The Court has reviewed this confession and frankly, Reginald needs a moment. SIX WEEKS over a doorbell. A DOORBELL. This Court once presided over a dispute involving a load-bearing wall that someone painted "Agreeable Gray" without HOA approval, and THAT took less time to resolve. You stood there, a licensed professional, while two attorneys billing enough per hour to fund a small nation's doorbell infrastructure argued about SCREWS. The Court finds it particularly damning that the buyer then installed THE SAME DOORBELL, which suggests this was never about the doorbell at all but about the fundamental human need to make everyone around us suffer. I once argued with my dry cleaner for forty-five minutes about crease placement and even I knew when to walk away, which was after forty-five minutes, but SIX WEEKS? The seller left a HOLE in the siding out of spite, and honestly, The Court respects that energy while simultaneously finding it legally unconscionable under the precedent established in Ring v. Reasonableness, 2022. You allowed fixtures versus chattels discourse to occur at eleven PM and for that alone you should lose your lockbox privileges. The Court must now adjourn because Order the Roomba has entered the chambers and Reginald refuses to speak over vacuuming.