True 👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾🥰❤️🖤💚

💯 The defendant is still a Low Down Dirty 🐶

He a lame he should’ve let her keep the car and added her name on the lease and so if she stops paying then have a conversation gave her half her money back and started paying the note himself cause she doing him a favor and his credit

So simple but flies over so many people’s head due to their materialistic obsessions.

My husband and I have been married 10 years and we have our own bank accounts and our own stuff in our own names except our lease because we both had to be on it

Yes and it's crazy,I felt for Miss Tucker 😭😭😭

Yes but she wants her car or her $11,000 l get it❤️🖤💚🥰

Bc she wanted the car and that’s on her

The judge definitely didn't get it at all 🤦🏿‍♀️ she should have went to Judge Judy or Judge Mathis.😎

He is a narcissistic taker. And he is an empath giver. Proof: he was living in HER apartment. Bills split 50/50. He shows off posing as a great generous man paying down payment of a car keeping it in his name but telling everyone at the party that it's a gift. The giver starts paying the notes + splitting the bills 50/50 + letting him live at HER apartment that is in her name. When she kicks him out he tells the judge that she humiliated him exposing him before his friends: narcissist instead of feeling sad, feels humiliated and takes back the car. Taker.

I think he lying about that too. Dentist my azz…He’s a con arist. I wonder is he from Atlanta home of the catfish

😅👍🏾 I get it now. ALWAYS ensure its a REAL UNCONNECTED TO THE GIVER Gift. (2) buy it yourself. So if your child gets you a gift; sign a lil contract stating that it’s a gift to you; so when or if they get mad at you, they can’t take it back 🧐🤔🤷🏾‍♀️🤨🤦🏾‍♀️

Not the same!

The judgment was based on the law, not on ethics. The ethical thing for him to do, which the judge told him at the end, is to compensate her, but legally he is not bound to do so. Although it was a 'gift', the plaintiff agreed to keep the car in the name of the defendant, giving him full legal control of the vehicle. At no time during their relationship did she seek to change that arrangement and have it in her name. If she did, it would be a different story. She went through all the paperwork with the bank to make payments come out from her account, but did nothing to transfer ownership in her name, which implies that she agreed to it being in his name.

Well and a footnote tickets sad that she is pushing this woman for trusting and accepting a gift even though she has to continue to pay for it so yes he was dumb but dumb is not against the law however being a fool or Thief a trickster a grifter all that kind of stuff wrapped up in their mind including a foolish less of a man she is rewarding him in a sense that's sad

but we concluded it wasn't a gift. she was still paying for it. that's not a gift

Where?

How do you know those were scripts and not the evidence? Eagle eyes or were you there? Quit doing what you're doing.

Actually, she reluctantly gave her only the $900. She stuck to the law. She knew that deadbeat had played the girl but couldn't order him to repay the $11,000 the girl paid for the car. He'll lose in life once people start knowing him.