that you've met your burden
to prove that there was a full meeting of the minds on that oral contract.
I have nothing further.
I have something very briefly for Mr. Montez.
- Yes, Your Honor. - [Judge Acker] What impact do you think
this lawsuit is going to have on your relationship with those two boys?
[announcer] Coming up on Tribunal Justice.
I think you're somewhat jealous of whatever goes on in that home,
and I think you were angry at the child support.
So, doing the right thing and being fair
doesn't always comport with what the law is.
[dramatic musical sting]
[theme music plays]
[announcer] Susan Montez claims her ex-husband, Jason Montez,
always agreed to help pay for their son's car.
She's suing her ex for not living up to his end of the deal.
But Jason says his ex loves to take him to court whenever she needs something,
so he's not agreeing to anything.
What impact do you think this lawsuit
is going to have on your relationship with those two boys?
I don't--I don't know.
I didn't wanna--I didn't wanna bring them into this at all.
Do you have a relationship with them now?
[Jason] I do. Yes.
The youngest son seems to only go with me when we're doing something fun, you know?
Like going to a hockey game or something like that.
But, um, they don't come over like they used to.
[Judge Acker] Thank you.
Even if you were in the house with them as a family,
they're not gonna stay home with you two.
You know, I used to say to people, "You're fighting over this,
it's costing you all this money for lawyers,
and the bottom line is, when they turn 16,
they don't wanna be with either one of you."
[Judge Acker] They wanna be out.
You know, that's the reality.
When you keep saying this is what he did for the other kids,
you mean his current wife's children?
Yes.
See, then there's two things that I think are at play here in conflict.
I think you're somewhat jealous of whatever goes on in that home
and I think you are angry
at her bringing you to court and increasing the child support.
So, I think we're gonna have to walk away from this saying,
"Doing the right thing and being fair
doesn't always comport with what the law is."
So, I think we're gonna retire to deliberate at this time.
[Byrd] Court now stands in recess.
This case will be recalled.
Parties are excused.
[dramatic musical sting]
I don't see an agreement here.
I mean, I don't know how many different ways each of us could've said
there was really no evidence of an agreement.
I think there was a hope, perhaps wishing he would kick in.
But I don't see any basis for holding him liable here.
I don't see the agreement either.
I mean, any time she raised it in the text messages when she said,
"What about what you said before, 2,000 down and then 200 a month?"
I mean, he said, "No, I can't do it."
- No. No. - I mean, it was--no.
And the thing--but I'm gonna tell you what bothers me.
I don't feel that his no was well-thought-out.
I think it was really a visceral reaction to her taking him to court
and him thinking, "You want me to see my kids less,
take more money from me,
and then go out and buy a car that I didn't wanna do in the first place,
and you don't talk to me about it, and that's why we're divorced,"
you know, basically.
I didn't really like that the children ended up being penalized
for that relationship flaw that they both had.
But I don't see an agreement that we can enforce.
I was hoping he would say he wanted to give something over to her.
I just was, because I think that's the fair thing to do.
It might be the fair thing to do,
but to all of our points, um,
there was no meeting of the minds.
Not to mention the fact that he was 12 years old
at the time they had this agreement.
- They could not possibly... - Even if they had one, right?
They could not have possibly effectuated that contract agreement
until he was 16, four years later.
And so you got a statute of frauds issue as well.
- Yup. - And her strongest argument
would be, in my opinion, promissory estoppel,
that she relied on the representations,
gave her car to the younger,
- and she is somehow out. - Right.
That's her best argument.
But she doesn't have any proof for that.
But that--but that too fails,
because you have to prove for promissory estoppel
that he was unjustly enriched,
which he was not.
I just think that she fails,
and I hope that this doesn't affect his relationship too badly,
but, uh, that--that's for another day.
What was even worse about it was she really wanted the reimbursement
for what appeared to be her purchase of her own car.
- It is. - Yeah.
- It's like it's her... - So the truth is...
That was the point right from the beginning.
- ... he couldn't--he couldn't even... - Yes.
This is like a car she gave...
I mean, you couldn't even-- like, unpalatable for him.
Yeah, the kid has a car.
- She has a new car. - Let me explain that to his new wife...
- Yeah, exactly. - ... that I--I'm giving $10,000
- so my ex-wife got herself a new car. - Right.
I think we're unanimous.
That's what I [indistinct] yeah.
[dramatic musical sting]
[Byrd] Court is back in session.
Parties are reminded you're still under oath.
Thank you, Byrd.
We have deliberated and we have reached a unanimous verdict.
Ms. Montez, it probably won't come as a surprise to you
that we're unanimous in dismissing your case.
You just didn't have a meeting of the minds.
Frankly, you came to court with a very hard set of facts to prove
on the evidence that you had.
We really applaud your decorum
and the way that you presented these facts because we're tough.
Like, it's not easy to stand up here in front of three people,
all of whom are pounding at you.
So you did a really nice job presenting your case.
We do have to dismiss it,
simply because you didn't meet the legal requirements.
But good luck to you.
Sir, you know what, your marriage didn't work out,
but you are two very fine people.
So, good luck to you both.
- That's the verdict of the court. - Thank you.
[gavel bangs]
[Byrd] This case has now concluded. Parties are excused.
You may step out.
[theme music plays]
He just doesn't follow.
He doesn't--he's not a truth-teller.
She just likes to go back to court all the time.
I don't think-- I think it's what she just likes to do.
It's sad, but I mean, I know I did right by my kids.
It wasn't my job to deprive of them of anything.
I--if we would've come to an agreement,
then sure, I would've bought them something.
No, that's why--that's why I filed.
She gets a whole lot of money,
and I expect that money to be used on the kids.
[announcer] Got family drama?
Let Tribunal Justice decide your case.
Find us on social media at Tribunal Justice.
["Ride of the Valkyries" plays]