You two were living together at the time,
-and your mother makes a gift… -To me.
a lawnmower and a snowblower.
It was towards us since we bought the home together.
That's not how it works.
Yeah, we were very mutual with how we split things up.
-Are you lying to me? -No.
-Are you lying to us? Come on. -[scoffs]
[narrator] Now, on Tribunal Justice…
[opening theme plays]
[narrator] Today's case was filed in Bemidji, Minnesota.
Your Honor, this is Case #3003, Lindgren vs. Tollefson.
-Thank you, Cassandra. -You're welcome.
All parties have been sworn in. You may be seated.
-[DiMango] Tollefson and Lindgren. -Yes.
You're ex-fiancés. You were together for three years.
You even bought a home together, including a lawnmower and a snowblower.
Yes.
You say that when you split up, she bought you out of the house
and also wanted to purchase the lawnmower and the snowblower,
and you had agreed on a price of $2,400.
She has paid you, for the most part, $1,000.
And in addition to that, during the course of your relationship,
you lent her $3,000 to help her out with family needs.
You say she owes you $4,464 in total.
You say you initially agreed to pay the $2,400 that he was asking you for,
but you had made payments of $800 plus $1,000.
Then you realized, you just gave him $25,000 for the house,
you weren't gonna pay any more, and you owe nothing at this point.
So, first of all, the lawnmower, brand new, 'cause you bought it new.
-Right? -Yes.
The Cub Cadet Zero lawnmower. Cost you how much, sir?
Uh, $3,300.
Thirty-three hundred dollars. You agree?
Your mom and you went to the hardware store to make the purchase.
-Did you go as well? -No.
Okay. You and your mom went, and she said to you what
when she gave you $1,700? What did she say?
She said it was for a housewarming gift for me.
-[DiMango] To who? -To me.
It was towards us since we bought the home together.
You see, and that's an issue I have here.
Because if she gives you the $1,700 as a gift to you only,
and you pay that, plus the $1,500 balance,
-then you've paid for the whole thing. -Right.
If she gave it to both of you,
then you're entitled to a credit for half of that, which would be $850,
your share when you divide this in half.
So, did she give you any other housewarming gifts?
Not that I can recollect off the top of my head, no.
And how did she give you that $1,700?
I had a credit card that I was an authorized signature on.
[DiMango] And she said, just use my credit card?
Yes, that's correct.
Did she have a conversation with you after the purchase?
She did not, no.
Okay. But then you go, some months later
and you buy the same make and model, what is that…
-Cub Cadet. -[DiMango] Cub Cadet, um…
Snowblower.
[DiMango] We have some photographs of them. They're lovely.
That's the lawnmower, and its matching sibling the snowblower,
all in bright yellow.
Now, you agreed to pay half of both the lawnmower
and the snowblower at the time of purchase.
Yeah. We were very mutual with how we split things up.
And it seemed like we were pretty even with things.
I did give him $1,000 through PayPal to help go towards the lawnmower.
So, you would owe him $1,617 for half of the price of that lawnmower,
-assuming that you paid for all of it… -Yes.
-…the balance and the gift from your mom. -Yes.
If that's the case, I did see evidence in the papers
that she gave you $1,000 the next day.
Why did you not admit to that $1,000?
I don't have that, or that…
You didn't see $1,000 deposited to your, what was it, a PayPal account?
-Correct. -[DiMango] Do we have evidence of that
-here on this document? -Yes, on Exhibit Two.
A PayPal transaction.
Payment to Adam Lindgren. And this was July 28th,
the day after the purchase of the lawnmower, for $1,000.
Cassandra? Thank you.
Does it say for the lawnmower? I mean…
No, it doesn't. It doesn't tell a life story.
It just tells it went to you.
Now, do you admit that she made four $200 payments to you?
-Yes, I do. -[DiMango] Okay.
-So, we have $1,800 of payments. -Mm-hmm.
Then you, at some point, decide you want to buy him out of the house.
-Is that correct? -Correct.
[DiMango] You do a quit claim deed or something,
and you do a $25,000 exchange on that?
