Lawsuit: In Session Noadenmark v. Zombie_Bro_ [2026] DCR 37

[Noa]

Case Filing​

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Noadenmark
Plaintiff

v.

Zombie_bro_
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF
Zombie_bro_ said he would pay 1050 if he was given a 1k loan he then said he would need 1k more and he didnt pay the last 1050 back


I. PARTIES
1. noadenmark

II. FACTS
1. Zombie_Bro_ was sent 2k
2. Zombie_Bro_ said he would pay back 2100
3. Zombie_Bro_ only paid half of the promised money back

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The Defendant, Zombie_bro_, entered into a verbal loan agreement with the Plaintiff, Noadenmark, whereby the Plaintiff extended a total of $2,000 to the Defendant in exchange for a promised repayment of $2,100. The Defendant's failure to repay the full agreed amount constitutes a breach of contract under the laws of the Commonwealth of Redmont, as the Defendant received the full benefit of the loan but failed to fulfill their repayment obligation.
2. The Defendant's conduct may further constitute Fraud under the Commercial Standards Act, as the Defendant made representations regarding repayment that they knowingly or recklessly failed to honor, causing quantifiable financial harm to the Plaintiff in the amount of $1,050.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $1,050 in compensatory damages, representing the outstanding unpaid balance of the agreed repayment of $2,100, of which only half was returned.



By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

DATED: The 18th day of April 2026

 

[Muggy21]

Writ of Summons

@Zombie_Bro_ is required to appear before the District Court in the case of Noadenmark v. Zombie_Bro_ [2026] DCR 37

Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgement based on the known facts of the case.

Both parties should make themselves aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.

This is a small claims action.

 

[Zombie_Bro_]

Hello!
I am currently ready for the court. I don't really understand how this works, but I was told to reply here when ready. I'm ready when you are.
-Zombie_Bro_

 

[Muggy21]

Hello!
I am currently ready for the court. I don't really understand how this works, but I was told to reply here when ready. I'm ready when you are.
-Zombie_Bro_

Since this is a small claims matter, i'm going to keep it very light.


@Zombie_Bro_

Please take 48 hours to respond to Noadenmark's complaint. You need not follow the format, just write effectively and direct your language to the Court.

 

[ToadKing]

Answer to Complaint

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

Noadenmark
Plaintiff

v.

Zombie_bro_
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT​

1. AFFIRM
2. DENY The Defendant agreed to repay $1,050 in exchange for a loan of $1,000. The Defendant never agreed to repay $2,100.
3. DENY The Defendant repaid $1,050, fulfilling the full amount promised under the original agreement.

​

II. DEFENCES​

1. The contract was for $1,000, not $2,000​

Under Section 4 of the Contracts Act, a valid contract requires five elements: offer, acceptance, consideration, intent, and capacity. The evidence establishes that a contract was formed, but only in respect of a $1,000 loan repayable at $1,050.

Offer - Section 4(2)(a) defines an offer as "a clear and unequivocal communication expressing a party's willingness to enter into a contract." The Defendant stated in global chat: "guys i need like a 1k loan ill pay back 1050 in like 2m." This message identifies the precise sum to be loaned ($1,000), the precise sum to be repaid ($1,050), and the timeframe. It is a "clear and unequivocal" offer.

Acceptance - Section 4(2)(b) requires "a positive and unambiguous response to an offer... mirroring the terms of the offer." The chat log records the message "$1,000 has been sent to Zombie_Bro_" immediately following the Defendant's offer. By transmitting exactly the sum specified in the offer, the Plaintiff accepted its terms.

Consideration - Section 4(2)(c) requires "the exchange of something of value between parties." The Plaintiff provided $1,000; the Defendant promised $1,050 in return. Both constitute valid consideration.

Intent - Section 4(2)(d) requires that "parties must demonstrate a clear intention to create legal obligations." The Defendant's use of the word "loan" and the specification of a repayment amount and timeframe demonstrate a clear intent to be bound.

Capacity - Section 4(2)(e) is satisfied; both parties are active players on the server with over 6 hours of total playtime. (D-001, D-002)

The contract was therefore fully formed at the moment the $1,000 was sent, on the precise terms the Defendant offered: $1,000 loaned, $1,050 to be repaid. No other terms were agreed upon.

​

2. The second $1,000 transfer did not form part of any contract​

Following the first transfer, the Defendant requested further funds in chat. This second request contained no offer of repayment terms. Under Section 4(2)(a) of the Contracts Act, an offer must be "clear and unequivocal" as to its terms. A request for money without specifying repayment terms cannot constitute a valid contractual offer. Without a valid offer, no acceptance could mirror its terms per Section 4(2)(b), and no binding obligation to repay arose. The Defendant stated at the time of repayment: "you donated 1k extra to help me pay it back i never said it would add to the loan" - consistent with no contract having been formed over the second $1,000.

