Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Elder Financial Abuse topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Elderly homeowner says contractor cashed $100,000; board finds contractor guilty and orders fine and probation
Summary
Board found contractor Justin Hammond guilty after 84‑year‑old Charlene Rushin said she paid $100,000 for two homes and received little work. The board voted a $5,000 fine and one year probation in that case; criminal investigation was also referenced.
Get email alerts on the Elder Financial Abuse topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Walton County Builders Board found contractor Justin Hammond guilty in a complaint from 84‑year‑old property owner Charlene Rushin, who testified she paid Hammond $100,000 for development of two homes but said little or no work was performed.
Rushin told the board she signed an agreement to split proceeds 50/50 on two builds and provided two payments—$50,000 on Oct. 25, 2023, and $50,000 on Nov. 16, 2023. "He took the money," Rushin told the board. "This is elder abuse." She said the contractor told her he would match funds and manage the projects; she said permits were pulled but no meaningful construction followed. Rushin reported that she later filed a criminal complaint with the state’s attorney’s office and that investigators had obtained bank records related to the checks.
The board’s nut graf: after hearing testimony and reviewing the case packet, the Builders Board found Hammond guilty on Count 1 (fraud or deceit in contracting). Rushin did not ask the board for a monetary restitution award; a criminal investigation was already underway, and counsel informed the board the contractor might invoke his Fifth Amendment rights on questions tied to that criminal matter.
Board action and penalties: the board voted to find Hammond guilty on Count 1. For penalty the board approved a $5,000 fine and one year of probation; board members discussed the need to balance consumer protection and the practical prospect of restitution for elderly victims. The board directed staff to draft and circulate a formal order reflecting the finding, fine and probation terms.
Ending: Board members emphasized the regulatory purpose of the hearing—protecting consumers and holding licensed contractors to professional standards—and told Rushin staff would prepare written findings and that the criminal matter would proceed with the state’s attorney.

