The relationship was only weeks old when the money began moving. Miss Frolek told the court that Mr. Pleasant needed cash to leave an apartment, repair a vehicle and prepare for a move to Diablo. She also said he persuaded her to place an $11,500 car on four of her credit cards. Two days after the vehicle was purchased, she took it back. What followed was a courtroom dispute over alleged deception, disputed payments and a $2,000 restocking charge.

A relationship that moved quickly

Miss Frolek testified that she met Mr. Pleasant online on February 26, 2018. According to her account, the relationship developed quickly. The couple discussed moving together, and Mr. Pleasant gave her a ring. The ring became part of the emotional background of the dispute, but Judge Judy quickly redirected the hearing toward the money and the car.

Miss Frolek said the expenses she paid were based on explanations Mr. Pleasant gave her. At the time, she said, she did not know whether those explanations were made up. The central question was not simply whether money changed hands. It was whether the payments were connected to a shared plan, a loan, or representations that Miss Frolek later believed were false.

The first disputed payment

Miss Frolek told the court that she gave Mr. Pleasant $3,500 on March 22, 2018, less than a month after they began dating. She linked the payment to his plan to move to Diablo and leave an apartment where he still had nine months remaining on the lease.

She said Mr. Pleasant showed her paperwork indicating what he needed to pay to get out of the apartment. She described the $3,500 as cash kept at home. Mr. Pleasant, however, denied receiving the money.

That denial immediately created an evidentiary problem. Judge Judy asked Miss Frolek to show where the money came from and requested a clear acknowledgment from Mr. Pleasant that he had received it. Miss Frolek said she did not need to withdraw the money because she kept cash at home. The judge pressed for proof rather than a large collection of documents or a general account of the relationship.

The transcript does not establish that Miss Frolek produced a document acknowledging receipt of the $3,500. Later, she said she had found a paper showing where she obtained $2,500, but Judge Judy distinguished that document from proof of a $3,500 payment to Mr. Pleasant.

The car purchase on four credit cards

The dispute then shifted to a vehicle purchased for $11,500. Miss Frolek acknowledged that the car was bought in her name and that Mr. Pleasant was allowed to drive it. She said she placed the purchase on four different credit cards.

Her explanation began with a request for $1,000 to repair Mr. Pleasant’s existing car. She testified that he later returned after breakfast and said the vehicle would not start at all. He allegedly needed a replacement immediately because he was scheduled to go deep-sea diving for Chevron the following day and expected to receive $15,000.

Miss Frolek also said Mr. Pleasant represented that the couple was buying a million-dollar home together. In that account, he said he had been prequalified for a loan but could not take on additional debt because of his debt-to-income ratio. He asked her to put the new car on her credit cards and promised to pay her back the next day.

Mr. Pleasant gave a different account. He said his car had broken down while he was at Miss Frolek’s home. The two discussed the need for a reliable vehicle because of the rugged terrain near Diablo. He said he originally expected Miss Frolek to lend him about $6,000 for a truck. Several hours later, he said, she told him she could use her credit cards instead and that he could make payments on the car.

The vehicle was purchased on March 24, 2018. The exact arrangement between the parties became a major issue because the car was in Miss Frolek’s name, while Mr. Pleasant claimed a right to keep it.

Two versions of why the car was returned

Mr. Pleasant testified that Miss Frolek took the car back two days after the purchase. He said she arrived at his home with police, knocking and banging on the door. According to his account, she believed another woman was inside.

When Judge Judy asked whether another woman had been present, Mr. Pleasant answered yes. He said Miss Frolek took back the car because of that situation.

Miss Frolek’s case was framed differently. She alleged that the car purchase resulted from representations about moving together to Diablo and living in a house Mr. Pleasant was buying for them. She also challenged what he had told her about his employment and plans. The dispute therefore involved both the vehicle itself and the broader story that preceded the purchase.

The Diablo plans and the fraud theory

Mr. Pleasant said he worked for the City of Seattle for SDOT and had been transferred to Diablo, described in the testimony as a rugged mountain area where employees had to live. He said he had been hired to work at a hydro plant as a maintenance laborer.

Miss Frolek questioned whether his employment and housing claims were accurate. She said she encountered information suggesting that his work was a part-time or janitorial position rather than the opportunity he had described. She also referred to Windmere Realty and property listings that Mr. Pleasant allegedly sent her.

Mr. Pleasant denied telling her that he had been prequalified for a mortgage in Diablo. The exchange became heated, with both parties accusing the other of lying. Judge Judy repeatedly narrowed the hearing back to the car and the financial loss that could be proven.

The judge characterized Miss Frolek’s theory as fraud because she claimed she purchased the car based on Mr. Pleasant’s statements about their future together, the move to Diablo and the home he was allegedly arranging to buy. Mr. Pleasant rejected that characterization.

Judge Judy focuses on proof

The courtroom turned on documentation. Judge Judy made clear that the $3,500 payment could not be awarded simply because Miss Frolek described it. She wanted evidence showing that the money had been paid and that Mr. Pleasant owed it.

The same standard applied to the car. Mr. Pleasant filed a counterclaim seeking the return of the vehicle. Judge Judy rejected that request, stating that Miss Frolek had not made him a gift of the car. His counterclaim was dismissed, and he was told he would not get the vehicle back.

Miss Frolek’s remaining provable loss was narrower. She said the dealership charged a $2,000 restocking fee after the car was returned. Judge Judy asked for a document from the company confirming that the vehicle had been returned and that the fee had been charged.

The transcript identifies the company as Auto Place Inc. Judge Judy stated that she would call the company to confirm whether Miss Frolek paid $2,000 in cash on April 9. After that confirmation, the judge entered judgment for Miss Frolek in the amount of $2,000.

The ruling

The final ruling did not award Miss Frolek the full amount she described during the hearing. Judge Judy said the $3,500 payment was not adequately established in the evidence presented. She also noted that the rest of Miss Frolek’s account contained elements she considered uncertain.

What the court accepted was the documented restocking charge. The $2,000 judgment represented the loss associated with returning the car, not a finding that every disputed payment or allegation had been proven.

The case ended with Mr. Pleasant responsible for the restocking fee and without the car he sought through his counterclaim. The broader allegations about the relationship, the apartment money, the planned move and the representations about work and housing remained part of the parties’ conflicting testimony, but the judgment rested on the loss Judge Judy could verify.

FAQ

When did Miss Frolek and Mr. Pleasant begin dating?

Miss Frolek said they began dating on February 26, 2018.

How much was the car worth?

The car was purchased for $11,500 and placed on Miss Frolek’s credit cards.

Why did Miss Frolek say she bought the car?

She said Mr. Pleasant needed a reliable vehicle and promised to repay her, while also representing that they were preparing to move to Diablo and buy a home together.

How long did Mr. Pleasant have the car?

According to the testimony, Miss Frolek took the car back two days after it was purchased.

What amount did Judge Judy award?

Judge Judy entered judgment for Miss Frolek in the amount of $2,000, representing the restocking fee connected with returning the vehicle.

Did Mr. Pleasant win his counterclaim for the car?

No. Judge Judy dismissed his counterclaim and stated that he was not getting the car back.