3. The Defendant performed their contractual obligations in full​

The chat log records "$1,050 has been received from Zombie_Bro_" - the exact sum promised under the contract. Under Section 9 of the Contracts Act, a contract may be terminated by "successful performance." The Defendant's obligation was discharged upon payment of $1,050. There has been no breach, and the Plaintiff's claim for compensatory damages is therefore without basis.

EVIDENCE​

Spoiler: D-001

Spoiler: D-002

By making this submission, I agree that I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

DATED: This 18th day of April 2026.

Case Filing

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
COUNTERCLAIM

Zombie_Bro_
Counterplaintiff (CPlaintiff)

v.

Noadenmark
Counterdefendant (CDefendant)

COMPLAINT
The CPlaintiff complains against the CDefendant as follows:

The CPlaintiff is countersuing due to the frivolous and baseless nature of this case. The CDefendant filed a "breach of contract" lawsuit claiming the CPlaintiff owes $1,050 in unpaid repayments, despite the CDefendant's own submitted evidence clearly showing the agreed terms were "$1,000 for $1,050" - an obligation the CPlaintiff fulfilled in full. Filing a lawsuit without reasonable basis, in the face of one's own contradicting evidence, constitutes abuse of legal process and has caused the CPlaintiff harm through the time and resources spent defending these unnecessary proceedings.

I. PARTIES​

1. Zombie_Bro_
2. Noadenmark

​

II. FACTS​

1. The CDefendant sent the CPlaintiff $1,000 following an offer in global chat to repay $1,050.
2. The CPlaintiff repaid $1,050 to the CDefendant, fulfilling the agreed terms in full.
3. The CDefendant's submission as evidence in this case confirms both the original offer of "$1,000 for $1,050" and the subsequent repayment of $1,050.
4. The CDefendant filed this lawsuit claiming the agreed repayment amount was $2,100, despite the evidence contradicting this claim.

​

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF​

1. Abuse of Legal Process​

Under Part XII, Section 2 of the Redmont Civil Code Act (RCCA), a person commits abuse of legal process where:

(a) initiates or pursues a legal claim in bad faith, for improper purposes, or without reasonable basis; and
(b) the claim causes harm to the defendant.

The CDefendant's evidence establishes that the contract was for a $1,000 loan in exchange for a $1,050 repayment. The CPlaintiff fulfilled that obligation exactly. There was no reasonable basis to bring this claim. Pursuing this action despite that evidence constitutes initiating a claim without a reasonable basis.

The CPlaintiff has suffered harm in the form of time and inconvenience spent defending proceedings that should never have been brought.

​

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF​

The CPlaintiff seeks the following from the CDefendant:

1. $10,000 in Punitive Damages pursuant to Part XII Section 2 of the RCCA (being 100 Civil Penalty Units), on the basis that filing a claim contradicted by the CDefendant's own evidence constitutes outrageous conduct under Part III Section 3(2)(b)(ii) and (iv) of the RCCA, being conduct the CDefendant knew or ought to have known would seriously inconvenience the CPlaintiff, and which involved dishonesty and bad faith in misrepresenting the agreed repayment terms.

2. Alternatively, $7,500 in Nominal Damages pursuant to Part III Section 4 of the RCCA, if the Court finds punitive damages are not warranted.

3. Legal fees at 30% of case value pursuant to Part III Section 7 of the RCCA

By making this submission, I agree that I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

DATED: This 18th day of April 2026.

Spoiler: Proof of Representation

 

[Muggy21]

The Complaint is a small claims action, the Counterclaim is NOT.

We will enter discovery for 5 days, ending on 4/23/26 @ 9pm EST.

 

[ToadKing]

Pursuant to Rule 4.8 (Interrogatories), the CPlaintiff submits the following interrogatories, which the CDefendant must answer truthfully and to the best of their ability:

1. What specific communication from the CPlaintiff established an agreed repayment of $2,100 rather than $1,050?

2. The screenshots you submitted show the CPlaintiff's offer as "guys i need like a 1k loan ill pay back 1050 in like 2m." Why do you interpret this as establishing a $2,100 total repayment obligation rather than $1,050?

3. Your own submitted evidence records "$1,050 has been received from Zombie_Bro_". Why do you contend the CPlaintiff failed to fulfil their repayment obligation despite this message?

4. Prior to filing this lawsuit, did you observe the CPlaintiff's statement "you donated 1k extra to help me pay it back i never said it would add to the loan"?

5. What specific communication from the CPlaintiff established repayment terms for the second $1,000 transfer?

 

[ToadKing]

Pursuant to Rule 4.9 (Witness Protocol), the CPlaintiff adds the following person as a witness to the Counterclaim:

1. Noadenmark

 

[J_The_Fae]

Your Honor, I will be representing the Plaintiff on behalf of Talion & Partners INC.

I'd like to ask leave of the court to file a response to the Defendant's counterclaim before discovery begins.