-Correct. -[DiMango] Correct?
It was a refinance…
-[DiMango] Just a refinance? -Yes, yeah.
Why didn't you clear this issue up at the time of that money exchange?
So, um, on the settlement, it does say on there
that it clears anything that deals with the property.
So, from that, I stopped making payments. So, I…
I don't think that's what they mean when they say that.
When they say the property, they mean the land and the house.
I don't think they mean your coffee pot.
Sure, sure.
I'm gonna put these numbers aside for a second
because I do want to talk about the $3,000,
because that's another issue.
Your position is that you had to lay out money for a family member.
Is that correct?
Where did you get that from if she doesn't know about it?
We just had a conversation and as far as I know,
her family member had legal issues. But I did find out that it was for bail.
-[DiMango] Is that true? -No.
[DiMango] You never laid out any money for any family member?
-No. -So, your version of this $3,000 was
you wanted to help her out 'cause you knew
she gave all this money over to a family member.
The why, 'cause it was like $10,000 in credit cards.
So, instead of racking up interest, I figured I'd give her…
[DiMango] You had a $10,000 credit card debt?
[narrator] Coming up on Tribunal Justice…
You weren't gonna take the money from her and give it back to your mom, were you?
[narrator] Adam Lindgren is suing ex-fiancée Elizabeth Tollefson
for over $4,400 which includes a loan and half the cost of yard equipment.
Elizabeth says she already paid her ex
and he's trying to claim a cash gift they got from his mother all for himself.
You had a $10,000 credit card debt?
I used that mostly for the big purchases that we would get for a home.
Is it true that your fiancée was paying for certain items
for the house on her credit card?
Things you'd want to share payment with if you were to still be together.
I would say certain things, yes.
[DiMango] You would. So, when you gave her that $3,000,
you kinda knew that it was gonna go towards mutual expenses.
No, that's not why I gave that to her.
As far as I know, it was just for that family member.
You still think it's the family… Are you lying to me?
Why would he come up with this crazy notion if it's not true?
He doesn't strike me as somebody who would make up a crazy story like that.
-Would he? -No.
-[DiMango] Where did you hear it from? -From her directly.
-So, are you lying to us? Come on. -[Elizabeth laughs]
I honestly did forget that I did help my…
Ah, glad we could shake up your memory.
So, you helped somebody for $10,000.
He felt you were strapped on your credit card,
and he is calling this a loan, not a gift, to pay off the credit card.
Did you care what she did with the money? Or it was just to help her out?
Yes, because it was for what it was specified for.
I wasn't just doing it willy-nilly.
So, if you thought that she couldn't pay you, why would you make a loan to her?
Well, the family member was gonna pay her back
-when they got their taxes. -Is that what you told him?
Honestly?
My family member did pay me back.
But again, that money was towards him
being the helpful boyfriend that he made it seem that he was and…
Ooh, that was a dig.
-[Lindgren] Yeah. -[DiMango] Yeah.
-Judge Levy? -[Levy] Thank you. Mr. Lindgren,
you just said to Judge DiMango a moment ago when she said
that that PayPal $1,000 payment to you from the defendant
the day after the purchase of the lawnmower…
-Mm-hmm. -[Levy] …you said, does the PayPal say
-for lawnmower? -[Lindgren] Right.
[Levy] Why is that important to you?
I just… 'cause it's not something else. I just don't know
if that's trailing from something else. Just wanted to make sure that…
One day prior.
So… All right. I gotcha.
My understanding is that you can actually put notations
-on what the payments are for. -[Lindgren] Yes.
And if in fact it was clearly identified as a payment for lawnmower,
-that would make things easy. -Yes, yeah.
Where it gets a little more dicey is when it doesn't say
specifically for lawnmower,
but it does come a day after the lawnmower is purchased.
Mm, I understand.
And then, we can infer that $1,000 payment was in fact for that, correct?
Yes.
So, the $3,000 that you gave to the defendant
on October 29th, 2021.
This is your exhibit, Exhibit number three, page 12.
