A Judgment has been wrongfully issued against me in the amount of $1,903.00. I know that the Plaintiff has been fraudulent for many years in her reporting of her income, how many people truly live with her, settlements she has received, etc., to the State and Government so that she would continue to receive rent subsidy and assistance. She has also wanted me to commit fraud with her by claiming her son on my health insurance
, to which I declined. It was after this that she started claiming that I owe her money. She made it sound in court as if she were the victim. I need this to stop once and for all, for she is not only ruining my life but stealing benefits from people who truly need them. She has never provided rent receipts for the amount she was paying or the phone contract
. Please advise me as how I should proceed. I do not owe her money and I can prove she is a fraud.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1) Plaintiff and Defendant lived together in Plaintiff's home from January 2010 to September 2010.
2) Plaintiff paid rent for her home every month. Plaintiff asked Defendant to contribute to rent while he lived with her. Plaintiff and Defendant never reached an agreement regarding rent, however. According to Plaintiff's testimony
, the parties never agreed on how much money Defendant would pay towards rent.
3) Defendant borrowed money from Plaintiff for a variety of reasons during parties' relationship. Defendant agreed to pay Plaintiff $200 per paycheck as repayment for the money Plaintiff had lent him. Defendant arranged for an automatic payment of $200 to be directly deposited into Plaintiff's account through his paychecks.
4) Plaintiff kept contemporaneous records of the amounts of money she had lent Defendant and the amount of money Defendant repid her. Defendant did not keep a record of money borrowed or money repaid.
5) Plaintiff bought cell phones for herself, her sons, Defendant's son in March 2010. The cell phone plan Plaintiff paid for cost $200 per month. Defendant agreed to pay one-half of the cell phone plan each month.
6) Plaintiff canceled the parties' cell phone plan in May 2011. Defendant was on Plaintiff's cell phone plan for 15 months. Defendant should have paid Plaintiff a total of $1,500 for his part of the cell phone plan.
7) Defendant paid Plaintiff $200 per paycheck during the pay periods ranging from January 22 to March 14, 201. During March 28 to April 25, 2010, pay periods, Defendant paid Plaintiff $100 per paycheck. Defendant paid Plaintiff a total of $2,350 through automatic deposit during 2010.
8) Defendant again set up automatic payment to Plaintiff through his paycheck in 2011. During the pay periods running from January 2 to February 27, 2011, Defendant paid Plaintiff $100 per paycheck. Defendant paid Plaintiff a total of $500 through automatic deposit during 2011.
9) Defendant repaid Plaintiff $2, 730 in cash for money Plaintiff lent him during their relationship.
10) The total amount Defendant repaid Plaintiff through direct deposit and cash payments was $5,580.00.
11) The total amount Defendant owes Plaintiff for money borrowed during their relationship including his part of the cell phone plan, is $7,408.00.
Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact, the Court hereby makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1) Plaintiff brings this action against Defendant for breach of contract
2) A contract that is implied-in-fact is a true contract requiring a meeting of the minds on the agreement's essential elements. Roberge v. Cambridge Co-op Creamery, 79N.W.2d 142 (Minn. 1956); Minneapolis Cablesystems v. City of Minneapolis, 299 N.W. 2d 121, 122 (Minn. 1980). A meeting of the minds may be manifested partly in oral words and partly by the conduct of the parties. Id.
3) Plaintiff and Defendant entered into an agreement wherein Defendant agreed to pay Plaintiff $200 per paycheck to repay Plaintiff for money she lent him. The parties' mutual agreement is evidenced by Defendant originally setting up automatic deposits to Plaintiff's account in the amount of $200 in January 2010.
4) Per the parties' agreement regarding Defendant's repayment of money he borrowed from Plaintiff, Defendant still owes Plaintiff $1,828.00.
5) Plaintiff has not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the parties had an enforceable contract requiring Defendant to contribute towards Plaintiff's rent. Plaintiff did not establish how much money Defendant agreed to pay in rent and ultimately asks for rent to be paid retroactively.
6) Because Plaintiff is the prevailing party in this matter, she is entitled to her Conciliation Court filing fee of $75.00.
Based on the foregoing Conclusions of Law, the Court hereby makes and files the following:
1) The Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order for Judgment filed by this Court on June 8th, 2013 shall be VACATED in its entirety.
2) Plaintiff is entitled to judgment against Defendant in the amount of $1,903.00.