Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Elena Mercer, the plaintiff, asks for a share of $2,400 withdrawn by Grant Mercer, the defendant, from their shared savings. The dispute concerns whether any amount remained after moving expenses and, if so, how it should be divided. The record contains a shared savings statement, an agreed text exchange, and an invoice for $1,600 in moving costs. The parties have both had an opportunity to make final submissions. Elena says she has no further evidence about the remaining money. Issues for determination 2. The central issue is whether Elena has proved that any part of the withdrawal remained after moving costs and is therefore payable to her under the parties’ agreement. Elena bears the burden because she seeks payment. The supplied rules require specific proof for relief, give weight to reliable records, and require a remedy tied to proven harm. The issue is resolved as not proven to the extent Elena seeks a particular payment. Submissions of the parties 3. Elena argues that the text exchange allowed Grant to use only what was needed for the move and required the rest to be split. She relies on the statement showing the full $2,400 withdrawal and the $1,600 invoice. She initially requested $1,200, but in her final submissions acknowledged that the invoice supports a moving expense and that the record does not show what happened to the remaining $800. She asks the court to account for the documented expense and divide any remainder fairly. 4. Grant relies on the $1,600 Alder Cartage invoice for packing, transport, and unloading. His other submissions refer to ordinary wear, support, and general assertions that he owes nothing. Those matters do not establish how the remaining $800 was used. Grant did not provide a record showing additional moving expenses or that he retained the balance. His failure to explain that amount does not, by itself, prove Elena’s claim; the burden remains with Elena. Evidence and findings 5. The shared savings statement, accepted by both parties as to the amount, shows a $2,400 balance followed by a $2,400 withdrawal identified with Grant’s account access. It proves the withdrawal. It does not show how the money was spent afterward or how much, if any, Grant retained. The statement is reliable evidence of the transaction, but its stated limits matter. 6. The parties accept the text exchange as complete and agree on its wording. Grant asked whether he could use the savings for the move. Elena replied, “Use what you need for the move. Keep the rest so we can split it.” Grant agreed. This is direct evidence of their arrangement: moving expenses could be paid from the savings, and any unused remainder was to be divided. The exchange does not set a spending cap or define which moving costs qualify. 7. The $1,600 invoice supports a moving expense for packing, transport, and unloading. It does not establish that the entire $1,600 was paid from the withdrawn savings, although the parties’ submissions treat it as the documented moving cost. Nor does it establish whether additional moving expenses were incurred. No other receipt, account record, or testimony in the supplied record resolves the remaining $800. Elena expressly says she has no further proof on that point. Grant’s submissions do not fill the gap. Reasons 8. Under Rule 1, the party asking for relief must point to specific facts, records, or testimony supporting it. Elena has proved the withdrawal and the agreement to split any unused remainder. Those facts establish a basis for dividing money that remained after authorized moving costs. But they do not establish that the remaining $800 was still available, was retained by Grant, or was not spent on other moving costs. The withdrawal alone cannot prove the later disposition of the funds. 9. Rule 2 favors reliable records over vague accounts. The statement and agreed text are reliable and establish the withdrawal and the parties’ arrangement. The invoice supports $1,600 in moving costs. None of these records accounts for the other $800. The court cannot treat the absence of an accounting as proof that Grant kept that amount, particularly when Elena acknowledges that the record does not show what happened to it. Nor can the court find that Grant spent it on additional moving costs; that too is unproved. 10. Rule 6 requires a remedy proportionate to the proven harm. Elena’s original request for $1,200 assumes that half of the full withdrawal is payable to her, without accounting for the documented moving expense. Her later, narrower request recognizes that the moving cost must be accounted for and seeks a fair division of any remainder. That is consistent with the text, but the record does not establish a remaining balance from which to calculate an award. The court cannot select a payment amount by speculation. 11. Grant’s arguments about ordinary wear and support do not apply to this savings dispute under the supplied rules and evidence. They do not defeat the agreed obligation to split any unused remainder. However, Elena still must prove that a divisible remainder existed and its amount before the court can order payment. On this record, she has not done so. This finding does not establish that Grant properly spent the remaining $800; it means only that the evidence does not establish a specific amount due to Elena. Final order 12. Elena’s request for a monetary award from the withdrawn savings is denied because she has not proved that any specific balance remained after moving expenses or that Grant retained an amount payable to her. The court recognizes that the parties agreed to split any unused remainder and that the $1,600 invoice supports a moving expense, but the available record does not permit a reliable calculation of any remainder. No payment is ordered from either party to the other. No other relief is granted.