 

[J_The_Fae]

Pursuant to Rule 4.8 (Interrogatories), the CPlaintiff submits the following interrogatories, which the CDefendant must answer truthfully and to the best of their ability:

1. What specific communication from the CPlaintiff established an agreed repayment of $2,100 rather than $1,050?

2. The screenshots you submitted show the CPlaintiff's offer as "guys i need like a 1k loan ill pay back 1050 in like 2m." Why do you interpret this as establishing a $2,100 total repayment obligation rather than $1,050?

3. Your own submitted evidence records "$1,050 has been received from Zombie_Bro_". Why do you contend the CPlaintiff failed to fulfil their repayment obligation despite this message?

4. Prior to filing this lawsuit, did you observe the CPlaintiff's statement "you donated 1k extra to help me pay it back i never said it would add to the loan"?

5. What specific communication from the CPlaintiff established repayment terms for the second $1,000 transfer?

Additionally, I believe the response that has been prepared will adequately address the Defendant’s interrogatories as well as the counterclaim.

 

[J_The_Fae]

Your Honor, I will be representing the Plaintiff on behalf of Talion & Partners INC.
View attachment 80571

I'd like to ask leave of the court to file a response to the Defendant's counterclaim before discovery begins.

Apologies, I misread and assumed discovery would start on the 23rd. May I request leave to file a response despite discovery having already begun?

 

[J_The_Fae]

In accordance with Rule 4.8, the Plaintiff adds the following people as witnesses:

1. julimonki

 

[Muggy21]

Discovery is now closed.

I see two witnesses

(P) julimonki
(D) Noadenmark

Writ of Summons

@julimonki is required to appear as witness before the District Court in the case of Noadenmark v. Zombie_Bro [2026] DCR 37

Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgement based on the known facts of the case.

Both parties should make themselves aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.

 

[ToadKing]

Discovery is now closed.

I see two witnesses

(P) julimonki
(D) Noadenmark

Writ of Summons

@julimonki is required to appear as witness before the District Court in the case of Noadenmark v. Zombie_Bro [2026] DCR 37

Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgement based on the known facts of the case.

Both parties should make themselves aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Your Honour,

The CDefendant has failed to answer the CPlaintiff's interrogatories in violation of Rule 4.8.

Rule 4.8 states that answers to interrogatories "must be made within 48 hours of being asked." The CDefendant was asked five interrogatories during the discovery period and has not answered any of them. The 48-hour deadline has passed without response and without any objection being raised within the required 24-hour window.

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Your Honour,

The CDefendant has failed to file any answer to the CPlaintiff's counterclaim. Under Rule 3.6, defendants, in this case the CDefendant, must amend any answer to include affirmations or denials of all facts and defences under law or fact prior to the end of discovery. The CDefendant has not done so. Discovery has now closed, and no answer has been submitted.

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGEMENT

Pursuant to Rule 3.6, the CPlaintiff moves for default judgment against the CDefendant on the counterclaim.

Rule 3.6 explicitly states that failure to submit the necessary affirmations, denials, and defences prior to the end of discovery "is grounds for plaintiffs to request the presiding judge to grant default judgment against the defendant."

The CDefendant has had the full discovery period to respond to the counterclaim and has chosen not to. They have additionally failed to answer any of the CPlaintiff's five interrogatories. The CPlaintiff respectfully requests that the Court grant default judgment in favour of the CPlaintiff on the counterclaim, awarding the relief sought in the Prayer for Relief.

 

[Muggy21]

@J_The_Fae You have 48 Hours to respond

 

[J_The_Fae]

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Your Honour,

The CDefendant has failed to answer the CPlaintiff's interrogatories in violation of Rule 4.8.

Rule 4.8 states that answers to interrogatories "must be made within 48 hours of being asked." The CDefendant was asked five interrogatories during the discovery period and has not answered any of them. The 48-hour deadline has passed without response and without any objection being raised within the required 24-hour window.

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Your Honour,

The CDefendant has failed to file any answer to the CPlaintiff's counterclaim. Under Rule 3.6, defendants, in this case the CDefendant, must amend any answer to include affirmations or denials of all facts and defences under law or fact prior to the end of discovery. The CDefendant has not done so. Discovery has now closed, and no answer has been submitted.

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGEMENT

Pursuant to Rule 3.6, the CPlaintiff moves for default judgment against the CDefendant on the counterclaim.

Rule 3.6 explicitly states that failure to submit the necessary affirmations, denials, and defences prior to the end of discovery "is grounds for plaintiffs to request the presiding judge to grant default judgment against the defendant."

The CDefendant has had the full discovery period to respond to the counterclaim and has chosen not to. They have additionally failed to answer any of the CPlaintiff's five interrogatories. The CPlaintiff respectfully requests that the Court grant default judgment in favour of the CPlaintiff on the counterclaim, awarding the relief sought in the Prayer for Relief.

