What I've been waiting to do...
This is all public record. I've only held off on posting this because I wanted to wait for the judge's decision. Due to the circus that the trial became, we wound up going with written rather than oral closing arguments.
INTRODUCTION: Throughout the course of this 4-yr relationship, Mr. “L” contributed a down payment on the house and his “wisdom” on financial management. Ms. “B” contributed every asset she could get her hands on. All her money went to support Mr. “L” well in excess of any amounts reflected even in the alleged written contracts. She paid for his food, food for his girlfriends, his “submissives,” his dogs. She paid for medical expenses, trips with his girlfriends, gas for his car. She paid for “toys” and “training” and “punishments” and whatever else he wanted for his “House of Cosmic.” She gave him cash whenever he demanded. , But it wasn’t enough. The budget, under his control, was under constant strain, and how Ms. “B” would pay Mr. “L” for the chronic shortfalls was a topic of constant discussion in the “House of Cosmic.”
Mr. “L”’s solution was to appoint himself Ms. “B”’s bookkeeper, and charge her for that. When Ms. “B” expressed concern about their unworkable budget, Mr. “L” told her to get her priorities straight. He told her that it would be to her financial benefit to purchase a house, and mortgage payments would be credited against the personal debt he claimed she owed. Mr. “L”, noting that houses in Portland were appreciating, thought he could get 8% to 20% return on his investment. It was never clear how he was going to get that return. They didn’t talk things out. Things like who would own what part of the house or how Ms. “B”’s payments would be applied toward various parts of the alleged debt. They didn’t track their transactions - the credit card charges, cash payments, lease payments and payments for things that clearly arose in the “Master/Slave” context, and the line between different kinds of agreements quickly faded away. When Ms. “B” finally saw the light and got the courage to leave the situation, he demanded money. She was his slave. But she wanted to know what the money was for. Realizing that she was no longer under his control, and knowing that none of the slave agreements or their various addendums were real contracts, he set about concocting some: exhibits 1, 2, and 247. But he did a pretty poor job. The numbers just don’t add up. He has to explain why the terms on these documents contradict each other, the testimony and other documentary evidence. He has to explain why these documents don’t mean what they say. There are discrepancies, he says, because: Ms. “B” is dyslexic; he used different numbers to be nice. He was tracking debt; he wasn’t tracking debt. Ms. “B” was tracking debt; she wasn’t tracking debt. No one was tracking debt; Ms. “S” was tracking debt. Ms. “B” took the car in August and we wrote down the odometer reading. She took it in July and we wrote down some other number as if it were the odometer reading. He doesn’t remember if he gave her $10,000 cash; he specifically remembers every charge on his credit card since 2004. They didn’t put their agreement with respect to the house in writing because of the [August 2006] move and the [2006] holidays; they put their agreement with respect to the house in writing in August 2006. He saw Ms. “B” sign the Motor Vehicle Lease, he didn’t see her sign. He might have had a witness; he didn’t have a witness. He doesn’t know. He doesn’t remember. He might be mistaken. What are we to believe? What a tangled web.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF: This claim is based exclusively on the alleged promissory note. Without this note, there is no writing as required by statute of frauds. The first question is: Did Ms. “B” sign the note? All the evidence says no. The second question is: Whether she signed it or not, what did the parties agree to? There was clearly no meeting of the minds on the necessary and substantial elements in order to form a contract.
The testimony: There were four witnesses and five different versions of the day the note was allegedly signed. All had clear memories of this day since it was Mr. “L”’s birthday, but they tell materially different stories . Mr. “L” testified in deposition that he and Ms. “B” sat down in the living room to write the majority of the note and went to the kitchen a couple of times to consult with his mother. In court, Mr. “L” stated that they were in the kitchen with the exception of the time Ms. “B” left the kitchen for 10-15 minutes to look for her ledger. , His mother, Ms. “H”, testified that both parties were in the kitchen the whole time . His girlfriend, Ms. “M”, testified that Mr. “L” remained in the kitchen while Ms. “B” went “traipsing about the house” gathering financial records . Ms. “B” testified she went about her day: working on the computer, getting a haircut, buying Mr. “L”’s birthday presents, and running errands during the time the note was allegedly being written, signed, copied and delivered to her for filing. She was able to recreate this time line by referencing an email she had written to Mr. “L”, her bank statements and her debit card receipts showing charges made during the day. Testimony regarding the chain of custody of the alleged promissory note - original and copies - conflicts. Mr. “L” testifies that his mother took the original to Kinko’s on the way to Home Depot, then returned and gave both the original and one copy to Ms. “B” . His mother, when prodded what happened to the document after signing, responded, “I know Pam took this and said that she was going to get it notarized, type it up. And I think she actually took it with her,” and she never saw the document again. Mr. “L” testified that the original, along with his copy, was given to Ms. “B” and was kept in the brown desk in a folder. But, Ms. Belvett testified that Mr. “L” got the document from his mother sometime in April. If Mr. “L” knew of the existence of the document, why didn’t he ever mention it to Ms. Belvett - the accountant’s daughter, when she was “always getting on” the parties about not putting things in writing? What he showed her instead was a single page with random scratchings. Mr. “L” says this was the third page of his accounting, which was lost between his meeting with his attorney and the discovery process. The first two pages disappeared from that brown desk. If there was a promissory note, why wasn’t it mentioned in February? In March? In April? In May? Through all the negotiations and demands between the parties and their attorneys? Why wait until 1 June to produce it for the first time in a demand letter? Same goes for the car lease - if there were written agreements, and Mr. “L” knew there were written agreements, why were ALL communications about oral agreements? About NOT putting things in writing? What about Mr. “L”’s e-mail acknowledging the lack of written agreements except for a car lease, and then referring to an indebtedness of around $8K, and not the $29,000 debt specified in the MVL?
