You Want Him to Pay You Back — But What Happens Next in Court Will Shock Everyone

The dispute seemed simple: Mr. Deisar, a nursing student working part-time at Panera, had taken Mr. Davidson shopping. They ended up at a sneaker store on the very day a highly anticipated, limited-edition pair of shoes was released. As fate would have it, there was only one pair left in the entire city of Rochester—a Size 11.

.

.

.

Mr. Davidson, a landscaper who worked for cash, wanted them desperately. The price tag? $190.

A Story That Didn’t Add Up

In court, Mr. Davidson’s defense was centered on the idea that the sneakers were a gift. He claimed Mr. Deisar was simply “trying to show off” because she liked him.

The judge, ever observant, began digging into the details. She questioned Mr. Davidson about his income—cash payments from his uncle—and then turned her attention to the plaintiff. Mr. Deisar explained that she had used her own credit card for the purchase because Mr. Davidson had “left his wallet at home”—a claim the judge met with immediate skepticism.

“Why would you leave your wallet home?” the judge asked. “I was rushing out the door,” Davidson replied smoothly.

The Self-Incriminating Slip

The turning point came when the judge asked Davidson to describe exactly what happened at the store. Eager to explain how much he wanted the shoes, Davidson began to narrate the scene, unwittingly walking into his own trap.

“I said, ‘I really want these sneakers,’” Davidson recounted. “And she was like, ‘Well, I’ll get them for you as long as you pay me back.’ I told her I wasn’t comfortable because I might not have the money right away. She said, ‘It’s okay, just pay me back when you get it.’”

The judge stopped him mid-sentence. The courtroom went still.

“Did you hear what you just told me, Mr. Davidson?” the judge asked, her voice sharp. “You just told me it wasn’t a gift. You said, ‘I’ll pay you back when I have the money.’”

The Verdict of One’s Own Words

Realizing his mistake, Davidson tried to backtrack, claiming he was “iffy” about the deal. But the judge wasn’t having it. She didn’t need a jury or a mountain of evidence; she had his own testimony.

“You want me to play the tape back to you?” she challenged. “That’s exactly what you said. She offered to buy them if you paid her back. You were ‘iffy,’ but the bottom line is: you took the shoes, and you’re wearing them right now.”

When Mr. Deisar tried to add gas money to the claim, the judge cut her off, keeping the focus on the clear-cut debt.

“Judgment for the plaintiff in the amount of $190. We’re done.”