A man accused of hoodwinking a woman into losing her life savings tried to pressure her into a “terrible” settlement just to keep the matter out of court.But former Dellwood teacher Dianne Laird has told the Supreme Court she couldn’t bring herself to trust Cedric Oates when he tried to broker a deal.The court heard that her former associate offered to repay her in instalments, if she would withdraw her statement to authorities.Ms Laird maintains that in 2009 she was misled by Mr Oates into investing $345,000 in a real estate scheme that never paid off a penny.The 41-year-old is now standing trial for making a statement he knew to be false, misleading or deceptive to convince Ms Laird to invest. He denies the offence.Ms Laird said when Mr Oates was faced with civil proceedings against him, he offered to give back $130,000, and pay a further $1,000 a month to settle.Supreme Court has heard that the two met in October of 2008 through the National Women’s Basketball Team, of which Ms Laird was a player and Mr Oates was an assistant coach.In the following months, Ms Laird said the defendant pressured her into investing in a plan to buy, repair and resell foreclosed homes in Takoma, Washington, saying that his friend Michael Hopkins had made a lot of money through the operation.She said she agreed to invest only after she was assured that her initial investment would be secure, and returned three to four months later, as she needed the money to build her own home in Canada.She wired Mr Oates $25,000 in June 2009, and another $100,000 in July 2009 after meeting with Mr Hopkins in Washington.A month later, while on vacation in Scotland, she said she received a message from Mr Oates, who told her that Mr Hopkins had won a bid to buy two unfinished town houses at a cost of $350,000.Ms Laird said she was assured she would receive $180,000 of her initial investment back within “a month or two”, and the rest two to three months later.She reluctantly agreed to wire the remaining $220,000 after Mr Oates told her that if she didn’t, it could damage Mr Hopkins' business relationships.But in September, 2009, Mr Oates informed her that Mr Hopkins had decided against the project because it cost too much.He later told Ms Laird that the rules regarding the quick resale of a property would cause a delay in her repayment, but maintained that they still had buyers for purchased homes.Despite promises from Mr Oates, Ms Laird said she was never given a promissory note and her name was not included in the limited liability company (LLC) created for the enterprise. None of Ms Laird’s $345,000 investment has been returned.In October 2010, civil proceedings between the two began, as Ms Laird sought to get the money back.Ms Laird said she’d spoken with Mr Oates on March 9, at which time Mr Oates said he was still hoping to settle.“We started to discuss terms on the phone but he wanted to discuss it in person,” Ms Laird said. “I felt uncomfortable, but met him in the parking lot of Bermuda College.“He told me he would pay $130,000 as an initial payment, then he told me he was willing to agree to pay $1,000 a month.”Saying that it would take close to 20 years to pay off the debt, Ms Laird refused the deal.Mr Oates, she said, then offered to pay $2,000 per month — but she turned it down, saying the offers sounded terrible.“I said it would still take nine years at $2,000 a month,” she said. “He kept assuring me that he was just doing that to protect himself and he would make balloon payments. I was saying ‘small chance of that’.“He actually said ‘you can trust me’.”During the meeting, Ms Laird said Mr Oates asked her: “Are you willing to take the chance I will be let off and you will get nothing?”On April 10, she said she and her lawyer met with Mr Oates and his then-lawyer about the terms of a potential agreement.A week later, on April 17, Ms Laird said Mr Oates called her and asked to meet her at Bermuda College again, bringing with him a copy of an agreement, but she refused to sign the document because it contained repeated references to the LLC she was not a part of.Ms Laird said Mr Oates continued to contact her, sounding desperate to settle the matter. She said Mr Oates told her that she could still withdraw her statement, and the prosecution against him would likely be unable to proceed.Again, Ms Laird said she felt pressured to take the offers put forward by Mr Oates, but said: “They were always false promises. They never came true. None of the proposed agreements ever came true.”The trial is set to continue in Supreme Court this morning.