Focusing on a Resolution to Wedding Photo Dispute

When there’s trouble between a professional and someone who has hired that person to perform personal services, emotions can run high. But high feelings shouldn’t eliminate a place for compromise.

This is my thought after examining the dispute between Sandra Lavely of Chino, Calif., and Glendale, Ariz., and Robert Fletcher, a wedding photographer from Norco.

There’s no lawsuit yet, but there well could be unless Lavely gives Fletcher one more chance to produce the photo albums and video that he contracted to provide for the April 18, 1998, wedding of Lavely’s daughter.

Lavely first told me she wouldn’t give Fletcher a new chance after so long. She wanted a full refund instead. Later, however, she said there is a “very thin” hope of talking things out.

Fletcher said he is willing to perform the work and will give it top priority. He indicated that if Lavely is not satisfied with the final product, the “100% guaranteed” line in his ad will apply, and she can get a refund. But first, he said, she will have to give back hundreds of proofs and raw video footage she took from his house after an angry meeting Feb. 5.

Lavely wants to keep everything she has now and let Fletcher use the negatives to make up the photo albums.

Lavely, anxious to give her daughter, Jill, the best wedding possible, hired Fletcher after she, Jill and groom Tim Mills saw Fletcher’s ad in the Disneyland Fairy Tale Weddings brochure.

Several photographers advertise in the brochure, which includes a disclaimer from Disney that it does not guarantee the performance of any of the advertisers. The cost of the brochure, published by the

Iunco firm of Lake Arrowhead, is paid entirely by the advertisers, among whom Fletcher is the largest ad purchaser.

It probably would have been wise for Lavely to interview other prospective photographers, sought friends’ recommendations and made sure in advance that she had a rapport with the person she hired.

Those, in fact, are among suggestions for finding a wedding photographer made by the Professional Photographers of America.

The wedding was held in Chino, and the reception was at the Disneyland Pacific Hotel in Anaheim.

Five and a half months before it took place, Lavely paid Fletcher $6,212 for a photo and video package, consisting among other things of a record of the ceremony and a narrative of the couple’s romance. Fletcher gave her a 5% discount for paying so far in advance.

It seems a large amount, but Fletcher’s packages run as high as $15,000.

I checked with several other photographers and wedding consultants. All agreed that out-front payments are common in the field. They said it is a protection against those who spend all their wedding money, and then have nothing to pay the photographer afterward.

Fletcher, who has been photographing weddings since 1971, even tells of the time he waited for payment, only to find, three weeks after the wedding, that the bride and groom had split up and she already was living with another man.

Lavely says she called Fletcher six times between the April wedding and the day he sent the proofs in June 1998. He says she called even more often. But up until then, despite a few disputes, things were going normally. Then, they simply ran off the tracks.

Lavely and the married couple say that after they ordered their photos in July there were many delays, with Fletcher falsely promising to produce the albums in a few weeks.

Fletcher says he was waiting for photo orders from relatives, honeymoon photos, selections of music to go with the video, correct names and addresses of the wedding party, and for the couple to tell their “love story” to complete the raw video material.

Lavely contends that Fletcher was responsible for the delays. It is customary, wedding arrangers say, for the nuptial photographer to wait until the complete package is ready for production. This can result in a lot of time passing, although most neutral parties felt that a year is much too long.

When Lavely and several other members of her family, including Tim and Jill, went to Fletcher’s home Feb. 5, things boiled over. Lavely even called a sheriff’s deputy to the scene on her cell phone to fortify her position.

After Lavely left with the raw video footage and proofs--but not the negatives, which Fletcher managed to retain--it seemed the two had reached an impasse.

Further complications ensued. Lavely discovered that Fletcher did not have a business license or a permit to collect sales taxes. She also asked the attorney generals of Arizona and California for help.

Fletcher told me that after moving to Norco about two years ago, he did not fill out forms to obtain a local business license or renew his permit to collect sales taxes.

He said he has been holding sales taxes that he has collected and will pay them to the State Board of Equalization later. In fact, he collected $447 in sales tax from Lavely.

In the meantime, Fletcher has called the Phoenix video store to which Lavely took the raw footage and threatened to sue it for allegedly violating his copyright.

So this has become a brawl. But there are glimmers of ways out.

The first time Lavely contacted me, she emphasized what a loss it was to her and her family not to have a finished wedding record.

But isn’t Fletcher still in the best position to give it to her?

The first time I talked to Fletcher, he remarked, “I’m not saying I’m all in the right.”

This is refreshing. It’s rare these days to find either party in a dispute ready to admit being even partially at fault.

Fletcher now believes that he should have listed--in a registered letter--everything he still needed to deliver the full product.

If the two can put hard feelings aside, those sentiments seem to point to a settlement. Photos of a cherished family occasion, after all, will provide satisfactions that no day in court ever will.

Ken Reich can be contacted with your accounts of true consumer adventure at (213) 237-7060 or by e-mail at ken.reich@latimes.com.