Your Honor, as I have previously stated, my answer to the counterclaim will easily provide answers to the interrogatory. I did not file said answer because I was awaiting the court's permission to do so during discovery. I was not given leave to file it, and therefore I did not. Respectfully, the CPlaintiff has ignored statements I made clearly in this thread.

 

[J_The_Fae]

I request leave to file the answer to counterclaim now.

 

[J_The_Fae]

I'd also like to ask for an extension of 24 hours to answer the interrogatories separately.

 

[J_The_Fae]

The CDefendant submits these answers to the CPlaintiff's interrogatories:

1. What specific communication from the CPlaintiff established an agreed repayment of $2,100 rather than $1,050?

When the CPlaintiff requested the second loan of $1,000, he followed this request with the statement “so then I can pay it back”. The CDefendant reasonably, under the Contracts Act §5(2), assumed that this established new implied terms to the verbal contract, with the second $1,000 payment requiring a repayment of $1,050 as expected based on the original terms. It’s evident that any reasonable person would make this assumption, as we see in the chats that are presented in the screenshots; another player made the same transaction with the CPlaintiff and also expected repayment for the second loan.



2. The screenshots you submitted show the CPlaintiff's offer as "guys i need like a 1k loan ill pay back 1050 in like 2m." Why do you interpret this as establishing a $2,100 total repayment obligation rather than $1,050?

The original verbal contract was $1,050 for $1,000. However, the aforementioned implied terms based on the CPlaintiff’s conduct changed this; the CDefendant reasonably interpreted the statement “i need like 1k more so then i can pay it back” as a promise to repay another $1,050 for the second $1,000 loan. This would have brought the CPlaintiff’s total repayment to $2,100.

3. Your own submitted evidence records "$1,050 has been received from Zombie_Bro_". Why do you contend the CPlaintiff failed to fulfil their repayment obligation despite this message?

Again, the CDefendant expected two repayments of $1,050 based on reasonably interpreted terms that the CPlaintiff’s conduct clearly implied.

4. Prior to filing this lawsuit, did you observe the CPlaintiff's statement "you donated 1k extra to help me pay it back i never said it would add to the loan"?

This statement by the CPlaintiff is inherently incorrect. No donation took place, because a donation must be given with the full intention of receiving nothing back. The CDefendant sent the second $1,000 payment with the fully reasonable expectation that they would receive $1,050 back, therefore rendering any claim of a “donation” untrue.

5. What specific communication from the CPlaintiff established repayment terms for the second $1,000 transfer?

The CPlaintiff clearly said “so then i can pay it back” after requesting the second payment of $1,000, which inarguably implied that he would give a second repayment. We know that the CDefendant was reasonable in their assumption of the implied terms because, in the screenshots, we can see that another player (“Juli Bee”, aka julimonki) made the same transaction with the CPlaintiff and then also expected repayment for the second $1,000 loan.

 

[ToadKing]

4. Prior to filing this lawsuit, did you observe the CPlaintiff's statement "you donated 1k extra to help me pay it back i never said it would add to the loan"?

This statement by the CPlaintiff is inherently incorrect. No donation took place, because a donation must be given with the full intention of receiving nothing back. The CDefendant sent the second $1,000 payment with the fully reasonable expectation that they would receive $1,050 back, therefore rendering any claim of a “donation” untrue.

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - NON-RESPONSIVE

The CPlaintiff objects to the CDefendant's answer to Interrogatory 4.

The question asked was a simple yes or no: did the CDefendant observe the CPlaintiff's statement prior to filing this lawsuit? The CDefendant has not answered this question, instead choosing to dispute the content of the statement.

The CPlaintiff respectfully requests the Court strike their answer and order the CDefendant to provide a direct answer to Interrogatory 4.

 

[J_The_Fae]

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - NON-RESPONSIVE

The CPlaintiff objects to the CDefendant's answer to Interrogatory 4.

The question asked was a simple yes or no: did the CDefendant observe the CPlaintiff's statement prior to filing this lawsuit? The CDefendant has not answered this question, instead choosing to dispute the content of the statement.

The CPlaintiff respectfully requests the Court strike their answer and order the CDefendant to provide a direct answer to Interrogatory 4.

In order to have submitted the evidence, the CDefendant had to have observed the CPlaintiff's statement. My answer to the interrogatory was explaining why the CDefendant filed this suit despite the CPLaintiff's statement; said statement cannot dispute the CDefendant's claim to repayment because no donation was actually made.

 

[Muggy21]

In order to have submitted the evidence, the CDefendant had to have observed the CPlaintiff's statement. My answer to the interrogatory was explaining why the CDefendant filed this suit despite the CPLaintiff's statement; said statement cannot dispute the CDefendant's claim to repayment because no donation was actually made.

Please answer the question Yes/No. This is a question if the message was observed, not the meaning behind it.

