FULL VIDEO AT THE END OF THE POST
The Painting Project Begins
Ms. Mason, the plaintiff, was preparing her house for sale.
She hired Mr. Frazier, the defendant, to paint the interior and exterior.
Mr. Frazier was also tasked with other odd jobs around the house.
The agreed-upon price for this work was $4,511.44.
Ms. Mason paid Mr. Frazier an initial amount of $2,629.44.
This payment was a little over half of the total agreed price.
There was no formal written contract between them.
Ms. Mason did receive an invoice from Mr. Frazier.
Mr. Frazier started the work on May 5, 2017.
A Side Job Arrangement
Mr. Frazier had a full-time job.
He was taking on Ms. Mason's painting project as a side job.
Ms. Mason was aware of this arrangement.
She knew Mr. Frazier had a full-time job.
She understood he would be working on her house after hours and on weekends.
The judge noted that Ms. Mason likely chose Mr. Frazier due to his lower price.
Ms. Mason confirmed she had received other estimates.
These other estimates were in the ballpark of $6,300.
Mr. Frazier's quote was significantly lower, offering a $2,000 deal.
The judge pointed out that a lower price for a side job would naturally imply a longer completion time.
Initial Dissatisfaction and Realtor's Call
Ms. Mason and her family moved out of the house for 13 days.
They stayed at her mother-in-law's house during this period.
They returned home every day to check on the progress.
Ms. Mason expressed dissatisfaction with Mr. Frazier's work multiple times.
Mr. Frazier consistently promised to fix the issues.
After 18 days, a realtor called Mr. Frazier.
The realtor stated that Mr. Frazier's work was "amateur."
Mr. Frazier claimed they were only discussing the ceiling at that point.
He also mentioned the exterior work he had completed.
The Second Painter
Ms. Mason eventually hired another painter, Jimmy Darden.
Mr. Darden was hired to complete and repair the work.
Ms. Mason paid Mr. Darden $3,150 for his services.
This included an initial payment of $800.
The remaining amount was paid upon completion of the work.
Ms. Mason also paid $1,030.29 for materials that Mr. Frazier used.
She presented a receipt for these materials.
Mr. Frazier had stated that the original invoice was inclusive of all paint and materials.
Judge Judy's Calculations
Judge Judy began to calculate the total amount Ms. Mason had spent.
Ms. Mason paid Mr. Frazier $2,629.44.
She paid Jimmy Darden $3,150.
She also paid $1,030.29 for materials.
The total amount spent by Ms. Mason was $6,809.73.
Judge Judy noted that this total was still less than the $7,500 estimate Ms. Mason mentioned.
It was also close to the $6,300 estimates from other painters.
The judge questioned Ms. Mason's claim for $5,000.
Ms. Mason argued that Mr. Frazier had damaged her walls.
She stated that the new painters had to repair these damages.
The Plaintiff's Demands
Ms. Mason was suing Mr. Frazier for the return of her money.
She sought the $2,629.44 she had paid him.
She also claimed property damage.
Additionally, she sought legal fees, specifically a $1,500 retainer.
Ms. Mason also claimed mental anguish.
Judge Judy pointed out that if Ms. Mason received all her money back, she would have a painted house for only $3,000.
This $3,000 was the amount paid to Jimmy Darden.
The judge found this demand unreasonable.
She stated, "You want all the money back from him. Absolutely. Which means you're not getting it. That's not happening."
Mr. Frazier's Counterclaim
Mr. Frazier had a counterclaim against Ms. Mason.
He was seeking the remaining balance for the painting work.
This balance amounted to $1,882.
He had sent a threatening letter to Ms. Mason.
This letter was sent after he learned she was selling the home.
Mr. Frazier attempted to place a mechanic's lien on the house for the unpaid balance.
Ms. Mason's husband had told Mr. Frazier he needed to complete the work to be paid.
Text Message Evidence
Ms. Mason presented text messages as evidence.
These messages were between Mr. Frazier and her husband.
Other text messages were between Mr. Frazier and her realtor.
The judge asked if Mr. Frazier had refused to finish the work.
Ms. Mason confirmed that he had.
She stated that her husband had told Mr. Frazier to complete the work to get paid.
Mr. Frazier had claimed Ms. Mason's husband was "cool with everything."
Ms. Mason refuted this, stating her husband was not "cool."
The text messages showed a conversation where Mr. Frazier was called an "amateur."
This offended Mr. Frazier.
He then responded in a text message.
His message stated, "as of this moment, no, I am not returning to work."
He also added, "You will be served in the morning."
Dismissal of Counterclaim
Judge Judy reviewed the text messages.
She found that Mr. Frazier had indeed refused to return to work.
This refusal directly impacted his counterclaim.
The judge stated, "So your counterclaims dismissed."
Mr. Frazier tried to argue that the work was already done.
Judge Judy reiterated, "Your counterclaims dismissed."
The Verdict
Judge Judy then addressed Ms. Mason's case.
She had already indicated that Ms. Mason would not get all her money back.
The judge concluded, "You have no case against him, Miss Mason."
The case against Mr. Frazier was dismissed.
Mr. Frazier's counterclaim was also dismissed.
Final Remarks
Mr. Frazier mentioned that some of his workers had quit.
He clarified that he asked them not to return.
He had to redo some of their work due to brushstrokes and other minor issues.
He stated he did a lot of free work around the house.
Mr. Frazier felt he was trying to prevent Ms. Mason from being "ripped off."