I am being sued by my ex-boyfriend of 5 years for $3,000. In February, I purchased a motorcycle (for my ex) that he voluntarily returned to me (wrecked with 3,000miles) when he broke up with me two months later. For this transaction, the dealership added the bike ($7500) and the accessories ($2800) together on an itemized statement with MY name on it, and said that they added the accessories into the total price of the bike, because they gave us a "discount" on them. The total equaled $10,300. I put the bike, $7,500 (with the VIN, TT&L, etc.) under my account and signed the receipt, and he put the remaining balance $2,800 (accessories, gear, etc.) on his credit card and signed the receipt. He is suing me for $3,000,what he calls the "down-payment" on the motorcycle, plus his court costs. ( there was no "down-payment") These were two separate transactions. He was not a co-buyer or a co-signer in the purchase of this bike; he now has the accessories that he purchased and I have the bike.

We went to court Thursday, and I told the judge the facts, what was on paper. I bought the bike, and my ex bought the accessories. The guy who sold us the bike was there as a witness and he told the judge that he "couldn't really remember" anything about this transaction except what was on paper... The judge looked at the papers and said that since the dealership had put everything together, it looked to him that the accessories were "free" because they were put into the total price of the bike, and that my ex may be entitiled to partial ownership of the bike.

The judge said he would get in touch with us within 24hours with the verdict.

Its Monday, and I still haven't heard from the court.

How can judge rule in favor of someone who has no proof? The only thing he is entitled to, in my opinion, is the accessories. I am not very familiar with the "burden of proof" thing, so am I missing something here?

You asked "How can a judge rule in favor of someone who has no proof?"

The short answer to this is what I refer to as the "human factor" of any legal system which captures some of the following realities:

1. There are people who can lie better than other people can tell the truth and judges can't always tell the difference. You didn't specify what your ex-boyfriend told the judge but perhaps he advanced a seemingly credible story that took into consideration the documents you had

2. Sometimes parties fail to focus on the core issues of their dispute and instead get lost in the minutiae and/or the soap opera element of their lawsuit. This in turn can cause confusion for the judge and affect their ability to see the issues clearly.

3. There is, I believe, an inherent bias towards plaintiff's in the legal system.

4. Lastly, judges are only human and sometimes they make mistakes (that's why we have appeal courts).

The only bright light in all of this is the fact that the judge has reserved his decision. Perhaps upon reflection, and a closer look at the facts, he will rule in your favour. But believe me, anything is possible.