 

[TheSnowGuardian]

Your Honour @Muggy21 ,

I am briefly joining in as second chair on behalf of T&P.

The first chair of this case has asked to file a response to the Counter Complaint in #10, #11 and #16. We are now in the stage of witness testiomony for the initial complaint. Can we please get a ruling on our request. I believe you had asked the public to ping you in cases if anything gets missed due to your finals approaching.

 

[Muggy21]

Your Honour @Muggy21 ,

I am briefly joining in as second chair on behalf of T&P.

The first chair of this case has asked to file a response to the Counter Complaint in #10, #11 and #16. We are now in the stage of witness testiomony for the initial complaint. Can we please get a ruling on our request. I believe you had asked the public to ping you in cases if anything gets missed due to your finals approaching.

There's an active motion for default judgment as a result of your side's failure to provide an answer. To permit it now would render that motion academic.

You may respond to the motion for default judgment. You generally don't need leave to respond to a counterclaim.

 

[ToadKing]

@J_The_Fae You have 48 Hours to respond

Your Honour,
Respectfully, this period has now passed and no response to the motion, nor an answer to the counterclaim has been provided. Further, no request to extend this time has been asked for. Instead of just providing what they should have, the CDefendant simply... hasn't.

 

[TheSnowGuardian]

There's an active motion for default judgment as a result of your side's failure to provide an answer. To permit it now would render that motion academic.

You may respond to the motion for default judgment. You generally don't need leave to respond to a counterclaim.

Your Honour,
The CDefence is under the impression that unless the Court permits you to respond to complaints by either summoning, ordering or by allowing a request to respond, you don't submit an answer.

We already asked leave of the Court to submit before the Motion for Default Judgement was moved and we have had it ready since long before.

I do not get how we failed to provide an answer when we already asked multiple times to do so. (Also, we already responded to the Breach of Procedure and Motion for Default Judgement in #16), I will assume we have permission to post an answer and do so now. Apologies for the delay.

 

[TheSnowGuardian]

Answer to Complaint

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COUNTER COMPLAINT

Zombie_Bro_
Counterplaintiff (CPlaintiff)

v.

Noadenmark
Counterdefendant (CDefendant)

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. AFFIRM the CDefendant sent the CPlaintiff $1,000 following an offer in global chat to repay $1,050.
2. AFFIRM the CPlaintiff repaid $1,050 to the CDefendant. DENY this fulfilled the agreed terms in full.
3. AFFIRM the CDefendant filed this lawsuit claiming the agreed repayment amount was $2,100. DENY that the evidence submitted contradicts this claim.

II. DEFENCES
1. Your Honor, the evidence that the CDefendant presented in the original case filing clearly shows that while the beginning of the verbal contract between the CDefendant and the CPlaintiff was a loan transaction of $1,000 for $1,050, the CPlaintiff then requested another loan of $1,000 and stated “so then i can pay it back”. The CDefendant reasonably interpreted this as an addition to the contract, consistent with the Contracts Act §5(2), with implied terms derived from the conduct of the CPlaintiff (this conduct being the already established expectation of $1,050 in return for the requested $1,000 loan, and the statement that the second transfer of $1,000 preceded the CPlaintiff “pay(ing) it back”). This assumption of the terms is supported by the fact that in the evidence submitted, it is shown that the CDefendant is not the only one who entered into this contract with the CPlaintiff - nor the only one who interpreted his statement in this way, as we can see when the player “Juli Bee” also assumes that $2,000 is owed to them by the CPlaintiff after completing the same transactions as the CDefendant. Hence, there is reason to think that a reasonable person would interpret the CPlantiff’s words and actions in this manner.

2. The above defence disputes the ability of the CPlaintiff to seek relief under the Redmont Civil Code Act (RCCA) Part XII §2,as the CDefendant did not initiate or pursue this case in bad faith, for improper purposes, or without reasonable basis; the CDefendant transferred the extra $1,000 to the CPlaintiff with the belief, supported by the CPlaintiff’s words and previous actions, that the CDefendant would receive $1,050 in return. Therefore, the CPlaintiff’s cited section of the RCCA does not apply. Additionally, the CPlaintiff has not suffered harm in the form of time or inconvenience, because the case was in fact filed with a reasonable basis.

3. The CDefendant is fully justified in claiming compensatory damages, as they lost $1,000 reasonably expecting $1,050 in return and therefore fulfill the requirements for compensatory damages under the RCCA Part III §2(2a). Based on the evidence presented, the CPlaintiff’s claim that “you donated 1k extra to help me pay it back” was an incorrect statement, because for a true donation to take place, the CDefendant would have had to transfer the $1,000 to the CPlaintiff with the full, free intention of sending the money without receiving anything in return. The very existence of this suit contradicts the claim that a donation was made, because the CDefendant had to have expected a repayment in order to sue the CPlaintiff for a breach of contract. This not only further supports the existence of the aforementioned implied terms that were added to the existing contract upon the CPlaintiff’s request for “like 1k more”, but also disputes the claim that the CPlaintiff’s contractual obligations to the CDefendant were entirely fulfilled.