The experts: The original was not produced. Both handwriting experts agreed that the copy produced was of poor quality, making the analysis very difficult. The exemplars used by Plaintiff’s expert were also of poor quality - copies of copies, perhaps of copies or faxes. Both experts stated that their analysis was particularly difficult because Ms. “B” signs her name so differently each time. Plaintiff’s expert testified that she wondered “. . . if they were all verified that this person had signed those checks because they all varied so much one to the other . . .,” and “the only real consistency is the inconsistency of all the standards.” In other words, she could find no significant forensic evidence that the exemplars were from the same person. How can she then testify in rebuttal that those exemplars together provide forensic evidence that the same person “probably” wrote the signatures on the questioned documents and the exemplars? Initially, both experts agreed that Ms. “B”’s signature could have been cut and pasted onto the alleged contracts. In rebuttal testimony, plaintiff’s expert changed her mind. She found the distance between the questioned signature and the second line of text above the signature is the same at each point along the signature line. She concluded that it would be nearly impossible to cut-and-paste that precisely. The precise measurement points exactly to a cut-and-paste. You would have the upper edge of the signature page more or less aligned with a row of text to paste it on. If it's unlikely that someone could intentionally make it perfect, it’s even more unlikely that it could accidentally be perfect when the parties casually scratched it out while sitting on the couch or at the kitchen table. Plaintiff’s expert admits knowing nothing about computer generated documents or forgeries. Mr. “L”, a former director of a software company, who did Ms. “B”’s taxes, collected her documents for mortgage applications and routinely wrote checks from Ms. “B”’s checkbook, had plenty of access to Ms. “B”’s signature.
The text: The text of the note is inconsistent with testimony and evidence introduced by Mr. “L” and other witnesses. First, the amount of the personal debt referenced in paragraph two is $10,641 “at this time.” Mr. “L” elsewhere claims the amount of the debt was $41,869.46 at this time, and who knows if this includes the dogs or not. Mr. “L” claims in his statement on 2 March 2007 that the debt was “over $8k,” and not $34,910 (the amount on EX 2 plus charges on EX 6 from the date of EX 2) was because he was trying to be nice. Then, there’s the “monthly lease agreement” referenced in paragraph four. Mr. “L” claims that this was added, even though there was already a written lease agreement, because his insurance premium for the car was lowered to $120 per month and he wanted to pass the savings on to Ms. “B”. But, documentary evidence and testimony shows that the amount Ms. “B” had been paying Mr. “L” for insurance on the car was, and always had been, the same - $120 per month.
Then there are the mortgage payments. We know they were to come out of Pam’s salary, but how did that fit in to the whole “who-owes-who-what” scheme? Mr. “L”’s own words in his on-line chat of June 16, 2006 indicate that the mortgage payments made by Ms. “B” were to be applied to the money Ms. “B” owed him. He knew that that was the only way “they” could afford to buy the house. Ms. “B” made the mortgage payments as long as she was in the house. Was her debt satisfied by those payments? Was she obligated to make payments even after Mr. “L” had gotten all his money back? And why, outside of the role-playing agreement, would Ms. “B” agree to support not only Mr. “L”, but also Mr. “L”’s girlfriend, and pay for anything Mr. “L” wanted to do to the house? Mr. “L” wants us to believe that the clause for Ms. “M”’s support was added at Ms. “B”’s insistence.
The Breach: Even if Ms. “B” had made the agreement Mr. “L” claims, he has failed to show that she, not he breached that agreement. After Ms. “B” left the house, she made clear her intention to use the house during her visits to Portland up until the house was sold, and that she intended to continue to make mortgage payments on that basis. , Mr. “L” responded by intentionally and effectively ousting Ms. “B” from the co-owned property for all purposes. In this communication, he referred unambiguously to HIS house, and let her know that she would need a court order to return to his house. Mr. “L” also attempted to force Ms. “B” out of the property through his FAPA application of 23 March 2007. Although Mr. “L” now claims he ousted her because “things were turning up missing,” there was no mention of any missing items in this or any other communications between the parties until Mr. “L”’s demand letter of June 1. Mr. “L”, not Ms. “B” breached whatever co-tenancy agreement the parties had.
Damages: Mr. “L” claims that Ms. “B” owes him the approximate equivalent of mortgage payments from April 2007 until December 2007. Mr. “L” did not make these payments, and in fact lived in the house rent and mortgage free during that period. He has not suffered any damages during this period. Mr. “L” claims that Ms. “B” owes him the amount budgeted for utilities from February 2007 through December 2007. He has produced no evidence of actual costs for those utilities and states that Ms. “M” (who was also living there) not he, paid utilities. Mr. “L” demands one half the amount of an “agreed upon amount” of $3,000 per month for January 2008 through August 2009. He has not introduced any evidence that there was an agreed upon amount for these months. If this amount is intended to approximate the damages Mr. “L” suffered because Ms. “B” did not make mortgage payments after the house was sold in foreclosure, he has not shown any evidence of what these damages are. He has made no claim with respect to his alleged down payment. He has not claimed that, because of Ms. “B”’s alleged breach, he has had to make any mortgage or rent payments he would not otherwise have had to make. Given the totality of the testimony, it is reasonable to assume that Ms. “M” is now providing Mr. “L”’s housing and, having fully mitigated his loss of free rent from Ms. “B”, Mr. “L” has suffered no loss whatsoever.
