Board continues one restitution hearing and awards $13,687.74 in restitution in a separate case against Lee Hunter Construction LLC

The Escambia County Contractor Competency Board on Jan. 8 handled two restitution-only disciplinary matters against Wade Lehi Hunter III, who does business as Lee Hunter Construction LLC.

In the first case, filed by homeowner Julie Ricks concerning work at 215 Barry Road, the board continued the hearing to February after finding the available documentation insufficient to compute restitution. The board noted the homeowner had paid multiple contractors and that staff needed a clearer breakdown of what the original contractor (Wade Hunter) completed and what subsequent contractors charged. The record shows a permit later pulled for the job by PB Services Group LLC (Rodrigo Barahona) and inspections up through strap-and-nail; staff said the final inspection remained pending. The board voted to continue the matter and directed the parties to provide clearer written contracts, receipts and a scope-of-work comparison; the vote carried (mover and seconder not named in the transcript).

In a separate, concurrently heard case, homeowners Jeffrey and Cynthia Hedenberg sought restitution after hiring Lee Hunter Construction for a large addition and interior work at 6561 Oak Cliff Road. The Hedenbergs presented an accounting and photographs attached to the agenda packet showing the project’s status. They said they had paid a total of roughly $83,000 to the contractor and identified additional out-of-pocket expenditures (roofing, lumber and certified-mail attempts) they sought to recover. The contractor, Wade Lehi Hunter III, acknowledged work performed and disputed some of the homeowners’ cost estimates, and both parties were given an opportunity to explain their accounting to the board.

After discussion the board approved restitution of $13,687.74 to the Hedenbergs, covering documented out-of-pocket items the board concluded were appropriate to award at this time; the board recorded that the homeowners may return with additional proof for further damages. The board’s motion passed; the transcript records the amount and that proof provided earlier in the meeting was moved into evidence. The board also noted it has previously monitored permits associated with the respondent and that earlier disciplinary findings related to other complaints remain on record.

Throughout both matters staff emphasized the board’s limited role in assessing damages: the board must base restitution on verifiable expenditures and an objective comparison of the contractor’s performed work to the original contract. For the Ricks matter the board explicitly asked the parties to provide a scope-of-work contract tied to payments and invoices so staff and the board could calculate a restitution number at the continued hearing.

Julie Ricks and the Hedenbergs were among the homeowners who testified. The Hedenbergs described unfinished work, including a framed addition that remained without final flooring and window installation; Cynthia Hedenberg described flooring that had a “spongy feel” and said she had been unable to get other contractors to bid the remaining work because of the prior contractor’s reputation. In the Ricks matter the homeowner said she had paid $35,000 toward a $66,000 contract and that a subsequent contractor listed the job at a $35,000 contract value; the board said that comparison and additional invoices were needed to resolve that case.

The board’s actions in these two hearings leave the Ricks case open for additional documentation and set a final restitution award in the Hedenberg case of $13,687.74, with the option for the homeowners to return with additional verified expenses.