III. EVIDENCE

Spoiler: CD-001

By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

DATED: This 27th day of April 2026

Authored by: @J_The_Fae

 

[J_The_Fae]

Please answer the question Yes/No. This is a question if the message was observed, not the meaning behind it.

Yes, the Plaintiff observed the Defendant’s statement.

 

[Muggy21]

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Your Honour,

The CDefendant has failed to answer the CPlaintiff's interrogatories in violation of Rule 4.8.

Rule 4.8 states that answers to interrogatories "must be made within 48 hours of being asked." The CDefendant was asked five interrogatories during the discovery period and has not answered any of them. The 48-hour deadline has passed without response and without any objection being raised within the required 24-hour window.

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Your Honour,

The CDefendant has failed to file any answer to the CPlaintiff's counterclaim. Under Rule 3.6, defendants, in this case the CDefendant, must amend any answer to include affirmations or denials of all facts and defences under law or fact prior to the end of discovery. The CDefendant has not done so. Discovery has now closed, and no answer has been submitted.

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGEMENT

Pursuant to Rule 3.6, the CPlaintiff moves for default judgment against the CDefendant on the counterclaim.

Rule 3.6 explicitly states that failure to submit the necessary affirmations, denials, and defences prior to the end of discovery "is grounds for plaintiffs to request the presiding judge to grant default judgment against the defendant."

The CDefendant has had the full discovery period to respond to the counterclaim and has chosen not to. They have additionally failed to answer any of the CPlaintiff's five interrogatories. The CPlaintiff respectfully requests that the Court grant default judgment in favour of the CPlaintiff on the counterclaim, awarding the relief sought in the Prayer for Relief.

Objection with regards to the Interrogatories is tabled as moot.
Objection with respect to the Counterclaim is SUSTAINED. CDefense misapprehension about requiring leave to file an answer to a counterclaim is confusing to this Court. A response to the Motion for Default Judgment would've been examples of cases where such leave was necessary to file. That wasn't done, instead CDefendant offered an excuse rather than an argument.


Motion for Default Judgement GRANTED. Considering the Answer untimely submitted by CDefendant affirms all known facts, the Court will proceed in summary judgement on the Counterclaim.


The Court will permit witnesses as they were summoned for the Small Claims complaint.

@ToadKing Please begin questioning Noadenmark.
@TheSnowGuardian @J_The_Fae Please find your witness so we may hear testimony.

 

[Muggy21]

I voluntarily recuse from this case.

I've had interactions with the Defendant/C-Plaintiff that have sufficiently convinced me that I'm unable to proceed in this manner to the standard required of an impartial judicial officer. These interactions occured after my last post at 10am EST today.

I'll notify the Chief Justice to have this case re-assigned.

 

[ToadKing]

I voluntarily recuse from this case.

I've had interactions with the Defendant/C-Plaintiff that have sufficiently convinced me that I'm unable to proceed in this manner to the standard required of an impartial judicial officer. These interactions occured after my last post at 10am EST today.

I'll notify the Chief Justice to have this case re-assigned.

I'm not contesting this recusal, but are you able to provide some more clarity as to the nature of these interactions?

 

[Muggy21]

I'm not contesting this recusal, but are you able to provide some more clarity as to the nature of these interactions?

On review of the past 24 hours, I've learned/experienced the following:

1) Your client threatened to sue a financial institution I owned in game. I don't monitor #global-chat for mentions of TSE or my name, so I honestly had no idea those threats were made this morning when your motion was granted.

2) Your client, in the context of a commercial relationship, harassed and name-called the support staff of said financial institution over the course of the past few hours.

Although I'm a professional pancake eater judge, I don't see it fair to not disclose this and recuse. I don't wish for either party to be susceptible to an appeal based on my actions. For the above reasons, I decided to recuse.

I won't go into further details on the docket as to not prejudice your client further.

 

[ToadKing]

On review of the past 24 hours, I've learned/experienced the following:

1) Your client threatened to sue a financial institution I owned in game. I don't monitor #global-chat for mentions of TSE or my name, so I honestly had no idea those threats were made this morning when your motion was granted.

2) Your client, in the context of a commercial relationship, harassed and name-called the support staff of said financial institution over the course of the past few hours.

Although I'm a professional pancake eater judge, I don't see it fair to not disclose this and recuse. I don't wish for either party to be susceptible to an appeal based on my actions. For the above reasons, I decided to recuse.

I won't go into further details on the docket as to not prejudice your client further.

Thank you for providing this information.

 

[ToadKing]

For reasons which will not become clear for around 200 years, I am withdrawing as the Defendant/CPlaintiff's counsel in this case.

