Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Elise Mercer asks the court to divide the $7,600 remaining in the parties’ joint savings equally and to reduce Grant Mercer’s share by $1,200 because he previously transferred $2,400 from that account. Grant opposes the adjustment and asks that the remaining $7,600 be divided equally without a further deduction. 2. The parties’ submissions and the presented records are the available hearing record. No supplied law states a different rule for this dispute. The court therefore decides the requested adjustment by applying the burden identified for the issue: Elise must establish that the transfer should be charged against Grant’s share in the final division. Issues for determination 3. The central issue is how the $2,400 transfer should count when dividing the remaining savings. In particular, the court must decide whether Elise has proved that Grant’s share should be reduced by $1,200, as she requests. The court does not decide any broader property issue not presented for resolution. Submissions of the parties 4. Elise says she approved using up to $2,400 for Grant’s move, but that approval did not settle how the transfer would count in the final division. She relies on the complete conversation, in which she said they could work out the final split after Grant moved and Grant replied that he would keep receipts. Elise asks for an equal division of the $7,600 remaining, with a $1,200 adjustment to Grant’s share so the earlier withdrawal is counted once. 5. Grant says Elise approved the transfer as a moving allowance, not a loan or an advance, and that the parties should divide the remaining $7,600 equally without another deduction. He relies on the approval message and records of a $1,500 rental deposit and a $600 mover payment. Grant also says the remaining $300 could be used for other moving expenses. His account that he understood the transfer as an allowance is a client statement relayed through counsel, not an independently verified document or admitted witness testimony. Evidence and findings 6. The joint savings statement is clear evidence that the account held $10,000 before Grant transferred $2,400 to his individual account and that $7,600 remained afterward. It establishes the transaction and balances, but says nothing about the parties’ agreement on how to account for the transfer. 7. The approval message reads: “Yes, use up to $2,400 from savings for the deposit and movers.” Considered alone, it supports Grant’s position that Elise authorized use of the money for his move. The cropped screenshot does not show the full context and cannot establish the parties’ final accounting by itself. 8. The complete conversation supplies that context. Elise wrote, “We can work out the final split once you've moved,” and Grant replied, “Okay, I'll keep the receipts.” Neither message calls the transfer a gift, an advance, a loan, or an excluded allowance. The conversation supports Elise’s point that the final division remained open, but it does not establish that the parties agreed the transfer would later be charged against Grant’s share. It also does not establish Grant’s claim that the transfer was a settled separate allowance. 9. Grant’s payment records establish a $1,500 rental deposit and a $600 mover payment, totaling $2,100. They do not account for the remaining $300 of the transfer or establish how the parties intended that balance to be treated. Grant’s explanation that it could cover future expenses is not proof that it was spent or separately allocated. The court does not infer from the gap that the money was misused or that it must be charged against Grant’s share. Reasons 10. Elise bears the burden of proving the requested adjustment. The bank statement proves that $2,400 left the joint savings, but the fact of withdrawal alone does not prove that the parties agreed it should be charged against Grant’s share. Elise’s approval authorized use of up to that amount for moving costs. The complete conversation confirms that the final split would be worked out later, without specifying what that later accounting would be. 11. The evidence therefore leaves the key question unresolved. It does not establish Elise’s proposed adjustment, but neither does it establish Grant’s assertion that the transfer was definitively a separate allowance outside the final division. Grant’s documented moving costs support the purpose for which Elise approved the money; they do not decide the final accounting. The unexplained $300 likewise does not supply the missing agreement. 12. Because Elise bears the burden on this issue, uncertainty about whether the transfer should be charged against Grant’s share means she has not proved the requested adjustment. This conclusion is not a finding that Grant proved a separate allowance, nor a finding that the remaining $300 was spent. It is a decision that the evidence presented does not justify the specific $1,200 reduction Elise seeks. Final order 13. Elise’s request to reduce Grant’s share by $1,200 is denied. The court orders no payment from Grant to Elise and no other payment between the parties on this claim. 14. The requested equal division of the remaining $7,600, without the proposed adjustment, is not disputed by Grant. On the figures presented, that division is $3,800 to each party. This order does not make a separate finding about the ultimate treatment of the unexplained $300 or resolve any matter beyond the savings division presented here.