Loan, lied about repayment

[LinnyBell]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Washington

Loaned a friend $300 in November, and I have receipt of when the money was withdrawn from my account. He has lied to me multiple times of when I would be repaid. First it was he was getting 3 checks in December, so I would be repaid then. Then in January he said he was refinancing his credit card and I would be repaid when that came through. Then in February he told me i would be repaid when his tax refund came in. At the end of February he said he was getting his security deposit back from ex-landlord and I would get repaid then. I have not received any repayment.

 

[sandyclaus]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Washington

Loaned a friend $300 in November, and I have receipt of when the money was withdrawn from my account. He has lied to me multiple times of when I would be repaid. First it was he was getting 3 checks in December, so I would be repaid then. Then in January he said he was refinancing his credit card and I would be repaid when that came through. Then in February he told me i would be repaid when his tax refund came in. At the end of February he said he was getting his security deposit back from ex-landlord and I would get repaid then. I have not received any repayment.

You'll have to sue them in court to recover your money.

Keep in mind that you will have to have solid proof that the $300 that was actually given to your friend. A bank statement showing you withdrawing $300 will not be sufficient to prove that any money changed hands. All it will show is that you withdrew $300 from your bank account - what you did with it is anybody's guess, and it will be YOUR job to show it actually ended up in your friend's hands. Further, you may have to prove that it was intended as a loan and not a gift. A WRITTEN receipt or promissory note would easily prove it, but it doesn't sound like you have one.

Could be that your best solution here is just to write this off and chalk it up to experience. Learn the lesson and this is less likely to happen again.

 

[latigo]

For several reasons I would urge you not to allow the previous response to influence your decision whether or not to proceed against your deadbeat ex friend. Of course, there are practicable considerations as well as and matters of principle involved, but don’t be swayed by some of the sophistry and inaccuracies proffered by the author.

Certainly, anyone with a modicum of common sense would be in agreement that merely producing your bank records showing the bare withdrawal of $300 would not suffice to prove that that same amount was then made the subject of a loan. Or any other specific uses thereof. (It seems to me exceptionally trite and unnecessary for the responder to emphasize something so self-evident.)

However, when coupled with your sworn testimony that you purposely withdrew cash in that amount and tendered it to the guy with the express understanding that it was being done solely to accommodate his request for the loan -

THEN it could reasonably by asserted that the contemporary bank transaction is admissible as supportive, corroborative, and probative of the issue. Not decisive, of course and not even necessary, but, arguably at least, circumstantially relevant.

_________________________

Next you are mistakenly led to believe that in order to prevail in court you must produce “SOLID PROOF” . Please be advised that there is no such modifier in a court of law. The highest degree ever required in a civil lawsuit is that of “clear and convincing”. (Example, proof of gift. See below)

Lastly, and in my opinion particularly misrepresentative and thus harmful, is the responder’s suggestion that if the guy were to claim that the money was gifted and not loaned, it would become your burden in court to disprove that a gift was intended.

Further, you may have to prove that it was . . . not a gift.

Such a suggestion is a blatantly inaccurate statement of applicable law! So flawed as to demonstrate the speaker’s lack of professional credentials.

If he were to attempt to avoid responsibility for reimbursement by alleging that the money was gifted, it would be his sole responsibility to prove that a gift was intended and to do so by clear and convincing evidence .
________________

Do what you judge best.

 

[tranquility]

My goodness. A rising from the ashes with Dale Carnegie winning ways, latigo, how have you been?

Personally, I agree with sandyclaus, but accept the legal accuracy of latigo's post. One is more practical while the other....well, my time is worth more than the amount it would take to get back the $300--even if I was sure to win.

 

[latigo]

My goodness. A rising from the ashes with Dale Carnegie winning ways, latigo, how have you been?

Personally, I agree with sandyclaus, but accept the legal accuracy of latigo's post. One is more practical while the other....well, my time is worth more than the amount it would take to get back the $300--even if I was sure to win.

Dear Trany:

Good to hear from you.

On the subject at hand, it strikes me that Ms. LinnyBell was expressing her concerns over the practicability and feasibility of seeking judicial remedy against her borrower.

And if she wanted practical advice from strangers - particularly those having a flair for the obvious, but no awareness of her particular circumstances and as ignorant of the substantive issues as herself - she might have asked for it!
_____________

Regarding my reincarnation and your reference to my lack of social skills– a characteristic that apparently survived the transformation - as I find myself remaining acutely offended by charlatans, imposters and “Walter Mitty’s” - or is it “Mittys”, or “Mitties”? And have no desire whatsoever to cultivate “friendships” with their ilk.

Also, permit me to renew a question from my former existence:

Why would a person possessing some measurable quantity of good sense pretend to be a lawyer?!

(Do you suppose “sandyclaus” might deign to respond?)

 

[Ralph Andersen]

If you have it in writing that he said he would pay all those times you have solid proof of a loan. SO sue you will get you judgment.