Gary S. Radler v. Josina Gulioso (2009)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

This is an action brought by the plaintiff, Gary S. Radler, against the defendant, Josina Gulioso, seeking to recover repayment of an alleged $40,000 he made to the defendant with whom he had been in a romantic relationship.   The defendant concedes that she received $40,000 from the plaintiff but claims that it was a gift and that she has no obligation to repay the plaintiff.

The court finds the following facts.   Sometime during spring 1999, the defendant began dating.   The plaintiff believed that the defendant was divorced but, in fact, she was still married.   While they were dating, the plaintiff hired the defendant to be his administrative assistant at his financial planning business.

During this period, the defendant was still living in a rented home with her then husband, although the plaintiff believed them to be divorced.   During the late summer of 1999, the plaintiff offered to loan the defendant money so that she could purchase the rented home in which she and her children were currently living.   The plaintiff wanted to loan the defendant money so that she would not move to Boston for financial reasons.   The defendant could not obtain a loan herself from a lending institution because of poor credit.

The defendant agreed that she would repay the plaintiff the $40,000.   The defendant did not agree to repay the loan within a certain period of time.   Nor did she agree to repay the loan with interest or at any particular interest rate.

In order to obtain the funds to loan to the defendant, the plaintiff opened an equity line of credit.   The line of credit was secured by the plaintiff's home.   After opening the line of credit, the plaintiff delivered the $40,000 to the defendant in September 1999.

Beginning in May 2002, and ending in May 2007, the defendant began to make payments on the equity line of credit that the plaintiff had secured.   The defendant made these payments by check directly payable to the lending institution at which the plaintiff had a line of credit.   Most of the loan payments covered only the interest on the equity line of credit that was accruing against the loan.   A few of the payments covered small portions of the principal amount loaned under the equity line of credit.   The defendant made payments for approximately five years.   During this period, the defendant paid $12,532.38.

The court is not persuaded by a fair preponderance of the evidence that the parties agreed that the defendant would be responsible for paying the $40,000 loan back by paying the actual line of credit to the bank with interest.   In fact, the defendant did not make any payments to either the plaintiff or a lending institution for the first two years following the making of the loan.

Not unpredictably, the romantic relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant soured and then ended in 2002.   The plaintiff brought this action after he discovered that the defendant had stopped making monthly payments directly to the lending institution.   The defendant contends that the $40,000 was a gift to her that she has no obligation to pay.

The court concludes that the defendant borrowed $40,000 from the plaintiff and that she agreed she would pay him back at some point.   The court concludes that the defendant was obligated to repay the loan upon demand.   The court also concludes that the plaintiff has not established that he was entitled to interest on the loan or that the defendant was contractually obligated to pay the equity line of credit (including interest) until the balance on the line of credit had returned to $0. The court concludes that the defendant paid $12,532.38 to the plaintiff as partial satisfaction by virtue of her payments made directly to the bank on the plaintiff's line of credit.   Accordingly, the court finds that the defendant is indebted to the plaintiff in the amount of $27,467.62.

Judgment shall enter accordingly.

Prescott, J.

Prescott, Eliot D., J.