Mitigation of damages: Mr. “L” claims that he attempted to mitigate his damages by selling the house either on the open market or by having Ms. “M” purchase it, but Ms. “B” refused to cooperate. It is not clear how either of these actions would have mitigated the damages claimed - free housing and utilities until June 2009. In any event, the evidence shows that when it became clear that the parties could not reach any other agreement, Ms. “B” expected the house to be put on the market and communicated this to Mr. “L” repeatedly, beginning 3 March. , Ms. Andrews, the realtor, testified that Mr. “L” contacted her in March but made no indications of wanting to put the house on the market at that time. The evidence shows that Mr. “L” proposed selling the house on 12 March, but took no steps to actually get it on the market until May or June, and then took until July to get it actively listed. In the meantime, Mr. “L” continued to make demands for settlements that all involved her paying the mortgage, AND giving him large amounts of money, while he lived in the house and she had no access. Ms. Andrews testified that Ms. “B” wouldn’t agree to a potential short sale with Ms. “M” as the buyer. Ms. Andrews didn’t hear that from Ms. “B”. Ms. “B”, after researching all the ramifications, did agree to the short sale. Plaintiff’s attorney told Ms. “B” that the “short sale is off the table.” Ms. “M” had changed her mind and was concerned that she couldn’t afford it. Ms. “M” says plaintiff’s attorney did not hear that from her. Ms. Andrews, Ms. “M” and Ms. “B” all seem to be telling the truth. Ms. “M”, as Ms. Andrews testified, “. . . remained an outsider to the short sale.” Every communication went through Mr. “L”. What we heard from him is that “Pam adamantly refused” to let Ms. “M” buy the house because he was involved with Ms. “M”. Mr. “L” didn’t hear this from Ms. “B”.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF: This claim is based on the alleged written Motor Vehicle Lease (MVL). Ms. “B” acknowledges that she leased Mr. “L”’s car for a term of six months starting 1 August 2004, and then on a month-to-month basis. The parties agree that a car lease form was taken off the Internet and used as a format to negotiate the initial lease. Even though the parties never completed and signed the initial six-month lease, Ms. “B” used the car and paid the monthly amount, including insurance. She denies signing EX 2, the 36-month lease document, or otherwise executing a subsequent term-lease. The evidence supports her contention.
The testimony: Mr. “L” contends that the original was kept in that same, brown desk as EX 1 until Ms. “B” came to move some of her items out of the house in March 2007. But, until just prior to the court proceedings, none of the witnesses ever saw a signed lease. Ms. “H” never saw it. Ms. “M” never saw it. Ms. Belvett never saw it. Ms. “S”, whom Mr. “L” claims helped him negotiate and transact it and “may have been” present when it was signed, never saw it. Ms. “S” testified that on the date the alleged car lease was allegedly signed, she did work with the parties to get a contract in place, but she never saw anything remotely like EX 2 - in substance or form. Mr. “L” says he saw Ms. “B” sign the MVL on 12 January. The only other person who acknowledged ever seeing this document was Mr. “L”’s “submissive,” Ms. Woolum who testified that in January 2005, Ms. “B” left the house on Division Street and came back “specifically to tell Mr. “L” that the lease had been signed” and to give Mr. “L” a copy of it. She says “Sir,” as she refers to Mr. “L”, asked her to look it over. Why would Ms. “B” come back to tell Mr. “L” that the lease had been signed if he had already witnessed her signature? Why would he ask Ms. “W” to look it over after the fact? Besides, the parties didn’t even know Ms. “W” in 2005. , And, despite extensive communications regarding any debt between the parties starting in February 2007, including a formal demand from Mr. “L”’s attorney in June 2007, why is there no mention of the MVL before the complaint was filed in August 2007? Mr. “L” claims that this document is referenced in the alleged promissory note, EX 1. But EX 1, like all other supervening documents referencing a car lease agreement, identifies a month-to-month lease, not a 36-month term lease.
The experts: Like EX 1, this document is a very poor quality copy. The original was not produced, and no chain of custody established. Initially, both expert witnesses testified that a cut-and-paste of the signature on the document could not be ruled out. Mr. “L” testified that this was a computer-generated document created by cut-and-pasting from an on-line form, and the original form had boxes, not lines, for signatures. His expert witness admitted “Great things can be done on computers. And, I just don’t get into that field at all. And, I think that’s why the handwriting experts aren’t quite as busy as we used to be.” Still, in her opinion, the signature line could not be cut-and-paste because it is too well aligned on the page.
