Judge disallows $25,000 labor claim in disputed storage-unit case; orders limited reimbursements

A judge in county court ruled on a probate-related dispute over storage units used by the late Beverly Watson, denying a $25,000 claim for labor but awarding smaller costs totaling several hundred dollars.

The ruling matters because the judge found no written contract or clear document showing the decedent agreed to large labor payments to Johanna Willie, who moved Watson’s property into storage. Without that agreement, the court said the larger claim was unsupported and therefore disallowed.

Evidence introduced at the hearing included text messages and Venmo records from Watson’s phone and an itemized invoice sent by Willie. Witnesses for the estate said the messages and Venmo entries showed regular monthly storage-fee reimbursements, not a one-time moving fee or a multi-thousand-dollar labor contract. Witness Mackenzie Watson testified that text messages from Oct. 31, 2024 showed the decedent was still working and that payments visible in Venmo were for the $75–$95 monthly storage charge. Carly Gallipo corroborated that she saw no written contract calling for payment to move property into storage.

Judge’s ruling and evidence: The judge said, “The court finds that your claim for labor, of 20,000 and another claim for labor of $5,000 is not supported by any documentation or any kind of rational computation,” and concluded those claims were not proven. The judge allowed smaller, specific claims: a $50.49 reimbursement for a heat source, $100 for a light source used during the move, $300 for past-due storage rent identified in the filed claim, and a $285 award representing three months of storage at the higher rate beginning March 1 — the court explained the $285 covered July–September at $95 per month based on what was in the claim.

The court also ordered the claimant to cooperate with estate counsel about removing the items so recurring rental charges would stop. The judge said the items in storage are the estate’s property and urged coordination with counsel to remove them.

What was contested: Willie, who said she had rented multiple storage units in her name and spent extensive time and some paid help moving items into storage, said she had done the work as a favor while Watson was between jobs; she sought compensation for hours spent and for junk removal and cleaning. Estate witnesses produced messages, an itemized invoice that listed only monthly storage fees, and Venmo records that recorded multiple small payments to Willie. The judge said these records showed reimbursement for monthly rent, not payment for moving labor or an agreement to pay a large lump sum.

Next steps: The court directed counsel to submit orders reflecting the ruling and to arrange removal of the estate property so additional storage charges will stop. The claimant asked to supplement hours computation, but the judge said the hearing was concluded on that point and lacked a written agreement to support a large labor award.

The judge set entry of the formal order on the record and closed the hearing.