In the beginning, they were building a future. Mr. Holmes and Miss Robertson were engaged to be married, but their romance hit a metaphorical and literal roadblock. Miss Robertson had an old car—a lifeless heap of metal sitting in her driveway. She didn’t need it, but her fiancé did.

The deal was simple, the kind of agreement made over a shared dream of a life together: “If you fix it up, it’s yours.”

The Labor of Love

Mr. Holmes took the challenge seriously. He poured hours of manual labor into the vehicle, doing almost everything himself. He repaired the engine and added what Miss Robertson dismissively called “frills”—those extra touches a man adds when he believes he’s working on his own property. He even paid for a professional transmission job. In total, he spent $1,666 to breathe life back into the machine.

But as the car started running, the relationship stopped.

The engagement was called off in September. Suddenly, the “gift” was no longer a gift. Miss Robertson took the car back, claiming she had only ever agreed to let him borrow it.

In the Court of Reality

When they landed in front of Judge Judy, the air was thick with resentment. Miss Robertson clutched a counterclaim, demanding the return of two wedding bands she had paid for. With a shrug of “fair is fair,” Mr. Holmes handed the rings back. He wasn’t there for the jewelry; he was there for the value he had built with his own two hands.

Judge Judy wasn’t interested in the “borrowing” story. “That’s not how two people getting married talk to each other,” she noted sharply.

The most damning evidence, however, was the state of the car itself. Since the breakup, the car had been sitting idle for six months. It had stopped running again, and Miss Robertson hadn’t spent a single dime or a moment of effort to fix it. She didn’t want the car to drive; she seemingly just didn’t want him to have it.

The Final Verdict

“The car was never to be his,” Miss Robertson insisted, stubborn until the end.

Judge Judy looked at the facts: Mr. Holmes had invested $1,666 into an asset that Miss Robertson now possessed but refused to maintain. The law, unlike a broken heart, is about equity.

“You haven’t used the car in six months. You haven’t looked to junk it. He’s going to get the money back that he put into the car because you now have the car.”

The Decision:

Judgment for the Plaintiff: Miss Robertson was ordered to pay Mr. Holmes the full $1,666.

Counterclaim Dismissed: The rings were returned, but her attempt to keep his labor for free was over.

In the end, Mr. Holmes walked away with his investment returned, leaving Miss Robertson with a non-running car and a very expensive lesson in the cost of a broken promise.