Bob Brooks, a Democratic candidate for Congress in Pennsylvanias 7th Congressional District, settled a longstanding financial disagreement with his former mother-in-law earlier this month.
According to court filings, Brooks and Carol Wiley, the mother of his former wife, Jennifer Brooks, have settled a dispute surrounding a $55,500 debt he incurred in 2004.
The judgment finalizes the family dispute that entered the public eye amid one of the most competitive congressional races in the country as Brooks looks to unseat Rep. Ryan Mackenzie but leaves behind questions of how he managed to close out the saga.
FIREFIGHTERS UNION BOSS WINS HOTLY-CONTESTED DEM PRIMARY IN A KEY PENNSYLVANIA SWING DISTRICT
Its unclear whether Brooks paid the amount â and tens of thousands more in interest â or what the terms of the agreement were.
When asked about the case, Brooks’ campaign declined to fill in the picture.
“This old family dispute has officially been resolved by an agreement between the two parties. Bob is glad that this personal matter was resolved amicably and is now behind him and his family. Out of respect for everyone involved, we won’t be commenting further,” Ryan Moore, an attorney for Brooks, said in a statement to Fox News Digital.
Brooks case began in 2008 when Wiley claimed that he had never paid her and her husband $55,500 for a subdivision of land they had transferred to Brooks in 2004.
According to court filings, the two parties had agreed that Brooks would eventually paid back the amount.
“In 2008, at the request of Michael Wiley, Carol Wiley had a promissory note drafted which memorialized Defendants’ debt, and provided that Defendants were jointly and severally liable to pay Carol Wiley $55,500 at 6.5% interest, in 120 monthly payments of $630.19, beginning July 1, 2008. On July 12, 2008, Wiley and Defendants executed the promissory note in the presence of a notary,” a 2021 filing reads.
But, even after the creation of the note â and the penalties that it outlined if Brooks failed to hold up his end of the contract â the money never came.
“Defendants never made any of the payments prescribed in the promissory note,” the filings state.
As a result of having breached their contract, Brooks was required to pay $130,386, according to the terms of the note.
But Brooks pushed back on the verdict, arguing that the notary had run its course, that a statute of limitations prevented it from being binding almost 15 years after its creation. Additionally, he argued that because he hadnt received anything new when he signed the 2008 promissory agreement, it lacked consideration, a legal component that indicates an exchange of of value.
Despite his arguments, the court sided with Wiley.
“The absence of consideration does not render an agreement unenforceable where the agreement contains an express statement of the signatories intent to be bound,” the court ruled.
Reacting to the case, at least one Republican onlooker blasted Brooks’ record.
“Scumbag Bob Brooks tried to rip his family off and then lied about it because he cares about one thing: enriching himself. If Books