 

[Smallfries]

Court in recess pending assignment of a new Judicial Officer. Any deadlines are tolled as of now.

 

[Smallfries]

I will be presiding over this case going forwards.

How things stand, as far as I can see: the court has granted summary judgment as to Defendant's counterclaim, which will be pending. As to the original claim, both sides desire to submit questioning to a witness. Is that all we have outstanding?

@Noa @TheSnowGuardian @J_The_Fae @Zombie_Bro_

Final note here: I don't think it's relevant anymore, but just in case it is, please stop referring to a "CPlaintiff" or "CDefendant." Plaintiff and Defendant only, please, regardless of if we're talking about the original complaint or the cross complaint. Keep it simple. And if you file something, please make it very clear who you are representing if you are not one of the named parties to this complaint. Thank you.

 

[J_The_Fae]

Notice to the Court

Your Honour,

On behalf of the Plaintiff, Noadenmark, Talion & Partners INC. respectfully welcomes Your Honour to this matter following the voluntary recusal of the prior judicial officer.

For the Court's convenience, the following items are presently open:

1. Motion for Reconsideration of Default Judgment, to be filed immediately following this notice, addressing the Order of 27 April 2026 (Post #29) granting default judgment on the Counterclaim.

2. Witness testimony on the small claims complaint. Your Honour's predecessor directed counsel for the Defendant to begin questioning Noadenmark, and directed the Plaintiff to produce julimonki. Both witnesses remain summoned.

The Plaintiff stands ready to proceed at the Court's direction.

DATED: This 27th day of April 2026
Authored by: @J_The_Fae / @TheSnowGuardian on behalf of Talion & Partners INC.

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT

Noadenmark
Plaintiff

v.

Zombie_Bro_
Defendant

Pursuant to the inherent authority of this Court to reconsider its interlocutory orders, and to the principles of natural justice enshrined in Part II §1 of the Redmont Civil Code Act, the Plaintiff t respectfully moves for reconsideration of the Court's Order in Post #29 (Apr 27), granting default judgment on the Counterclaim and proceeding to summary judgment on damages.

I. GROUNDS FOR RECONSIDERATION

1. The Plaintiff repeatedly sought leave to file an answer prior to the close of discovery.

While it is acknowledged that the need for leave was a misapprehension, the record reflects three separate written requests for leave to file an answer to the Counterclaim, all made prior to any motion for default judgment:

• (a) Post #9 (Apr 22), initial request for leave to file a response to the Counterclaim before discovery began; (b) Post #11 (Apr 22), renewed request for leave after discovery had commenced; (c) Post #17 (Apr 24), further request for leave following the Defendant's motion for default.

None of these requests received a ruling before the Court granted default judgment. The Plaintiff did not refuse to answer; the Plaintiff awaited a ruling that never came. Default predicated on inaction is materially different from default predicated on requested-but-unanswered participation.

2. The Plaintiff's misapprehension was reasonable and not contumacious.


The Court characterised the Plaintiff's position as "an excuse rather than an argument." The Plaintiff does not dispute that leave was not, in fact, required to answer a counterclaim. The Plaintiff does, however, respectfully submit that operating under a mistaken-but-good-faith reading of procedure, and openly seeking the Court's guidance three times, is not the kind of conduct Rule 3.6 is intended to penalize. Rule 3.6 exists to prevent defendants from ignoring proceedings; it is not a trap for defendants who participate, request guidance, and stand ready to file.

3. A meritorious defence exists on the record.


The Answer at Post #27 is not a bare denial. It raises a substantive defence under Section 5(2) of the Contracts Act, namely that the Defendant's statement "so then i can pay it back," following an established prior course of dealing at $1,000 for $1,050, gave rise to implied terms a reasonable person would accept. The objective reasonableness of that interpretation is corroborated by the conduct of julimonki, an independent third party who entered the same transaction and held the same expectation of $1,050 repayment. This defence, if accepted, is dispositive of both the breach-of-contract claim and the abuse-of-process counterclaim, the latter of which requires the underlying claim to lack any "reasonable basis" under RCCA Part XII §2(a).

4. The Court is presently hearing the same factual dispute on the small claims complaint, and Part IV §7(2) requires both claims to be determined within the same proceeding.

Witness testimony is ongoing on the original complaint. The facts underlying the Counterclaim are identical to those underlying the complaint, namely whether the Defendant's conduct gave rise to implied terms requiring repayment of a second $1,050. RCCA Part IV §7(2) is unambiguous: "All claims under this Part shall be determined within the same proceeding as the original claim unless the court orders otherwise." Allowing the default to stand while the same factual dispute is tried risks inconsistent judgments: the Court may, on full evidence, find Noadenmark's claim had a reasonable basis, while the default record holds that it did not. Reconsideration avoids that inconsistency and gives effect to the statutory direction.

