Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Elena Brooks asks the court to include $600 for her in the division of marital property. She says the parties had $1,200 in joint savings, that Grant Brooks transferred the full balance to his individual account, and that she authorized only $300 for a moving van. Grant disputes that she limited his permission in that way. The record contains a joint savings statement and a van receipt as described in the parties’ submissions. No other claim or remedy is presented for decision here. 2. Both parties have made final submissions. The court decides the dispute on the supplied record and does not assume that an allegation in a submission is proof merely because it was repeated. No adjournment is available, and the record does not identify further obtainable proof that could be added before decision. Issues for determination 3. The central issue is whether Elena has proven that she is entitled to the requested $600 from the transferred savings. Elena bears the burden because she asks the court for that relief. The supplied Rule 1 requires the party seeking relief to point to specific facts, records, or testimony supporting the request. Rule 2 recognizes that reliable records generally carry more weight than unsupported recollections, while Rule 6 requires a remedy to match the harm established by the evidence. Submissions of the parties 4. Elena argues that the bank statement proves Grant moved the entire $1,200 into his individual account and that the receipt documents only a $300 van expense. She says she agreed to that expense, not to Grant keeping the remaining savings, and asks for $600 as her half of the joint balance. In her final submission, Elena acknowledges that the records do not independently prove the limit she describes, but maintains that her account supports it. 5. Grant argues that Elena authorized him to use the savings for moving out and that the record does not prove she restricted him to $300. He relies on the van receipt as evidence of a moving expense and asks the court to deny or reduce Elena’s request. Grant does not provide a detailed account of the remaining $900 or a record showing what happened to it. His assertion about Elena’s permission is an argument, not independent documentary proof. Evidence and findings 6. The joint savings statement is presented as a statement bearing both spouses’ names. It shows a $1,200 balance followed by a $1,200 transfer to Grant’s individual account shortly before separation. The statement is strong evidence of the balance and transfer. It does not state the transfer’s purpose, whether Elena authorized it, or what happened to the money afterward. The same statement appears more than once in the record; repetition does not create additional independent proof. 7. The van receipt is described in the submissions as documenting a $300 moving-van expense. It supports that an expense of that amount was incurred. The record does not provide further receipt details or show that the receipt itself records the parties’ agreement about the savings. It therefore does not establish that $300 was the only use Elena permitted, nor does it establish the disposition of the remaining $900. 8. Elena’s account that she authorized only the $300 expense is consistent across her submissions. It is relevant evidence, but it remains her account of a disputed conversation or understanding. No written message, other witness account, or additional record corroborates the limit. Grant’s account that Elena authorized moving-out use is also not corroborated, and his submissions do not explain the remaining funds. The court does not find either party’s description of the permission independently established by the documents. Reasons 9. The transfer itself is established, but the transfer alone does not prove that Grant was required to return $600 to Elena. The bank statement shows where the money went, not what the parties agreed. Likewise, proof of a $300 van expense supports that expense but does not resolve whether Elena authorized other moving-out use or how the balance was treated. The court cannot infer the parties’ agreement solely from the fact that Grant received the funds. 10. Elena’s consistent account gives her position some support. But Rule 1 places the burden on her to support the relief she requests, and the record leaves the key authorization question unresolved. Rule 2 favors reliable records when accounts conflict; here, the available records establish the transfer and expense but do not address the disputed limit. The court does not reject Elena’s account as false. Rather, the evidence does not establish it sufficiently to award the requested amount. 11. Grant has not established that Elena authorized him to keep or spend the entire balance. His lack of detail about the remaining $900 is a weakness in his explanation. But Elena bears the burden on her request, and Grant’s failure to explain the balance does not itself prove Elena’s entitlement to $600. The court therefore does not shift the burden to Grant to disprove her claim. 12. Elena asks for a limited amount—half the joint balance—rather than more than that. That is a measured request, but Rule 6 still requires the remedy to match a proven entitlement. Because the record does not establish the agreement or disposition necessary to support the $600 award, the court cannot grant it on this record. No separate support issue is decided; the parties’ reference to support does not supply evidence relevant to this property claim. Final order 13. Elena’s request to include $600 for her in the marital property division is denied because her entitlement to that amount is not proven on the available record. No payment is ordered from Grant to Elena, and no other monetary award is made. This decision does not find that Grant’s explanation of the remaining funds is established; it resolves the requested relief according to Elena’s burden of proof. The established facts are limited to the $1,200 balance and transfer shown by the joint statement and the $300 van expense described by the receipt.