The text: The mileage shown on the alleged lease agreement signed 12 January 2005, for a lease starting 1 August 2004 is 38,898 miles. According to communications between the parties regarding the Taurus on 30 September 2004, the odometer showed 51,027 miles. In the draft agreement produced by Mr. “L”, the mileage was 48,898 miles as of August 2004. In testimony he admits that 48,898 miles was indeed the actual mileage on the car during that time. Mr. “L” explains the fact that the mileage written in the document allegedly signed on 12 January 2005 is lower than the actual mileage in August and September 2004 by telling us, for the first time in these proceedings, that the parties agreed to put the WRONG mileage on the 12 January 2005 document because Ms. “B” actually had the car in July 2004, and not August 2004, as all other testimony and evidence shows. , He testified that during the whole month of July 2004, Ms. “B” put 10,000 miles on the car when she drove from Texas to Portland [2,353 miles], commuted daily [20 work days] from Hillsboro to Portland, sometimes 2-3 times a day [34 miles round-trip], drove to the beach, drove from Portland to her house in Olympia [230 miles round- trip], and drove several times from Portland to Seattle [352 miles round-trip]. Ms. “B” would have had to drive to Seattle and back at least 15 times during the month of July in order for Mr. “L”’s testimony to make sense. Again, Mr. “L”’s numbers don’t add up. Nor do his facts. The evidence shows and Mr. “L” testified that he and Ms. “B” had already moved her out of Olympia in June. Evidence also shows that the trip from Texas to Portland occurred in early August 2004. Throughout the period Ms. “B” was paying for the use of Mr. “L”’s car, he remained in control of its use. He used the car for his own trips, , , and withheld the car if he felt she had not made the monthly payment. Although no record was kept of who put what mileage on the car, he says he credited Ms. “B” 5,000 miles for the times he used the car and allowed others to use the car, and to be nice. Even if Ms. “B” had signed this lease, it was a completely illusory contract and lacked the essential element of a meeting of the minds. What ever the words in the document say, Mr. “L”’s intent was clearly something else. The renewal of the car lease was a punishment, made in the context of the Master/Slave relationship. Further, by maintaining possession and control of the car during and after the end of the relationship, Mr. “L”, and not Ms. “B”, breached any agreement they may have had. With respect to the alleged damage, the condition of the car was not recorded at the time Ms. “B” began driving it or when Mr. “L” took possession of it in 2006. There was no evidence produced connecting Ms. “B”’s use to Mr. “L”’s repair estimate.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF: Again, this claim is wholly dependent on the alleged Motor Vehicle Lease. In addition to the evidence above, the inconsistency in the amount of the personal debt shown on this document makes clear that the document is completely fictitious. Mr. “L” claims Ms. “S” was in charge of tracking personal debt. Ms. “S”, who is a wholly disinterested third party, denies that. Mr. “L” claims that Ms. “S” was the one who found the template for the promissory note. Ms. “S” denies that. EX 2 shows a debt of over $26K, but Ms. “S” says the debt being discussed at the time of the alleged signatures was more like $3,000. EX 204 supports that amount. The e-mails sent between the parties, with Ms. “S”’s assistance, shows that the exact amount of debt had not yet been determined at the time the document was allegedly signed. , The amount of debt shown on this document appears completely random, and at odds with all other evidence in this matter. , The alleged MVL agreement with the promissory note addendum was undoubtedly fabricated after the 1 June demand letter, to account for his statement in his email of 2 March 2007: “. . .We planned on putting our financial agreements regarding the house and other debts in writing but with the move immediately followed by the holidays, we kept putting it off….We didn’t put all our agreements down on paper, although we did a few (e.g. the car lease).” The parties did have a written month-to-month car lease agreement as part of the Master/slave agreements. Mr. “L” claims that there was a written promissory note already written and signed. What other agreement could he be talking about?
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF: There is no basis for this claim. Opposing counsel objected to testimony regarding individual charges comprising the alleged debt in EX 1 and EX 2, which seems to be the same debt in this claim, although Mr. “L” states that he doesn’t know what debt is included in either of those documents. , Mr. “L” produced no receipts to support his claim. Ms. “B” produced evidence of payment for items that were hers , , , and showed that some of the items charged could not have been hers. , Ms. “S” confirmed that Ms. “B” was not responsible for Ms. “S”’s travel expenses as Mr. “L” claims. It just doesn’t make sense. None of Mr. “L”’s accounting makes sense. Every witness on this matter testified that during the course of the relationship no accurate record was kept of parties’ financial dealings.
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF: It’s Mr. “L”’s burden to show that Ms. “B” took these items and he has produced no evidence what so ever regarding any of the items except the carpet cleaner, which Ms. “B” freely admits she took. It is also undisputed that she bought the carpet cleaner. Ms. “B”’s removal of items from the house was monitored. Mr. “L” was allowed to inspect boxes of items being removed. He found a set of DVD’s, which then remained at the house. The only thing he can say with respect to the remaining items is that he can’t find these items - he even had a search of his home in Texas done - so he concludes Ms. “B” must have taken them. Maybe this is what his witness, Ms. Skinner, meant when she testified that Mr. “L” has trouble tracking items in space.
SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF: One last item - the dogs. The parties agreed that Ms. “B” would purchase the dogs for $1,200 ($400 for each of the three dogs) and Ms. “B” did purchase the dogs for that amount. There is no basis for increasing the price of the dogs by 750% over the agreed price for purposes of damages. At the end of the relationship, Mr. “L” wanted Ms. “B” to take the dogs with her. Ms. “S” testified to having seen Ms. “B” make cash payments for one of the dogs more than once. With the exception of a few individual payments, , Ms. “B” was making combined payments to Mr. “L” for debt, for punishments, for the car, for whatever. Mr. “L” cannot show that all of the checks and untold amounts of cash Ms. “B” gave Mr. “L” over the years didn’t cover the dogs.
CONCLUSION: This is Mr. “L”’s case. It is his burden to show, by a preponderance of evidence that Ms. “B” owes him anything at all. He hasn’t even come close. Because he can’t. Because she doesn’t.
