Marketdash
Back to News

Family Gathering Turns Into $6,000 Legal Battle After Pool Prank Destroys Hearing Aids

MarketDash Editorial Team
19 days ago
When a cousin's poolside prank destroyed $6,000 hearing aids and he refused to pay, one woman took him to court and won a 20% wage garnishment. Now the family is furious with her instead of him, raising questions about accountability, medical equipment, and who really crossed the line.

There are pranks, and then there are decisions that cost someone six thousand dollars. A woman recently shared her story on Reddit's r/AITAH forum about how a family pool party turned into a small claims victory and a full-blown family feud over accountability and money.

At her grandmother's birthday celebration, her 25-year-old cousin—described as the family's "golden child"—thought it would be hilarious to throw her into the pool to ruin her freshly styled hair. She says she told him clearly, multiple times, not to do it. He did it anyway.

The Damage: Medical Equipment, Not Just a Hairdo

"I have had hearing problems for years," she explained in her post. "I recently got a $6,000 pair of hearing aids. He threw me in the pool, and my hearing aids were ruined."

His response when she told him what happened? A casual "Whoops, didn't know you had hearing aids now." No real apology. No offer to cover the cost. When she informed him of the price tag and asked him to replace them, he flat-out refused.

The family immediately rallied around him. He was in college, working a low-paying call center job, living with his girlfriend and baby in a one-bedroom apartment. They told her to drop it. After all, she earned more than him—more than anyone in the family, actually—so making him pay would be too much of a financial burden.

She Took Him to Court Instead

She filed a small claims suit. She won. He still didn't pay. So she went back to court and secured a wage garnishment order for 20% of his total wages, which happens to be the legal maximum allowed.

That's when things got worse for him. The garnishment pushed him into financial crisis. He picked up extra hours and eventually dropped out of college just to keep up with rent. And that's when the family redirected their anger—not at him for destroying medical equipment and refusing to pay, but at her for holding him accountable.

"Had he given a real apology after the incident and asked if he could wait till he finished school to pay me back, I would've been fine with it," she wrote.

But he didn't. He refused responsibility for months. To her, this wasn't about a pool or a prank. It was about the deflection, the dismissiveness, and the refusal to acknowledge that he'd caused real harm. So she followed through legally. Only after his paycheck started getting garnished did the family suddenly care—just not about the right person.

The Internet Weighed In

Reddit users overwhelmingly sided with her. One commenter put it simply: "NTA. Where he messed up was not negotiating a payment plan with you that he could afford. A 20% garnish is a harsh way to learn his lesson, but he earned that lesson."

Another pointed out a legal option he apparently never pursued: "He can go back to court and request a lower percentage if it's really hurting him. That he hasn't just shows he'd rather play victim and make you look bad."

One response framed it in starker terms: "If he'd broken a wheelchair someone needed to get around, would the family still say he shouldn't have to pay? Hearing aids are medical equipment. He destroyed them. That's not a prank."

Others questioned why the rest of the family wasn't stepping up. "If they're so concerned, why aren't they chipping in to help pay off what he owes you?"

Accountability Doesn't Scale With Income

The most succinct summary came from a commenter who wrote: "He played a stupid game and won a stupid prize."

Despite two court rulings in her favor, she's now dealing with the emotional cost of being ostracized by relatives who believe she should have absorbed the loss because she has more financial resources. But fairness, as many pointed out, isn't determined by relative income. It's determined by who caused the damage and who refused to make it right.

What started as a thoughtless moment at a family party spiraled into a legal case, a fractured family, and a conversation about what happens when people mistake consequences for cruelty. The cousin had options—he could have apologized, proposed a payment plan, or gone back to court to adjust the garnishment. Instead, he chose to do nothing and let the legal system do its job. The fallout, it turns out, wasn't her fault. It was his.

Back to News

Family Gathering Turns Into $6,000 Legal Battle After Pool Prank Destroys Hearing Aids

MarketDash Editorial Team
19 days ago
When a cousin's poolside prank destroyed $6,000 hearing aids and he refused to pay, one woman took him to court and won a 20% wage garnishment. Now the family is furious with her instead of him, raising questions about accountability, medical equipment, and who really crossed the line.

There are pranks, and then there are decisions that cost someone six thousand dollars. A woman recently shared her story on Reddit's r/AITAH forum about how a family pool party turned into a small claims victory and a full-blown family feud over accountability and money.

At her grandmother's birthday celebration, her 25-year-old cousin—described as the family's "golden child"—thought it would be hilarious to throw her into the pool to ruin her freshly styled hair. She says she told him clearly, multiple times, not to do it. He did it anyway.

The Damage: Medical Equipment, Not Just a Hairdo

"I have had hearing problems for years," she explained in her post. "I recently got a $6,000 pair of hearing aids. He threw me in the pool, and my hearing aids were ruined."

His response when she told him what happened? A casual "Whoops, didn't know you had hearing aids now." No real apology. No offer to cover the cost. When she informed him of the price tag and asked him to replace them, he flat-out refused.

The family immediately rallied around him. He was in college, working a low-paying call center job, living with his girlfriend and baby in a one-bedroom apartment. They told her to drop it. After all, she earned more than him—more than anyone in the family, actually—so making him pay would be too much of a financial burden.

She Took Him to Court Instead

She filed a small claims suit. She won. He still didn't pay. So she went back to court and secured a wage garnishment order for 20% of his total wages, which happens to be the legal maximum allowed.

That's when things got worse for him. The garnishment pushed him into financial crisis. He picked up extra hours and eventually dropped out of college just to keep up with rent. And that's when the family redirected their anger—not at him for destroying medical equipment and refusing to pay, but at her for holding him accountable.

"Had he given a real apology after the incident and asked if he could wait till he finished school to pay me back, I would've been fine with it," she wrote.

But he didn't. He refused responsibility for months. To her, this wasn't about a pool or a prank. It was about the deflection, the dismissiveness, and the refusal to acknowledge that he'd caused real harm. So she followed through legally. Only after his paycheck started getting garnished did the family suddenly care—just not about the right person.

The Internet Weighed In

Reddit users overwhelmingly sided with her. One commenter put it simply: "NTA. Where he messed up was not negotiating a payment plan with you that he could afford. A 20% garnish is a harsh way to learn his lesson, but he earned that lesson."

Another pointed out a legal option he apparently never pursued: "He can go back to court and request a lower percentage if it's really hurting him. That he hasn't just shows he'd rather play victim and make you look bad."

One response framed it in starker terms: "If he'd broken a wheelchair someone needed to get around, would the family still say he shouldn't have to pay? Hearing aids are medical equipment. He destroyed them. That's not a prank."

Others questioned why the rest of the family wasn't stepping up. "If they're so concerned, why aren't they chipping in to help pay off what he owes you?"

Accountability Doesn't Scale With Income

The most succinct summary came from a commenter who wrote: "He played a stupid game and won a stupid prize."

Despite two court rulings in her favor, she's now dealing with the emotional cost of being ostracized by relatives who believe she should have absorbed the loss because she has more financial resources. But fairness, as many pointed out, isn't determined by relative income. It's determined by who caused the damage and who refused to make it right.

What started as a thoughtless moment at a family party spiraled into a legal case, a fractured family, and a conversation about what happens when people mistake consequences for cruelty. The cousin had options—he could have apologized, proposed a payment plan, or gone back to court to adjust the garnishment. Instead, he chose to do nothing and let the legal system do its job. The fallout, it turns out, wasn't her fault. It was his.