Using that same logic that you want to look and see
what you put on the… let's call it memo.
So, if in fact it was a loan, as you are arguing to us right now,
it would say "loan."
What does it say when you gave her that $3,000?
-It's on page 12. -Hey, babe. Love you.
[Levy] Yeah, hey, babe. Love you.
And then, for friends and family.
[Lindgren] Yes, yeah.
-Doesn't say anything about a loan. -Right.
And at no place, either on the PayPal or on any text message
did you ever use the word "loan." Would that be fair to say?
Fair, yeah.
[Levy] I want to talk a moment now
about this money that was gifted by your mother.
-Again, for the lawnmower? -Mm-hmm.
[Levy] So, you two were living together at the time.
[Levy] You were both on the deed and mortgage.
-Right. -[Levy] And your mother makes a gift
according to what you said, it was a housewarming gift.
-Correct? -Yes. Correct.
So, gifts typically remain the separate property,
unless you take that gift and you commingle it with a combined asset.
-Property. -Right.
Which is kinda what you did when it's purchased for the home.
-Right. -[Levy] It loses its separate identity
and it becomes a marital asset.
The problem is, you agreed to pay the whole thing back
for the money that his mother gifted him.
-Correct? -Yep.
She agreed. You weren't gonna take the money from her
and give it back to your mom, were you?
-No. -[Levy] Keep it in your pocket.
-Your mom didn't want that money back. -No.
So, would it be fair to say that by taking that extra money from her,
you were really getting a windfall.
Yes.
That gets us back to what we're doing here.
You know, you're suing her for $4,464.
Right.
I want to go over for a moment how much she ended up paying extra
to get your name off the mortgage.
Which was super important to you, right?
Right. Because I could not purchase a property
until my name was off that thing.
-Right, 'cause it affects your credit. -Yes.
[narrator] Coming up on Tribunal Justice…
So, instead of owning 50% of a property
that's valued at over $300,000,
you now own 100%. Why should I feel like you got the shaft?
[narrator] Adam Lindgren is suing ex-fiancée Elizabeth Tollefson
for over $4,400, half the cost of lawn equipment,
plus bail money loaned to her family member.
Elizabeth says she's paid for the equipment,
and the so-called loan was actually a gift.
So, it was really important for you
to get her to take your name off of the mortgage obligation
so that it freed you up to do something else.
-Yes. -[Levy] How much did that cost her?
-[Lindgren] To refinance? -[Levy] Mm-hmm.
I'm gonna guess three percent of the purchase price of the house…
[Levy] Mm-mm, nope.
The defendant provided us with a copy of the Settlement Agreement.
That's the $25,000. It does not mention lawnmowers or snowblowers.
But it does very clearly indicate that when you purchased the home,
the mortgage was $224,000.
The interest rate, 'cause you got it at a really good time,
-was 3.375%. -Yes, yes.
-It's gold. Gold. -[Lindgren] Yeah.
So, the monthly mortgage was $1,550.
The monthly interest on that mortgage at 3.375%
was $631 a month. That's how much the interest was.
-Mm, yeah. -[Levy] Now you separate
and you want your name off the mortgage.
So, she refinances, and as part of this, she's giving you $25,000.
-Yes. -[Levy] What was that for, by the way?
Buying me out… 'cause the house went up in value.
So, the new amount for the refinance was no longer $224,000,
but with the $25,000 tacked on, which is what you did,
it now goes to $253,000. Right? At seven percent interest.
So, your original interest was $631 a month.
The interest payment on $253,000 at seven percent,
$1,477. That's what she's getting whacked with.
-Which completely jacks up her monthly. -Yes.
She agrees to pay you her portion of the gift that your mother gave.
And you're still asking her for $4,400.
Listen, you may have a legal claim, but it seems to me
that where you stand based upon the relationship
and the obligation that you have financially with the house,
you made out like a bandit.
-Thank you. Judge Acker. -Thank you.
Thank you, Judge. Who made the down payment?
-[Lindgren] We split it half. -How much was it?
