District Court finds both parties guilty of illegal occupation in $700 rent dispute

The District Court found Erin Bellamy and Colin Bellamy guilty of illegal occupation of their home in a judgment signed by presiding judge Prof E on October 22, 2026. Erin had sought $700 from Colin for his share of the final month’s rent, but the judgment does not expressly grant or reject that reimbursement claim.

The dispute began with competing interpretations of a short text message: whether Erin’s assurance that she could handle the rent released Colin from an earlier agreement to share it. The delivered judgment instead turned on the absence of documentation establishing either party’s right to occupy the home.

Prof E found that neither party had a written agreement confirming a legal right to occupy the property and that neither knew the details of their landlord. Those were the stated grounds for the finding of illegal occupation.

During questioning, Erin said she had not seen the lease and could not identify its named renter. She distinguished that document from the separate text agreement on which she based her reimbursement claim.

Colin likewise could not identify who was named on the lease or produce a copy. Asked to contact the landlord, he said he did not have the contact information available in court.

The formal judgment identifies no statute or other legal authority for the guilty finding. It specifies no penalty and does not explain how the missing lease affected the parties’ separate agreement to divide the rent.

Erin said she and Colin had agreed by dated text to pay half each until the lease ended on June 30. She maintained that she paid the final $1,400 after Colin moved out and that he owed her $700.

Colin acknowledged the earlier rent-sharing agreement but said he understood Erin’s later message to mean she would take responsibility for the apartment’s rent after his departure.

Erin said that message concerned the possibility of someone taking Colin’s room for June, not an unconditional release from payment. She testified that Colin had responded that he would ask around, and said she did not know of anyone who took the room.

Neither supplied the complete surrounding exchange in court. Colin described his screenshot as cropped to the final assurance and ultimately said he could not independently confirm the earlier messages’ exact wording or sequence. The judgment does not decide which interpretation of the exchange was correct.

The claim concerned the last month of a shared rental arrangement, with the parties’ acknowledged agreement to split costs at its centre. The hearing moved from what their messages meant to whether either could establish the terms of the underlying lease.

The resulting judgment leaves the original financial dispute unresolved on its face. It records a finding against both parties concerning occupation, without ordering Colin to reimburse Erin or addressing whether their rent-sharing obligation continued after he moved out.