I can post a copy of their closing argument if anyone is interested. I also have a copy of the entire audio transcript. Those are really big, though. It's in bits and pieces.
INTRODUCTION: Throughout the course of this 4-yr relationship, Mr. “L” contributed a down payment on the house and his “wisdom” on financial management. Ms. “B” contributed every asset she could get her hands on. All her money went to support Mr. “L” well in excess of any amounts reflected even in the alleged written contracts. She paid for his food, food for his girlfriends, his “submissives,” his dogs. She paid for medical expenses, trips with his girlfriends, gas for his car. She paid for “toys” and “training” and “punishments” and whatever else he wanted for his “House of Cosmic.” She gave him cash whenever he demanded. , But it wasn’t enough. The budget, under his control, was under constant strain, and how Ms. “B” would pay Mr. “L” for the chronic shortfalls was a topic of constant discussion in the “House of Cosmic.”
Mr. “L”’s solution was to appoint himself Ms. “B”’s bookkeeper, and charge her for that. When Ms. “B” expressed concern about their unworkable budget, Mr. “L” told her to get her priorities straight. He told her that it would be to her financial benefit to purchase a house, and mortgage payments would be credited against the personal debt he claimed she owed. Mr. “L”, noting that houses in Portland were appreciating, thought he could get 8% to 20% return on his investment. It was never clear how he was going to get that return. They didn’t talk things out. Things like who would own what part of the house or how Ms. “B”’s payments would be applied toward various parts of the alleged debt. They didn’t track their transactions - the credit card charges, cash payments, lease payments and payments for things that clearly arose in the “Master/Slave” context, and the line between different kinds of agreements quickly faded away. When Ms. “B” finally saw the light and got the courage to leave the situation, he demanded money. She was his slave. But she wanted to know what the money was for. Realizing that she was no longer under his control, and knowing that none of the slave agreements or their various addendums were real contracts, he set about concocting some: exhibits 1, 2, and 247. But he did a pretty poor job. The numbers just don’t add up. He has to explain why the terms on these documents contradict each other, the testimony and other documentary evidence. He has to explain why these documents don’t mean what they say. There are discrepancies, he says, because: Ms. “B” is dyslexic; he used different numbers to be nice. He was tracking debt; he wasn’t tracking debt. Ms. “B” was tracking debt; she wasn’t tracking debt. No one was tracking debt; Ms. “S” was tracking debt. Ms. “B” took the car in August and we wrote down the odometer reading. She took it in July and we wrote down some other number as if it were the odometer reading. He doesn’t remember if he gave her $10,000 cash; he specifically remembers every charge on his credit card since 2004. They didn’t put their agreement with respect to the house in writing because of the [August 2006] move and the [2006] holidays; they put their agreement with respect to the house in writing in August 2006. He saw Ms. “B” sign the Motor Vehicle Lease, he didn’t see her sign. He might have had a witness; he didn’t have a witness. He doesn’t know. He doesn’t remember. He might be mistaken. What are we to believe? What a tangled web.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF: This claim is based exclusively on the alleged promissory note. Without this note, there is no writing as required by statute of frauds. The first question is: Did Ms. “B” sign the note? All the evidence says no. The second question is: Whether she signed it or not, what did the parties agree to? There was clearly no meeting of the minds on the necessary and substantial elements in order to form a contract.
The testimony: There were four witnesses and five different versions of the day the note was allegedly signed. All had clear memories of this day since it was Mr. “L”’s birthday, but they tell materially different stories . Mr. “L” testified in deposition that he and Ms. “B” sat down in the living room to write the majority of the note and went to the kitchen a couple of times to consult with his mother. In court, Mr. “L” stated that they were in the kitchen with the exception of the time Ms. “B” left the kitchen for 10-15 minutes to look for her ledger. , His mother, Ms. “H”, testified that both parties were in the kitchen the whole time . His girlfriend, Ms. “M”, testified that Mr. “L” remained in the kitchen while Ms. “B” went “traipsing about the house” gathering financial records . Ms. “B” testified she went about her day: working on the computer, getting a haircut, buying Mr. “L”’s birthday presents, and running errands during the time the note was allegedly being written, signed, copied and delivered to her for filing. She was able to recreate this time line by referencing an email she had written to Mr. “L”, her bank statements and her debit card receipts showing charges made during the day. Testimony regarding the chain of custody of the alleged promissory note - original and copies - conflicts. Mr. “L” testifies that his mother took the original to Kinko’s on the way to Home Depot, then returned and gave both the original and one copy to Ms. “B” . His mother, when prodded what happened to the document after signing, responded, “I know Pam took this and said that she was going to get it notarized, type it up. And I think she actually took it with her,” and she never saw the document again. Mr. “L” testified that the original, along with his copy, was given to Ms. “B” and was kept in the brown desk in a folder. But, Ms. Belvett testified that Mr. “L” got the document from his mother sometime in April. If Mr. “L” knew of the existence of the document, why didn’t he ever mention it to Ms. Belvett - the accountant’s daughter, when she was “always getting on” the parties about not putting things in writing? What he showed her instead was a single page with random scratchings. Mr. “L” says this was the third page of his accounting, which was lost between his meeting with his attorney and the discovery process. The first two pages disappeared from that brown desk. If there was a promissory note, why wasn’t it mentioned in February? In March? In April? In May? Through all the negotiations and demands between the parties and their attorneys? Why wait until 1 June to produce it for the first time in a demand letter? Same goes for the car lease - if there were written agreements, and Mr. “L” knew there were written agreements, why were ALL communications about oral agreements? About NOT putting things in writing? What about Mr. “L”’s e-mail acknowledging the lack of written agreements except for a car lease, and then referring to an indebtedness of around $8K, and not the $29,000 debt specified in the MVL?