Sixty-seven hundred, $7,000 about.
[Acker] About $7,000 or so.
House increases in value. Do we have the value of the home today?
Thirty-two… Uh, three…
-[Acker] $320,000. -Yes.
So, instead of owning 50% of a property
that's valued at over $300,000,
you now own 100%. Why should I feel like you got the shaft?
-Your payments go up to be sure. -[Elizabeth] Mm-hmm.
You've gotten rid of him at quite a discount.
In your answer you said, I'd already paid the $25,000.
This increased my mortgage and caused a financial hardship.
After the forced buyout, I no longer felt it was fair for me to cater to Adam.
How are you catering to him?
He could've said, I'm gonna go to court,
we're gonna sell this house. I'm gonna take back my half and your half.
You find some place else to live, I'm gonna find someplace else to live.
-I mean, I get the increase in payments. -Mm-hmm.
[Acker] You guys made a deal to separate the property.
Let me go back for a second to the help your mother gave you.
Now, you testified that you have a credit card on your mom's account.
-Yes. -[Acker] She basically helped support you
-from time to time. -Yes.
Sounds like his mother is regularly funneling him some money,
and it could be considered separate property.
[Elizabeth] Correct.
So, the lawnmower and snowblower, they have depreciated in value…
No. I'm more interested in this notion that you can make a deal for $2,400,
and then say, well, the property's gone down in value
so I owe you less. That's not how it works.
I mean, have you ever bought a car?
You buy a car, it's worth X.
The second you drive off the lot, it's worth much less than X.
-[Elizabeth] Correct. -You don't get to go to the bank
and say, well, the car is now worth much less
than it was when I signed this contract,
so I'm only gonna pay you fair market value.
Like, you don't get to do that. That's just not how it works.
I anticipated the $1,700 from his mom
to be a gift for us, for the house in itself.
[Acker] Maybe it was. Maybe it's not.
But let's assume for a moment that it's not.
I'm just now interested in whether or not you're with me
on the problematic nature of your argument
that I only have to pay what something's worth,
regardless of the price for which I contracted.
You agree that's problematic. I have nothing further.
So, unless we have anything else, we're gonna retire to deliberate.
-Thank you both. -Thank you.
Court is now in recess. Parties will be recalled.
Okay. So, she agrees with him at the time he makes the purchase of the lawnmower
that she's willing to split half with him.
She knows that his mother, who has been giving him money,
gave him $1,700. He has her credit card.
So, she never says, don't forget to credit me with my half of that gift.
She says, I'll pay you half.
Half of that lawnmower, which was $3,235,
comes out to $1,617.
Obviously, if we say, well, no, it was a gift to both of you,
she would get back $850 on that $1,600.
But I'm not gonna go to that place. I think he paid for it in full.
With regard to the snowblower, that was $1,395.
She would owe half of that, $687.
So, her total to him would be $2,304.
No dispute she gave him $1,000. No dispute she paid $800 in payments.
So, that $1,800 would be subtracted from $2,304,
and that would bring her down to $504 that she would owe him on that amount.
As to the $3,000, I think he gave it to her to help her
with a debt that a family member owed, and he was expecting repayment.
And that was not a gift to her to pay off…
Maybe she used it for her credit cards,
but I think that she owes him the $3,000 on top of that.
So, she would owe him $3,504.
Uh, your analysis as far as the mother's gift.
I believe that because it was a gift for the household,
that there would have been an argument to be made
that it was a separate property commingled with a joint property.
It loses its separate identity, and he wouldn't get back
that additional $1,700 that his mother made.
The exception here is where she agrees,
notwithstanding the mother's contribution for the housewarming gift.
And she knew it. She still committed herself to the $2,400.
-Mm-hmm. -That's why I agree with those numbers.
However, that $3,000, I do not agree with.
The $3,000 when he gave it, he said it was for friends and family.
At no time did he say it was a loan.
There was no text or communication between the two
in which it was ever discussed as a loan.
Instead, we have a text that says,
good morning, gorgeous, this is the plaintiff.
