Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Anouk Vermeer asks for her half of any savings reserve remaining after the parties’ shared electricity costs. Her request, as finally presented, is not for an automatic €600 payment. Bram de Wit agrees that the messages describe the right calculation but opposes a fixed payment because the final bill and remaining balance are not in the record. 2. The hearing record contains the parties’ submissions and a WhatsApp exchange presented as exhibits. The same exchange appears more than once; those repeated copies do not add independent proof. No final electricity invoice, payment record, account statement, or calculation of the remaining reserve has been provided. The parties say the final bill has not arrived and that they have no bill or payment record available. Issues for determination 3. The central issue is whether Anouk has proved an amount payable to her from the savings after the shared electricity costs. Under Rule 1, the party asking for relief must support it with specific facts, records, or testimony. Rule 2 gives greater weight to reliable records than to unsupported accounts, and Rule 6 requires a remedy to match the proven amount or harm. Submissions of the parties 4. Anouk relies on the WhatsApp exchange and seeks half of any reserve left after the actual shared electricity costs. She says the court need not speculate about a bill that has not been provided to her, but maintains that the requested relief is supported. Her submissions also refer to a joint-account closing record, but no such record is included in the materials before the court. 5. Bram says the messages make the final division dependent on the final electricity bill. He accepts that the €1,200 was an estimate held back temporarily, not a permanent deduction, and agrees that Anouk’s half of any remaining reserve is the appropriate calculation. He says he cannot establish the actual cost or remaining balance and asks the court not to order a fixed payment. Evidence and findings 6. The WhatsApp exhibit states that Anouk proposed splitting the savings equally after the final electricity bill for their time together. Bram agreed and said he would hold back an estimated €1,200 for now. Anouk asked him to send the final bill when it arrived. The exhibit is relevant and its wording is clear. The record does not identify a challenge to its authenticity, though it is presented rather than independently verified. Its weight is sufficient to establish the parties’ stated method of division, but it does not establish the later bill or account balance. 7. The messages establish that the €1,200 was a temporary estimate, not an agreed permanent deduction. They also weaken any claim that Anouk was automatically owed €600 before the shared costs were determined. The parties’ final submissions agree on the calculation: first account for the actual shared electricity costs, then divide any reserve remaining equally. 8. The final bill and remaining balance are not established. Anouk’s statements that the bill was not provided to her and that other records were unavailable are submissions, not the missing records themselves. Bram likewise says he has no bill or payment record. His acknowledgment that he cannot prove the reserve was properly spent does not prove that money remains, nor does it shift Anouk’s burden to establish the amount she asks the court to order. Reasons 9. The court finds the agreed method of division established, but the claim for a presently payable amount not proven. The distinction matters: the messages show what the parties intended to do after the final bill, but they do not show whether the electricity costs consumed the reserve, whether any reserve remains, or the amount of any remainder. 10. Under Rule 1, Anouk must point to evidence supporting the relief she requests. The WhatsApp exchange supports her right to half of a reserve if one remains after shared costs. It does not prove that condition has occurred or establish a sum. Under Rule 2, the absence of the invoice and account records leaves the calculation unsupported by reliable records. The court cannot fill that gap by assuming either that the reserve remains intact or that it was entirely spent. 11. Bram’s position succeeds only to the extent that no fixed payment is proved on this record. The court does not find that Bram properly spent the reserve, that no money remains, or that the temporary estimate became a permanent deduction. Those matters are not established. The outcome follows from Anouk’s burden to prove a payable amount, not from a finding that Bram has proved the opposite. 12. Rule 6 requires relief to match what the evidence supports. An order for €600, or for another specific amount, would be unsupported. An order for an unspecified share of any future balance would also lack a proven present amount and a record establishing the balance. No adjournment is available, and the parties have said the relevant bill and payment records are not obtainable for this hearing. The court therefore decides the claim on the available record rather than continuing to seek the same proof. Final order 13. The court finds that the parties agreed to divide the savings equally after accounting for their shared electricity costs, with €1,200 held back as a temporary estimate. That method is established. Anouk’s claim for a payment on the present record is not proven because no final bill, payment record, or remaining balance establishes an amount due. 14. No payment is ordered to Anouk, and the request for a fixed monetary award is denied. This judgment does not find that Bram is entitled to keep any remaining reserve as a permanent deduction; it reflects only that the record does not establish a payable amount. The defendant prevails on the request for relief in this hearing.