Father Sues Daughter for $5,000 Over Disputed Loan for Trip

A father has initiated legal proceedings against his daughter, seeking the return of $5,000 he claims was a loan for her overseas trip. This action follows a breakdown in their relationship, prompting the daughter to block her father from further communication.

The father filed his claim with the Disputes Tribunal in February 2024, arguing that the funds he provided to his daughter were intended as a loan. In contrast, the daughter maintains that the money was a gift for her trip abroad in 2023 and asserts that she would not have accepted the funds had there been an expectation of repayment.

Details of the Dispute Emerges

The tribunal’s recent decision revealed that the father had transferred the funds in two separate payments of $2,500 each. These payments were agreed upon to support his daughter’s two-week travel. The father contended that repayment would occur either through the sale of his daughter’s car or via automatic payments commencing upon her return from the trip.

Conversely, the daughter argued she was a student at the time and lacked the financial means to repay her father. She also highlighted that he had previously provided financial assistance to her older sisters, which he denied, claiming there was no pattern of gifting among his children.

The father’s bank statements, which referenced the payments as “Dad” rather than “loan,” were submitted to the tribunal. Although he claimed to have text messages from early 2023 indicating the money was a loan, he failed to provide these during the proceedings. When given the opportunity to submit evidence from his partner, he stated he needed to contact her, but ultimately did not present any supporting documentation.

Tribunal’s Findings on Relationship and Intent

During the tribunal hearing in May 2024, the daughter explained that she and her sisters had ceased all contact with their father in late 2024 due to unspecified distressing circumstances. Evidence included a screenshot of a threatening message from her father, stating, “You will regret this.” Despite the timing of this message, the tribunal could not draw conclusions about its intent without context.

The tribunal emphasized that, in familial relationships, there is no automatic assumption that funds exchanged are loans. The absence of a formal agreement or intention to create a legal obligation made the father’s claim difficult to substantiate. As tribunal referee Johanna Perfect stated, “Not only is any agreement unenforceable, but I find that there is insufficient evidence to establish that the money paid was intended to be a loan at the time the payments were made.”

Furthermore, the tribunal noted the father’s lack of timely follow-up regarding repayment until he pursued legal action, which raised questions about his claims.

Ultimately, the tribunal dismissed the father’s claim, recognizing the complexities of familial financial transactions and the lack of clear evidence that the funds were intended as a loan. The decision underscores the importance of clear communication and documented agreements in financial exchanges, particularly within families.

This case highlights not only the legal ramifications of personal disputes but also the emotional toll such conflicts can take on familial relationships.