District Court orders $600 payment in dispute over separation support and storage costs

The District Court ordered Colin Haskett to pay Erin Haskett $600 on October 12, 2026, resolving her request for an April separation-support payment without credit for a disputed transfer. Presiding judge NOTGUILTY signed the two-part judgment, which states that the defendant is guilty and directs payment to Erin.

The dispute was not over whether the spouses had agreed to $600 in monthly support. It was over whether the $600 Colin transferred on April 3 fulfilled that obligation or repaid a shared storage expense Erin said she had already covered.

The order grants the amount Erin sought, but does not expressly identify the payment as support or reimbursement, or explain whether Colin received credit for the earlier transfer.

The signed judgment gives no reasons beyond saying the judge had heard the parties. It does not explain why it uses the term guilty in this payment dispute, identify a legal test or make findings about the purpose of the April 3 transfer.

The hearing exposed the central uncertainty: the bank entry had no payment description. Colin said the amount matched the agreed monthly support; Erin said she had asked for storage reimbursement the day before and separately requested April support.

During questioning, the judge suggested that the transfer appeared to cover support and later indicated an intention to dismiss for lack of evidence. Objections to those formulations were sustained. The final signed judgment instead orders Colin to pay $600, without explaining the departure from those earlier comments.

Erin maintained that the transfer repaid storage costs, leaving April support unpaid. She told the court that on April 2 she texted Colin asking him to return the $600 she had covered for storage and said she still needed support separately.

According to Erin, Colin replied that he would send $600 the next day and that they could sort out the rest on Sunday. She acknowledged that his reply did not expressly agree to treat the transfer only as reimbursement, and that she did not immediately object when it arrived.

Colin sought credit for the transfer and opposed paying another $600. He said he intended it as April support, described their storage discussions as informal and maintained that Erin had not clearly told him the payment would count only as reimbursement. He expressed willingness to discuss storage repayment, but did not agree that the April transfer had served that purpose.

The competing accounts placed two obligations of the same amount alongside one undescribed bank transfer. The parties agreed on the monthly support arrangement, but differed over what their communications established about the separate storage expense.

The recorded outcome is a payment judgment, not an agreement between the spouses. Its brevity leaves unresolved how the court assessed their accounts and whether it treated storage reimbursement as a separate obligation. It establishes the $600 payment direction, but supplies no broader explanation for resolving similar disputes.