A Moscow resident attempted to sue his former girlfriend to recover the money he had given her during their relationship, according to DEA News citing the Moscow Butyrsky Court. The couple reportedly dated for roughly a year. During that time, the man worked a taxi, coffee shop, restaurant, and gas station job, and he regularly transferred funds to his girlfriend’s account. After the relationship ended, he told the court that the money was lent and that he expected repayment. To support his claim, he brought a friend as a witness, who testified that he had personally heard the defendant ask the plaintiff to borrow the funds with the expectation of repayment.
The former girlfriend countered that the transfers were voluntary gifts, not loans, and that there was no agreement or obligation to return the money. She presented evidence in the form of screenshots from notarized email correspondence and instant messaging conversations. Her mother also testified that the plaintiff had shown sustained interest in the defendant, gave gifts, and provided financial support during the relationship.
The court dismissed the request, noting that a close relationship between the two parties had been established. The judge stated that the absence of formal donation or loan agreements does not automatically justify reclaiming funds that were transferred over a long period without any explicit guarantee of repayment.
In a related report, it was noted that actress Jennifer Aniston planned to sue her ex-husband Brad Pitt for US$100 million in damages, underscoring how disputes over money in high-profile relationships can quickly escalate into legal actions.
Readers may find it useful to understand how courts evaluate such claims. In many jurisdictions, including Canada and the United States, the critical questions revolve around whether transfers were gifts or loans, the presence of any repayment expectations, and the existence of written or other credible evidence of such terms. Legal experts emphasize that the absence of a formal loan or donation agreement does not automatically preclude a case from moving forward, but it can complicate the plaintiff’s ability to prove that money was lent with a reasonable expectation of repayment rather than given as a gift. Witness testimony, financial records, and the parties’ conduct during the relationship are often scrutinized to determine the nature of the transfers. Consumers and couples alike should consider documenting loans with clear terms or avoiding large, continuous transfers that could be interpreted as gifts or loans with ambiguous repayment expectations. The outcome of this case illustrates how subjectivity in personal financial dealings can influence court decisions, even when there is a lengthy history of support between the individuals involved. [Citation: DEA News]