Opinion ID: 3178500
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Testimony of James Main

Text: James Main testified that it was his belief that he did not owe Ms. Turdo any money. He stated that Ms. Turdo wanted to enter into a new agreement on December 17, 2009 but that he refused to sign the new agreement. He also testified that Ms. Turdo intended to repossess the truck that day if he did not pay her $2,400. It was his understanding that the $1,600 he then paid her and the $800 debt which he agreed to assign to her were related to his debt for the truck. It -4- was his further testimony that he also commenced paying $200 a week. He added that he paid that $200 a week up until the time when Ms. Turdo repossessed the truck. Mr. Main’s testimony then turned to February 21, 2010, which he stated was the date when he received a phone call from Ms. Turdo in which she said that she wanted to repossess the truck. It was his testimony that he agreed to meet her at the Westerly Police Station. He added that, despite having agreed to meet at the Westerly Police Station, he actually went to the Hopkinton Police Station because they “knew both of us and our situation.” He stated that he offered to “pay off the vehicle” and that Ms. Turdo’s response was simply that “[s]he wanted the truck back.” He then testified that Ms. Turdo said that she would report the truck stolen if he did not return it to her; he added that he returned the truck because he did not want any “legal problems.” It was also Mr. Main’s testimony that he was seeking damages pursuant to his counterclaim because Ms. Turdo wrongfully took his truck at the time when he was current on his required payments. On cross-examination, Mr. Main conceded that he could not provide any proof for any of the payments which he made to Ms. Turdo that were not included in the ledger.