District Court orders $400 payment after apartment transfer leaves savings division disputed

The District Court has ordered Colin Bellamy to pay Erin Bellamy $400, granting her request to divide their original $4,000 savings balance equally. Presiding judge Tony delivered the judgment on October 20, 2026, crediting Colin with the $2,400 he had already withdrawn for an apartment deposit.

The dispute turned on what Erin’s permission meant: approval to move money so Colin could secure an apartment, or agreement that he could permanently keep more of their savings. The order leaves each party with $2,000.

Tony found that the parties held $4,000 in shared savings and that Erin had permitted the $2,400 transfer. But permission to withdraw the money did not necessarily establish a final agreement to divide it unequally.

The subsequent conversation mattered. Both parties acknowledged an exchange about sorting out their shares later. The judge treated that exchange as support for the conclusion that the final allocation remained unresolved.

Colin’s claimed reliance on Erin’s answer did not establish a specific financial commitment arising from an agreement that he could retain the additional $400. In his answers, he could identify arranging the move but could not recall particular amounts or obligations.

The judgment distinguished the documented transfer from Colin’s disputed claim of permanent entitlement. It also treated the parties’ shared financial interests as relevant despite their separation. Neither had established a greater ownership interest, so the judge found equal allocation reasonable on the available record.

Erin said her response approved an apartment-deposit transfer, not a larger share for Colin. She described a message sent two minutes later saying they still needed to sort out their shares during the separation paperwork, followed by Colin’s agreement to address the numbers then.

Colin said he understood her answer to mean he could keep $2,400 while she kept the remaining $1,600. He acknowledged the later exchange but interpreted it as sorting out the numbers rather than changing that division. He sought to retain the withdrawn amount without an equalizing payment.

Neither party recalled a prior agreement defining their precise ownership shares. Colin acknowledged that there was no signed savings agreement.

The dispute followed the parties’ separation in Madison. A bank statement showed the $4,000 balance and Colin’s $2,400 transfer. His cropped screenshot ended with Erin’s approval; Erin said the original conversation on her phone also contained the later discussion.

The record left important background uncertain. Neither party could confirm whether they were legally married at the time, and the source of the savings and their precise pre-withdrawal interests were not established. The judgment resolved the allocation on the available evidence without determining those unanswered questions.