Wife Steals Her own Furniture

Описание: Mrs. Tuminaro sues her soon-to-be ex-husband, Mr. Tuminaro, for $3,000, alleging he steals her personal items—clothing, eyeglasses, handbags, and pet accessories—during their contentious divorce.

Mrs. Tuminaro claims that on December 11, 2012, she moves furniture from their shared home, in foreclosure due to Mr. Tuminaro’s failure to pay the mortgage for 40 months, to her mother’s co-op. The couple, in divorce proceedings, lives together under strain, with an order of protection barring her from their bedroom due to alleged violent behavior. She admits moving the furniture, joint marital property, is a mistake and returns it the next day. On December 12, she discovers her items missing: three pairs of prescription eyeglasses ($1,535), winter tops ($400), pants and jeans ($260), designer handbags ($250), an inflatable bed ($250), a dog bed, and a leash. She accuses Mr. Tuminaro of retaliatory theft, citing his passive-aggressive behavior noted by their marriage counselor.

Mr. Tuminaro denies taking her belongings, claiming he returns home on December 11 to find the first floor’s furniture gone. He calls the police and his lawyer, confirming Mrs. Tuminaro’s actions. He insists he doesn’t know where her items are, noting only he and their 14-year-old daughter are in the house between 11 p.m. and 7 a.m. when the items vanish. He argues the order of protection, based on her alleged violence like kicking and punching, justifies their separation within the home. He focuses on their daughter’s well-being amidst the turmoil.

The central issue is whether Mr. Tuminaro steals the items, requiring proof of his actions and their value. Mrs. Tuminaro presents a receipt for the eyeglasses but lacks documentation for other items. She argues her knowledge of his spiteful nature makes him the likely culprit. Mr. Tuminaro offers no evidence beyond his denial, emphasizing her furniture theft as the initial wrong. The judge questions why Mrs. Tuminaro leaves her valuables behind, anticipating retaliation, and probes the order of protection, revealing alleged violence over recent years.

Mrs. Tuminaro admits her error in moving the furniture without legal advice but insists the disappearance of her items is theft. She notes taking their shared dog, which she primarily cares for, but denies taking Mr. Tuminaro’s belongings. Mr. Tuminaro maintains civility, prioritizing their daughter’s stability, but the judge finds his denial suspicious given his motive—anger over the furniture.

The courtroom highlights the divorce’s emotional toll. Mrs. Tuminaro appears reasonable but admits impulsive actions, while Mr. Tuminaro seems calm yet potentially passive-aggressive. Their daughter, living with Mrs. Tuminaro but driven to school by Mr. Tuminaro, is caught in the conflict. The judge, referencing a movie scene of vengeful property destruction, suspects Mr. Tuminaro’s involvement due to motive and opportunity.

Evidence is limited. Mrs. Tuminaro’s eyeglass receipt supports part of her claim, but other items lack proof. Mr. Tuminaro provides no counter-evidence. In a civil case requiring a preponderance of evidence, the judge finds it more likely than not that Mr. Tuminaro takes the items, awarding Mrs. Tuminaro $2,000—less than requested due to insufficient documentation.

The case reveals the chaos of divorce, with personal grievances escalating into legal disputes. Mrs. Tuminaro’s furniture removal and Mr. Tuminaro’s alleged retaliation reflect deep resentment, impacting their daughter’s stability.

#law #justice #drama #court #peoplescourt