The experts: The original was not produced. Both handwriting experts agreed that the copy produced was of poor quality, making the analysis very difficult. The exemplars used by Plaintiff’s expert were also of poor quality - copies of copies, perhaps of copies or faxes. Both experts stated that their analysis was particularly difficult because Ms. “B” signs her name so differently each time. Plaintiff’s expert testified that she wondered “. . . if they were all verified that this person had signed those checks because they all varied so much one to the other . . .,” and “the only real consistency is the inconsistency of all the standards.” In other words, she could find no significant forensic evidence that the exemplars were from the same person. How can she then testify in rebuttal that those exemplars together provide forensic evidence that the same person “probably” wrote the signatures on the questioned documents and the exemplars? Initially, both experts agreed that Ms. “B”’s signature could have been cut and pasted onto the alleged contracts. In rebuttal testimony, plaintiff’s expert changed her mind. She found the distance between the questioned signature and the second line of text above the signature is the same at each point along the signature line. She concluded that it would be nearly impossible to cut-and-paste that precisely. The precise measurement points exactly to a cut-and-paste. You would have the upper edge of the signature page more or less aligned with a row of text to paste it on. If it's unlikely that someone could intentionally make it perfect, it’s even more unlikely that it could accidentally be perfect when the parties casually scratched it out while sitting on the couch or at the kitchen table. Plaintiff’s expert admits knowing nothing about computer generated documents or forgeries. Mr. “L”, a former director of a software company, who did Ms. “B”’s taxes, collected her documents for mortgage applications and routinely wrote checks from Ms. “B”’s checkbook, had plenty of access to Ms. “B”’s signature.
The text: The text of the note is inconsistent with testimony and evidence introduced by Mr. “L” and other witnesses. First, the amount of the personal debt referenced in paragraph two is $10,641 “at this time.” Mr. “L” elsewhere claims the amount of the debt was $41,869.46 at this time, and who knows if this includes the dogs or not. Mr. “L” claims in his statement on 2 March 2007 that the debt was “over $8k,” and not $34,910 (the amount on EX 2 plus charges on EX 6 from the date of EX 2) was because he was trying to be nice. Then, there’s the “monthly lease agreement” referenced in paragraph four. Mr. “L” claims that this was added, even though there was already a written lease agreement, because his insurance premium for the car was lowered to $120 per month and he wanted to pass the savings on to Ms. “B”. But, documentary evidence and testimony shows that the amount Ms. “B” had been paying Mr. “L” for insurance on the car was, and always had been, the same - $120 per month.
Then there are the mortgage payments. We know they were to come out of Pam’s salary, but how did that fit in to the whole “who-owes-who-what” scheme? Mr. “L”’s own words in his on-line chat of June 16, 2006 indicate that the mortgage payments made by Ms. “B” were to be applied to the money Ms. “B” owed him. He knew that that was the only way “they” could afford to buy the house. Ms. “B” made the mortgage payments as long as she was in the house. Was her debt satisfied by those payments? Was she obligated to make payments even after Mr. “L” had gotten all his money back? And why, outside of the role-playing agreement, would Ms. “B” agree to support not only Mr. “L”, but also Mr. “L”’s girlfriend, and pay for anything Mr. “L” wanted to do to the house? Mr. “L” wants us to believe that the clause for Ms. “M”’s support was added at Ms. “B”’s insistence.
The Breach: Even if Ms. “B” had made the agreement Mr. “L” claims, he has failed to show that she, not he breached that agreement. After Ms. “B” left the house, she made clear her intention to use the house during her visits to Portland up until the house was sold, and that she intended to continue to make mortgage payments on that basis. , Mr. “L” responded by intentionally and effectively ousting Ms. “B” from the co-owned property for all purposes. In this communication, he referred unambiguously to HIS house, and let her know that she would need a court order to return to his house. Mr. “L” also attempted to force Ms. “B” out of the property through his FAPA application of 23 March 2007. Although Mr. “L” now claims he ousted her because “things were turning up missing,” there was no mention of any missing items in this or any other communications between the parties until Mr. “L”’s demand letter of June 1. Mr. “L”, not Ms. “B” breached whatever co-tenancy agreement the parties had.
Damages: Mr. “L” claims that Ms. “B” owes him the approximate equivalent of mortgage payments from April 2007 until December 2007. Mr. “L” did not make these payments, and in fact lived in the house rent and mortgage free during that period. He has not suffered any damages during this period. Mr. “L” claims that Ms. “B” owes him the amount budgeted for utilities from February 2007 through December 2007. He has produced no evidence of actual costs for those utilities and states that Ms. “M” (who was also living there) not he, paid utilities. Mr. “L” demands one half the amount of an “agreed upon amount” of $3,000 per month for January 2008 through August 2009. He has not introduced any evidence that there was an agreed upon amount for these months. If this amount is intended to approximate the damages Mr. “L” suffered because Ms. “B” did not make mortgage payments after the house was sold in foreclosure, he has not shown any evidence of what these damages are. He has made no claim with respect to his alleged down payment. He has not claimed that, because of Ms. “B”’s alleged breach, he has had to make any mortgage or rent payments he would not otherwise have had to make. Given the totality of the testimony, it is reasonable to assume that Ms. “M” is now providing Mr. “L”’s housing and, having fully mitigated his loss of free rent from Ms. “B”, Mr. “L” has suffered no loss whatsoever.