5. No prejudice to the Defendant.

The Defendant has the Answer, has the interrogatory responses, and is preparing to question Noadenmark on the same facts. Setting aside the default and proceeding on the merits costs the Defendant nothing they were not already prepared to litigate.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Default judgment under Rule 3.6 is a tool of last resort. Part II §1 of the RCCA expressly directs this Court to interpret the Code "in a manner consistent with the principles of natural justice and common law." Part II §2 further requires the Court to "avoid construing provisions in a manner that produces absurd, unjust, or unintended results." Both principles are engaged here. Defaulting a party who made three written requests for leave to file an answer, none of which received a ruling, is inconsistent with natural justice. Defaulting that party on a counterclaim while concurrently trying the same factual dispute on the original complaint produces an absurd and unjust result, contrary to Part IV §7(2). The public interest favors resolution on the merits, particularly where (a) the defaulting party has actively participated in proceedings, (b) a substantive defence exists on the record, (c) the opposing party suffers no prejudice, and (d) the same factual matrix is concurrently being tried on the merits. All four conditions are met here.


III. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

The Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court:

1. Set aside the Order granting default judgment on the Counterclaim;
2. Accept the Answer at Post #27 as timely filed nunc pro tunc;
3. Permit the Counterclaim to be adjudicated alongside the original complaint on the witness testimony already underway, consistent with RCCA Part IV §7(2);
4. Alternatively, if reconsideration is denied, exercise the Court's discretion under RCCA Part III §5 to defer summary judgment on damages until the conclusion of the small claims trial, so that the Court may assess the reasonableness of the underlying claim before quantifying punitive damages under RCCA Part III §3 or nominal damages under RCCA Part III §4.

By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.
DATED: This 27th day of April 2026

Authored by: @J_The_Fae / @TheSnowGuardian on behalf of Talion & Partners INC.

Brief

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
STATEMENT OF THE CASE: PLAINTIFF'S PRE-TESTIMONY POSITION

Noadenmark, Plaintiff
v.
Zombie_Bro_, Defendant

The Plaintiff respectfully submits this brief Statement of the Case to assist Your Honour in framing the witness testimony to follow.

I. THE QUESTION BEFORE THE COURT

The dispute reduces to a single question: when the Defendant said, in global chat, "i need like 1k more so then i can pay it back," following an established prior course of dealing in which the Plaintiff had loaned $1,000 in exchange for a promised $1,050 repayment, did that statement give rise to implied terms requiring a second $1,050 repayment?

If yes, the Defendant owes $1,050 and the Counterclaim collapses for want of any abuse of process.

If no, the Defendant has performed and the Counterclaim succeeds.

II. THE PLAINTIFF'S POSITION

**1. Section 5(2) of the [Contracts Act](https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/contracts-act.20790/) treats implied terms as having the same legal efficacy as express terms.** Implied terms may be derived from law, custom, or the conduct of the parties. The Plaintiff respectfully submits that the Defendant's conduct, in accepting a second $1,000 transfer immediately after stating "so then i can pay it back," in the context of a loan relationship in which $1,000 was understood to require $1,050 in return, gave rise to such an implied term.

**2. The objective reasonableness of that interpretation is corroborated by an independent third party.** The witness julimonki entered into the same transaction on the same terms, with the same understanding. Her testimony will establish that a reasonable person observing the same conduct reached the same conclusion. This is not the Plaintiff's idiosyncratic reading; it is the reading the marketplace gave the Defendant's words.

**3. The Defendant's "donation" framing is post-hoc and self-defeating.** The Defendant's claim that the second $1,000 was a "donation" is contradicted by the Defendant's own conduct in this litigation. A donation, by definition, requires intent to give without receiving anything in return. The very existence of this lawsuit, and the Defendant's vigorous defence of the second $1,050, confirms that no such intent existed. A party cannot characterise a transfer as a "donation" only when convenient to evade repayment.

III. WHAT THE COURT WILL HEAR

Witness testimony will establish:

(a) The original offer of "1k for 1050" was made publicly in global chat;
(b) Both the Defendant and julimonki accepted that offer by transmitting $1,000;
(c) The Defendant's subsequent message "i need like 1k more so then i can pay it back" was made in the same channel, in the same conversation, and was followed by a second $1,000 transfer;
(d) julimonki, observing the same exchange and entering the same second transaction, formed the same expectation of repayment;
(e) The Defendant has paid only $1,050 of the $2,100 owed.

IV. RELIEF SOUGHT

The Plaintiff respectfully invites Your Honour to receive the testimony to follow with the foregoing framework in mind, and at the conclusion of testimony to enter judgment in favour of the Plaintiff in the amount of $1,050.

By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

DATED: This 27th day of April 2026
Authored by: @J_The_Fae / @TheSnowGuardian on behalf of Talion & Partners INC.

 

[julimonki]

Hi, apologies for my delayed response. I’m still new to this and unsure about how the proceedings go, but I am present for questioning.