Plaintiff admits she never loaned me money but the magistrate ruled in her favor

[legal_curiosity]

Earlier today I was the defendant in a small claims lawsuit. I was being sued by the mother of my child for $3000. The magistrate ruled in her favor but I disagree with the decision and am wondering if the following facts give me any 'leg to stand on'.

During her opening statement she presented the court with form that was signed by her and myself and then notarized. It stated that she had given me a personal loan for $3,500. Her initial complaint stated that I had paid back $400 of it.

I asked to see the document and confirmed that it was my signature, however the document was from about two years ago and I had never actually received any money from the plaintiff. The magistrate asked her if she had given me the money and she agreed that no money had ever been exchanged.

She went on to explain that I had loaned her money a few years back and that since she couldn't pay me back she had filed a request with the court to eliminate the amount of money I was behind in child support. This much is true the the juvenile court system to eliminate the balance of my child support case. She claims that she did this because we had a verbal agreement that I would pay her the difference between what I owed child support and what she owed me. None of this is stated in the signed document that she presented.

The magistrate asked me if she wiped out the child support and I said the she had but this was simply because she owed me money and it was her way of paying me back. The magistrate then ruled in her favor. The verbal agreement she claimed never happened.

Since a previous court has already declared that the child support debt is no longer valid and she had admitted in court that I never received the money from the money mentioned in the promissory note, should I pursue filing an objection on the ruling?

 

[justalayman]

It stated that she had given me a personal loan for $3,500 and that I've only paid $400 of it.

I asked to see the document and confirmed that it was my signature, however the document was from about two years ago and I had never actually received any money from the plaintiff.

if you never received the $3500, why did you pay back $400 of the money you never received?

 

[legal_curiosity]

if you never received the $3500, why did you pay back $400 of the money you never received?

That is a great question. I didn't pay her $400, this was just part of what she claimed. I've never paid her anything on the loan as it essentially fell through before ever receiving it. I wasn't given much of a chance to respond or defend myself so I was never ever to bring this up part up in court.

 

[justalayman]

That is a great question. I didn't pay her $400, this was just part of what she claimed. I've never paid her anything on the loan as it essentially fell through before ever receiving it. I wasn't given much of a chance to respond or defend myself so I was never ever to bring this up part up in court.

Yet you admit to signing a document showing you did pay her $400 as partial repayment of the claimed $3500 loaned to you.


It sounds like the magistrate took your written word over your spoken word.

 

[legal_curiosity]

Yet you admit to signing a document showing you did pay her $400 as partial repayment of the claimed $3500 loaned to you.


It sounds like the magistrate took your written word over your spoken word.

That is not accurate. I signed a document stating that I would repay the loan, however the loan never wound up happening. She simply verbally stated this and also put it on the initial claim.

I just reread my post and I realize that I typed that incorrectly, I apologize and see how that caused confusion regarding my post.

 

[TigerD]

We can't speak to why courts in other countries do stuff.

This forum really is intended for US law only.

DC

 

[justalayman]

That is not accurate. I signed a document stating that I would repay the loan, however the loan never wound up happening. There is NO documentation regarding any payments towards the loan. That was simply something that she stated.

ok. I see that now. What did you say to her claim you had paid back $400 already?


So, is the $3500 represented here:

S

he claims that she did this because we had a verbal agreement that I would pay her the difference between what I owed child support and what she owed me.

If you owed her $3500 for child support, then it all makes sense.

she had admitted in court that I never received the money from the money mentioned in the promissory note

a promissory note is an agreement to pay a certain amount of money. It does not have to be based on a loan. In your situation, it appears to be based on the fact you owed her money for child support.

 

[BL]

You claimed she wiped out CS arrears.

You claim it was because she owed you money.

Did you prove that in court ?

 

[legal_curiosity]

In yesterday's hearing she admitted that she had owed me money and that that is why she wiped the child support. But that's when she went on to say that the $3500 addressed in the personal loan was the difference between what I owed child support and what she owed me. I denied that as it's not true. If it was true I would have liked the opportunity to ask "then why didn't you only drop the balance to what your saying I would have still owed you?"

I'm going today to pick up recordings if both hearings because I know full well that they asked her why she wanted to drop the arrearages. I don't remember her exact response but it was NOT anything to the effect of "because we moved the debt to a personal loan". If I could prove that she had owed me money any other way I would have sued her before child support was at all involved.

 

[TheGeekess]

In yesterday's hearing she admitted that she had owed me money and that that is why she wiped the child support. But that's when she went on to say that the $3500 addressed in the personal loan was the difference between what I owed child support and what she owed me. I denied that as it's not true. If it was true I would have liked the opportunity to ask "then why didn't you only drop the balance to what your saying I would have still owed you?"

I'm going today to pick up recordings if both hearings because I know full well that they asked her why she wanted to drop the arrearages. I don't remember her exact response but it was NOT anything to the effect of "because we moved the debt to a personal loan". If I could prove that she had owed me money any other way I would have sued her before child support was at all involved.

What was the difference between what Mom borrowed and your arrearages?

 

[legal_curiosity]

ok. I see that now. What did you say to her claim you had paid back $400 already?


So, is the $3500 represented here:

S



If you owed her $3500 for child support, then it all makes sense.
a promissory note is an agreement to pay a certain amount of money. It does not have to be based on a loan. In your situation, it appears to be based on the fact you owed her money for child support.

What was the difference between what Mom borrowed and your arrearages?

I let her borrow maybe about $1200 total through several small loans over time. I don't have any evidence of this but she admitted in yesterdays hearing that she had owed me money and that was why she wrote off the arrearages. Neither of us in court mentioned the dollar amount of what had owed me.

I would have to look up the child support information, which I'll be doing later today. She claimed in court yesterday that I had owed her $7000 in back support. I think it was probably more like 3-4000.

Your next question might be why she would write off more than the $1200 and that was because we had had a discussion where I explained that since she rarely has a job that I felt it was morally wrong that she had been claiming our son on taxes every year considering she barely contributed financially. She surprisingly agreed, probably because she was begging me to allow her to take our son on vacation to Canada the following week.

 

[justalayman]

I didn't read anywhere where she or you said the promissory not was based on a personal loan. As I said before, it does not have to be based on a loan. It appears both her and the magistrate are on the same page that you owe the money for child support.

 

[legal_curiosity]

The promissory note itself said it was a personal loan. But I think you've answered my question for me. The magistrate is trying to hold me accountable for a debt that has already been dismissed so there is absolutely reason for an objection.

 

[justalayman]

Let's make this easier since you want to dance around.

You willingly signed the note and agreed to pay her $3500. Why did you sign the note? Where did the $3500 come from such that you would sign a promissory note?

 

[Just Blue]

The promissory note itself said it was a personal loan. But I think you've answered my question for me. The magistrate is trying to hold me accountable for a debt that has already been dismissed so there is absolutely reason for an objection.

WHAT. U.S. State is this?