Mitigation of damages: Mr. “L” claims that he attempted to mitigate his damages by selling the house either on the open market or by having Ms. “M” purchase it, but Ms. “B” refused to cooperate. It is not clear how either of these actions would have mitigated the damages claimed - free housing and utilities until June 2009. In any event, the evidence shows that when it became clear that the parties could not reach any other agreement, Ms. “B” expected the house to be put on the market and communicated this to Mr. “L” repeatedly, beginning 3 March. , Ms. Andrews, the realtor, testified that Mr. “L” contacted her in March but made no indications of wanting to put the house on the market at that time. The evidence shows that Mr. “L” proposed selling the house on 12 March, but took no steps to actually get it on the market until May or June, and then took until July to get it actively listed. In the meantime, Mr. “L” continued to make demands for settlements that all involved her paying the mortgage, AND giving him large amounts of money, while he lived in the house and she had no access. Ms. Andrews testified that Ms. “B” wouldn’t agree to a potential short sale with Ms. “M” as the buyer. Ms. Andrews didn’t hear that from Ms. “B”. Ms. “B”, after researching all the ramifications, did agree to the short sale. Plaintiff’s attorney told Ms. “B” that the “short sale is off the table.” Ms. “M” had changed her mind and was concerned that she couldn’t afford it. Ms. “M” says plaintiff’s attorney did not hear that from her. Ms. Andrews, Ms. “M” and Ms. “B” all seem to be telling the truth. Ms. “M”, as Ms. Andrews testified, “. . . remained an outsider to the short sale.” Every communication went through Mr. “L”. What we heard from him is that “Pam adamantly refused” to let Ms. “M” buy the house because he was involved with Ms. “M”. Mr. “L” didn’t hear this from Ms. “B”.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF: This claim is based on the alleged written Motor Vehicle Lease (MVL). Ms. “B” acknowledges that she leased Mr. “L”’s car for a term of six months starting 1 August 2004, and then on a month-to-month basis. The parties agree that a car lease form was taken off the Internet and used as a format to negotiate the initial lease. Even though the parties never completed and signed the initial six-month lease, Ms. “B” used the car and paid the monthly amount, including insurance. She denies signing EX 2, the 36-month lease document, or otherwise executing a subsequent term-lease. The evidence supports her contention.
The testimony: Mr. “L” contends that the original was kept in that same, brown desk as EX 1 until Ms. “B” came to move some of her items out of the house in March 2007. But, until just prior to the court proceedings, none of the witnesses ever saw a signed lease. Ms. “H” never saw it. Ms. “M” never saw it. Ms. Belvett never saw it. Ms. “S”, whom Mr. “L” claims helped him negotiate and transact it and “may have been” present when it was signed, never saw it. Ms. “S” testified that on the date the alleged car lease was allegedly signed, she did work with the parties to get a contract in place, but she never saw anything remotely like EX 2 - in substance or form. Mr. “L” says he saw Ms. “B” sign the MVL on 12 January. The only other person who acknowledged ever seeing this document was Mr. “L”’s “submissive,” Ms. Woolum who testified that in January 2005, Ms. “B” left the house on Division Street and came back “specifically to tell Mr. “L” that the lease had been signed” and to give Mr. “L” a copy of it. She says “Sir,” as she refers to Mr. “L”, asked her to look it over. Why would Ms. “B” come back to tell Mr. “L” that the lease had been signed if he had already witnessed her signature? Why would he ask Ms. “W” to look it over after the fact? Besides, the parties didn’t even know Ms. “W” in 2005. , And, despite extensive communications regarding any debt between the parties starting in February 2007, including a formal demand from Mr. “L”’s attorney in June 2007, why is there no mention of the MVL before the complaint was filed in August 2007? Mr. “L” claims that this document is referenced in the alleged promissory note, EX 1. But EX 1, like all other supervening documents referencing a car lease agreement, identifies a month-to-month lease, not a 36-month term lease.
The experts: Like EX 1, this document is a very poor quality copy. The original was not produced, and no chain of custody established. Initially, both expert witnesses testified that a cut-and-paste of the signature on the document could not be ruled out. Mr. “L” testified that this was a computer-generated document created by cut-and-pasting from an on-line form, and the original form had boxes, not lines, for signatures. His expert witness admitted “Great things can be done on computers. And, I just don’t get into that field at all. And, I think that’s why the handwriting experts aren’t quite as busy as we used to be.” Still, in her opinion, the signature line could not be cut-and-paste because it is too well aligned on the page.
