Madison small claims court denies $120 refund over unproven early cancellation

The small claims court in Madison denied Elena Brooks’s request for the return of a $120 prepaid appliance-care charge, finding that she had not proved she canceled within the period required for a refund. Curtis Hale owes no payment under the judgment.

The dispute turned on an unavailable message. Brooks said she canceled two days before the appointment; Hale understood that communication as an inquiry. The court accepted the written refund promise but found the evidence insufficient to establish that Brooks had met its deadline.

The paid booking receipt established both the $120 payment and the governing terms: cancellations at least 24 hours before the appointment qualified for a full refund; later cancellations did not. For the June 18, 2026, appointment at 10:00 a.m., the deadline was June 17 at 10:00 a.m. Nothing required Hale to confirm a cancellation.

That settled what the business had promised, but not what Brooks had communicated. Her submissions described a June 16 message that began as a question and ended with an instruction to remove her from the schedule. The message was unavailable, and the court could not establish its exact wording or when it was sent. Her account appeared in submissions, not admitted witness testimony.

The judgment also clarified that the described screenshot of a June 17 cancellation was not presented at the hearing. It could not resolve the earlier message’s meaning or establish that no earlier cancellation existed.

Applying the recorded rules on proof and reliable records, the court found that the absence of evidence disproving Brooks’s account did not meet her obligation to prove timely cancellation. The receipt established the refund condition, not that she had fulfilled it. No separate basis supported a reduced award.

Brooks argued that her June 16 instruction was the cancellation, while the June 17 message was a clearer follow-up. She relied on the receipt’s specific promise and stressed that confirmation was unnecessary. She acknowledged that the missing earlier message limited her proof.

Hale sought denial or reduction of the refund. His submissions emphasized that the saved screenshot showed only the June 17 message. The court accepted his position only insofar as timely cancellation remained unproven, not as proof that the later message was Brooks’s first communication.

Brooks prepaid for an appointment with Hale’s appliance-care business and sought the money back after Hale retained it following cancellation. The booking terms made the timing of cancellation decisive.

The judgment leaves the disputed June 16 communication unresolved. It does not find that Brooks never sent it or that Hale’s interpretation was correct. The narrower conclusion is that a proven refund promise did not overcome the missing proof that the cancellation qualified.