District Court rejects Lena Price’s $486 utility reimbursement claim

Judge Alexander Fowl II of the District Court entered judgment for defendant Owen Price, rejecting plaintiff Lena Price’s claim for $486 in utility-bill reimbursement and a filing cost if allowed.

The formal judgment, signed on October 2, 2026, states that the defendant wins the case. It does not award Lena Price any amount or set out a separate order on filing costs.

“I find that the Defendant wins the case.”

The court’s stated reason was its finding concerning an image displayed on Lena Price’s phone. The formal judgment says the image was “literally made with Photoshop or AI.”

During the hearing, the judge reviewed messages on Owen Price’s phone after overruling Lena Price’s objection to that review. The judge said the messages indicated that Owen Price could not afford the payments and had moved out.

The written judgment does not further explain how the court assessed the utility bill, the claimed agreement to split April expenses, the amount sought, or any claimed payment by Owen Price. Its recorded outcome is limited to judgment for the defendant.

“Based on the image shown on the Plaintiff's phone, it is literally made with Photoshop or AI.”

Lena Price alleged that she and Owen Price agreed to keep household bills split through the end of April so that their daughter could complete the school month without disruption. She said Owen Price moved out on April 10 but had texted that he would pay half of the utilities for April.

According to Lena Price, Owen Price did not pay when the final bill arrived, and she paid it to avoid a shutoff. She sought $486 and the filing cost if permitted.

Owen Price said he moved out of the Columbus home on April 10 and told Lena Price that he could not continue paying for a home where he no longer lived. He maintained that he paid his share for the period he remained there and disputed responsibility for later costs that he said Lena Price added after his departure.

At the hearing, Owen Price said he had messages about moving out on April 10 and asking that the bill be switched over when possible. He said he could not provide the exact time of his last text from memory without reviewing phone records.

The dispute arose from household utility charges following Owen Price’s April 10 move from the parties’ Columbus home. Lena Price’s claim depended on her account of an agreement to divide bills through the end of April, while Owen Price disputed that he owed charges after leaving.

The hearing included objections concerning a question about Owen Price’s employment and the review of private messages. The court sustained the objection to the employment-related question, overruled the objection to reviewing the phones, and later directed both parties to remain calm and avoid interruptions.

The judgment resolves Lena Price’s reimbursement claim in Owen Price’s favor. The record does not provide further findings on the parties’ broader household arrangements or identify any relief beyond the dismissal of the claim through judgment for the defendant.