You spoil me with your care and kindness, and now I can't start my day without you.
Let's wake up together always and forever.
She responds heart, heart, heart.
He says, I got money for you.
So, should that be enough for your card?
And she says, yes, what you gave me today would pay off my card.
There was nothing after that suggesting that it was a loan.
But she said her card was up to $10,000.
So that was never gonna pay off her card.
So, I don't know what she was telling him.
I'm just looking at the communications at the time.
And as you both indicated,
she was paying things on her card for the household goods.
And he felt it was the same way, that based upon their living together
that he would provide her with that $3,000
for whatever it was that she needed that for.
But there was never an indication that it was a loan.
See, I thought that initially, until you did that friends and family exclusion.
Because once he did that, I said, why would he gift her family $3,000?
Unless he expected it back?
I think I agree with Adam on the $3,000.
One, I did not see any evidence of his saying,
by the way, where's the $3,000 that I loaned you?
We're very specific about that $2,400.
He was like, the number's $2,400. She says okay.
You know, there's a lot of correspondence about what the buyout's going to be.
She was like, this is gonna be, you know, tough for me.
He was like, you don't get to choose how I move forward
in terms of where I'm going to live.
I did not see anything where he said,
and plus, you still owe me for that $3,000.
And then, when I read his complaint, again, he said,
I sent her $3,000 via PayPal to help cover her credit card bills.
So, I read that as your family is kinda putting the squeeze on you.
You've got a bunch of bills, let me just try to help you keep the nut
until, you know, things settle down and you get paid back.
That did not feel like a loan to me.
Until her family member could pay her back. So then…
So then, she doesn't need help with the bills anymore.
-Right. -Because then the family's not
putting the squeeze on her.
I'll think about this. So, right now…
But I'll join you on the other portion of the verdict.
Otherwise, if I come to my senses, and follow the two of you…
It's unanimous.
It'll be a unanimous verdict.
If not, you will be dissenting.
I'll be the lone standing.
Court is back in session.
All parties are reminded that you're still under oath.
-Thank you, Cassandra. -You're welcome.
What broke the two of you up? I'll ask you first.
There was a major disagreement about disciplining her kid.
-[DiMango] Your child? -Mm-hmm.
[DiMango] You had different parenting views
-and it was easier to be separate. -Very much so, yeah.
Okay. I mean, obviously, you don't seem to have the tension
between the two of you that we often see.
So, I'm just curious. So, we looked at this very carefully,
and we are a unanimous bench being as follows:
You would be entitled to $504 from the defendant.
And the reason why is because we credited you
with making a full purchase of the lawnmower.
So, you laid out the full amount,
which would mean that her half would be about $1,600.
We also credited you with paying in full for the snowblower.
Her half of that would be about $850.
From that, we subtracted the $1,800 that we believe she gave you,
and that brought us down to the $504.
However, with regard to the $3,000, we had a little bit of a back and forth.
I was kind of swayed by my colleagues
because I first thought that perhaps that $3,000
was a loan that you had given her to give to her family.
And I thought, why would you give them a gift?
But it seemed clear that you gave her that $3,000 as a gift.
You gave her that because at the time you still cared about her,
and you wanted her to be able to pay off as much as she could on her credit cards.
And then, when her family didn't need the help anymore,
she'd be able to pick up her own tab and move on.
That's the way we saw it. We credited your testimony
that you were not expected to repay him that money.
And we are giving you $504. That's the unanimous verdict of the court.
And it seems a little sad that the two of you
couldn't stay together and work this out.
-But that's the verdict of the court. -[gavel bangs]
-[Elizabeth] Thank you. -This case has concluded.
All parties are dismissed.
This stuff is very petty, I feel like.
I tried to reach out, and she just never reached back.
I was very excited when told a reason not to speak to him anymore, so...
Her not responding apparently was an answer to me.
I'm ready to live my happy little life.
I'm happy this is over. It's been a long time coming.
[narrator] Did someone break an agreement?
Let Tribunal Justice decide your case.
Find us on social media.
[closing theme plays]