Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Elise Brennan asks for return of what she describes as a withheld portion of a $2,400 security deposit. Her submissions also argue that the $2,400 was marital property that should be divided because it was deposited into a joint savings account. Caleb Brennan asks the court to deny an equal division, arguing that the money was a birthday gift to him. The record does not clearly separate the requested security-deposit remedy from the birthday-money dispute, so the court considers both claims on the evidence presented. 2. The parties have each had an opportunity to explain their position and respond. The record is closed. No adjournment is appropriate: the hearing rules do not permit one, and the remaining gaps concern proof not supplied in the record. The court decides the claims on the available evidence. Issues for determination 3. The first issue is whether Elise proved that she is entitled to any part of the $2,400 birthday transfer. Elise bears the burden of supporting the relief she requests under Rule 1, The Claim Needs Proof. 4. The second issue is whether Elise proved that a security deposit was withheld and that she is owed its return. Elise also bears the burden on that claim. Under Rule 6, The Remedy Should Match the Harm, any payment must be supported by proof of the loss and its amount. Submissions of the parties 5. Elise says the money was deposited into a joint savings account bearing both spouses’ names and argues that it is marital property to be split. She also describes the $2,400 as a security deposit and asks for return of the withheld portion. Her submissions invoke Rule 13, Support Turns on Need and Ability, but provide no income, expenses, or other facts about support. The relief actually requested here concerns money, not support. 6. Caleb argues that the joint account shows where the money was deposited, not that the giver intended it for both spouses. He relies on his mother’s birthday card, addressed to him and saying, “Enjoy the money,” and on the transfer memo “Caleb birthday.” He acknowledges that the card does not expressly exclude Elise or explain whether the gift was for personal or household use. On the security-deposit claim, Caleb says the record does not show a landlord, a deposit, a withholding, or a deduction. Evidence and findings 7. The presented birthday card is evidence in the record, not merely an allegation. It names Caleb as the birthday recipient and says, “Enjoy the money.” Its wording supports Caleb’s account that the gift was directed to him. But it does not expressly say that Elise could not share in the money, or explain whether the gift was intended for personal or household use. The card therefore has weight on the recipient question, but does not resolve every question about the money. 8. Elise repeatedly describes a joint savings statement showing both names and the $2,400 transfer with a “Caleb birthday” memo. No account statement is presented as an exhibit. The descriptions are arguments in submissions, not a produced financial record. The court can consider them as Elise’s account, but they do not carry the same weight as a presented statement. Even accepting that the money entered an account bearing both names, that fact shows the account into which it went; without more, it does not establish the giver’s intent or Elise’s entitlement to half. 9. The record contains no evidence identifying a landlord, a security-deposit payment, an amount withheld, a deduction, or a reason for withholding. The birthday card and transfer memo concern the source or description of the $2,400, not a landlord’s deposit accounting. Elise’s repeated assertion that the money was a security deposit does not itself prove that claim. Reasons 10. On the birthday-money issue, Rule 1 places the burden on Elise because she seeks a division or payment. Rule 2, Reliable Records Beat Vague Stories, supports giving weight to the presented card over an unproduced account statement’s description, while still considering Elise’s account of the joint deposit. The card and memo naming Caleb support that he was the intended birthday recipient. The joint-account description points the other way only as to where the money was deposited. It does not establish that the giver intended a gift to both spouses or that the money was otherwise shared property. Caleb does not have to prove that Elise had no possible interest; Elise must prove the entitlement she asserts. She has not done so on this record. This finding is limited to the claim presented and does not decide any broader property question not supported by evidence here. 11. On the security-deposit issue, Elise has not proved the basic facts needed for relief: that a security deposit was paid, that any amount was withheld, or what amount should be returned. Rule 6 prevents an award untethered to a proven loss. Rule 11, Deposit Deductions Need Detail, concerns itemized security-deposit deductions, but the record does not establish that there was a deposit or deduction to evaluate. The court cannot infer a landlord’s withholding from a birthday transfer. This claim is not proven. 12. Rule 13 does not change the result. It concerns support arguments based on one party’s need and the other’s ability to pay. Neither side provides facts about need or ability, and Elise’s requested payment is not presented as a support calculation. The court therefore does not award support under that rule. Final order 13. The court finds that Elise has not proven entitlement to a share of the $2,400 birthday transfer. That claim is denied. 14. The court finds that Elise has not proven that a security deposit was withheld or that any amount is owed to her. That claim is denied. 15. No payment is ordered from Caleb to Elise, and no payment is ordered from Elise to Caleb. The record supports no monetary award. This order resolves only the claims and evidence presented in this hearing.