The text: The mileage shown on the alleged lease agreement signed 12 January 2005, for a lease starting 1 August 2004 is 38,898 miles. According to communications between the parties regarding the Taurus on 30 September 2004, the odometer showed 51,027 miles. In the draft agreement produced by Mr. “L”, the mileage was 48,898 miles as of August 2004. In testimony he admits that 48,898 miles was indeed the actual mileage on the car during that time. Mr. “L” explains the fact that the mileage written in the document allegedly signed on 12 January 2005 is lower than the actual mileage in August and September 2004 by telling us, for the first time in these proceedings, that the parties agreed to put the WRONG mileage on the 12 January 2005 document because Ms. “B” actually had the car in July 2004, and not August 2004, as all other testimony and evidence shows. , He testified that during the whole month of July 2004, Ms. “B” put 10,000 miles on the car when she drove from Texas to Portland [2,353 miles], commuted daily [20 work days] from Hillsboro to Portland, sometimes 2-3 times a day [34 miles round-trip], drove to the beach, drove from Portland to her house in Olympia [230 miles round- trip], and drove several times from Portland to Seattle [352 miles round-trip]. Ms. “B” would have had to drive to Seattle and back at least 15 times during the month of July in order for Mr. “L”’s testimony to make sense. Again, Mr. “L”’s numbers don’t add up. Nor do his facts. The evidence shows and Mr. “L” testified that he and Ms. “B” had already moved her out of Olympia in June. Evidence also shows that the trip from Texas to Portland occurred in early August 2004. Throughout the period Ms. “B” was paying for the use of Mr. “L”’s car, he remained in control of its use. He used the car for his own trips, , , and withheld the car if he felt she had not made the monthly payment. Although no record was kept of who put what mileage on the car, he says he credited Ms. “B” 5,000 miles for the times he used the car and allowed others to use the car, and to be nice. Even if Ms. “B” had signed this lease, it was a completely illusory contract and lacked the essential element of a meeting of the minds. What ever the words in the document say, Mr. “L”’s intent was clearly something else. The renewal of the car lease was a punishment, made in the context of the Master/Slave relationship. Further, by maintaining possession and control of the car during and after the end of the relationship, Mr. “L”, and not Ms. “B”, breached any agreement they may have had. With respect to the alleged damage, the condition of the car was not recorded at the time Ms. “B” began driving it or when Mr. “L” took possession of it in 2006. There was no evidence produced connecting Ms. “B”’s use to Mr. “L”’s repair estimate.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF: Again, this claim is wholly dependent on the alleged Motor Vehicle Lease. In addition to the evidence above, the inconsistency in the amount of the personal debt shown on this document makes clear that the document is completely fictitious. Mr. “L” claims Ms. “S” was in charge of tracking personal debt. Ms. “S”, who is a wholly disinterested third party, denies that. Mr. “L” claims that Ms. “S” was the one who found the template for the promissory note. Ms. “S” denies that. EX 2 shows a debt of over $26K, but Ms. “S” says the debt being discussed at the time of the alleged signatures was more like $3,000. EX 204 supports that amount. The e-mails sent between the parties, with Ms. “S”’s assistance, shows that the exact amount of debt had not yet been determined at the time the document was allegedly signed. , The amount of debt shown on this document appears completely random, and at odds with all other evidence in this matter. , The alleged MVL agreement with the promissory note addendum was undoubtedly fabricated after the 1 June demand letter, to account for his statement in his email of 2 March 2007: “. . .We planned on putting our financial agreements regarding the house and other debts in writing but with the move immediately followed by the holidays, we kept putting it off….We didn’t put all our agreements down on paper, although we did a few (e.g. the car lease).” The parties did have a written month-to-month car lease agreement as part of the Master/slave agreements. Mr. “L” claims that there was a written promissory note already written and signed. What other agreement could he be talking about?
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF: There is no basis for this claim. Opposing counsel objected to testimony regarding individual charges comprising the alleged debt in EX 1 and EX 2, which seems to be the same debt in this claim, although Mr. “L” states that he doesn’t know what debt is included in either of those documents. , Mr. “L” produced no receipts to support his claim. Ms. “B” produced evidence of payment for items that were hers , , , and showed that some of the items charged could not have been hers. , Ms. “S” confirmed that Ms. “B” was not responsible for Ms. “S”’s travel expenses as Mr. “L” claims. It just doesn’t make sense. None of Mr. “L”’s accounting makes sense. Every witness on this matter testified that during the course of the relationship no accurate record was kept of parties’ financial dealings.
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF: It’s Mr. “L”’s burden to show that Ms. “B” took these items and he has produced no evidence what so ever regarding any of the items except the carpet cleaner, which Ms. “B” freely admits she took. It is also undisputed that she bought the carpet cleaner. Ms. “B”’s removal of items from the house was monitored. Mr. “L” was allowed to inspect boxes of items being removed. He found a set of DVD’s, which then remained at the house. The only thing he can say with respect to the remaining items is that he can’t find these items - he even had a search of his home in Texas done - so he concludes Ms. “B” must have taken them. Maybe this is what his witness, Ms. Skinner, meant when she testified that Mr. “L” has trouble tracking items in space.
SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF: One last item - the dogs. The parties agreed that Ms. “B” would purchase the dogs for $1,200 ($400 for each of the three dogs) and Ms. “B” did purchase the dogs for that amount. There is no basis for increasing the price of the dogs by 750% over the agreed price for purposes of damages. At the end of the relationship, Mr. “L” wanted Ms. “B” to take the dogs with her. Ms. “S” testified to having seen Ms. “B” make cash payments for one of the dogs more than once. With the exception of a few individual payments, , Ms. “B” was making combined payments to Mr. “L” for debt, for punishments, for the car, for whatever. Mr. “L” cannot show that all of the checks and untold amounts of cash Ms. “B” gave Mr. “L” over the years didn’t cover the dogs.
CONCLUSION: This is Mr. “L”’s case. It is his burden to show, by a preponderance of evidence that Ms. “B” owes him anything at all. He hasn’t even come close. Because he can’t. Because she doesn’t.
I can post a copy of their closing argument if anyone is interested. I also have a copy of the entire audio transcript. Those are really big, though. It's in bits and pieces.