Last time, the Judge ruled on whether bananas should be considered fruits. Preceding weeks saw an office kitchen dispute concerning coffee cups, and a series of domestic disputes involving shared finances, a husband’s precious car, unwanted weekend activities, and banning technology from the bedroom.
I am a fan of the old (old husband, old furniture, old-fashioned style) and a DIY-er at heart. I have a weekly, if not daily, inspirational catch-up with Pinterest, I have my own upholstery tools – and yes, I do know how to use them – and I am a regular visitor of second-hand stores.
Where others deem items unworthy for their beautiful home, I see the potential in the old and discarded and get excited about the fun project certain ‘junk’ promises.
When I thought my husband’s old dining room chairs were in serious need of some new paint and fabric, I painted them and did the upholstery. When our children changed from cribs to beds and their rooms needed a little sprucing, I painted walls, hammered nails, drove screws and sewed curtains.
So, replacing old, properly functioning furniture with new items is not really my style. Therefore, I might be a little biased in this matter and quite easily persuaded to rule in favour of the plaintiff.
And that is without even adding finance to the equation. Especially if money is tight, I would not spend it on things one doesn’t really need.
But this case is not about me, it’s about the plaintiff, Steven, and his wife.
To start with Steven. It is his wish that I ban from his household any discussion on spending money on replacing perfectly good furniture, paint, or walls until at least the year 2026. Considering my love for the antique, one might expect me to rule in Steven’s favour. But I will not ban any such thing. It is out of the question.
As judge, I am required to rule objectively and in the best interest of everyone involved. This is not the case if I were to comply with Steven’s request.
Three years is a long time and a lot can happen between now and 2026. Imagine he trips with a pan full of spaghetti bolognaise sauce and hurls that in its entirety over one of the matt-painted walls. Or they have a dinner party that gets a bit out of hand and turns into people dancing on chairs and tables, causing someone to break one of the chairs. Or their child decides that the wall is the perfect canvas to let his imagination with fingerpaint run free. Will a ban on painting the walls or buying new furniture help the plaintiff?
No, it will cause mayhem. It will lead to an angry and unhappy couple and more friction between the two. Plus, the social life might take a bit of blow too as it is difficult to have friends over for dinner and seat them on broken chairs, while looking at a nasty-red-stained-minced-meat-structured-Jackson-Pollock-wanna-be-work-of-art on the wall.
I realize the example may be a little extreme, but the point is that three years is a long time to put a ban on even a discussion on the topic of wall paint and chairs, let alone buy them. Steven’s request may serve him on the short term, but will hurt him, his marriage and their social life in the long run.
The defendant has not given her side of the story, nor put her two cents in about her ideas for their home, so I must rely on the plaintiff’s account of the facts.
The problem is that what is considered fine and good enough by one, can be regarded as old and ugly by another. The question is how much grief and discomfort the situation causes Steven’s wife. Is it just not perfect enough, or does she loathe the furniture, hate the walls and feels totally uncomfortable being in their house. In other words, will not doing anything about it for now cause more irritation and stress between the couple?
As always, I need to find the middle: make everyone happy, but neither one considerably more than the other…
As the house is close to perfect, I suspect that the walls and dining room furniture alone do not cause utter unhappiness for Steven’s wife. At the same time, if everything is perfect and the dining room furniture is really old and doesn’t go well with the rest of the house, there is a very simple, inexpensive solution to the problem.
I rule that Steven takes his wife out shopping for chalk paint and wax.
Steven and his wife will spend a day painting their dining room furniture. It’s a relatively small investment (just a few pots of chalk paint, wax and brushes), with a huge effect, which is: new looking furniture.
Why chalk paint? Well, thank you for asking and indulging the DIY-er in me: chalk paint is simply great because it does not require any treatment prior to painting. No cleaning. No sanding. You can just start painting straight away (I may love DIY projects; I am also lazy and a big fan of quick results). Once painted, you add a layer of wax, let it dry and the paint layer is nicely protected and stays on for a long time.
That way, Steven and his wife can continue to save money for investment purposes, but they will have new dining room furniture at the same time. And concerning the wall. Deal with it. Teach yourself not to touch the walls of your house? How often do you touch a wall anyway? A door post, sure. But the wall? Leave the walls for now, learn your lesson the hard way and have it painted (or do it yourself) when there is money to spare.
Do you have a case to present to the Court? Simply fill out this form, and your case will be sent directly to the court clerk. Once submitted, Charlotte may just provide a ruling as part of RTL Today’s commitment to justice and familial, neighbourly, and communal peace.
