Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Consumer Protection topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate Judiciary hears introduction to bill to criminalize home‑improvement fraud; constituent describes alleged $13,386 loss
Summary
On Jan. 14 the Senate Judiciary committee heard an introduction to Senate Bill 183, which would create criminal penalties for knowingly defrauding clients under home- and land-improvement contracts. A constituent testified she paid $13,386 as a deposit and said the contractor never performed the work.
The Senate Judiciary committee on Jan. 14 took an introduction to Senate Bill 183, a proposal to make certain home- and land-improvement fraud a criminal offense rather than solely a civil claim, and heard testimony from a constituent who said she lost $13,386 on an uncompleted renovation.
Committee members said Vice Chair Senator Norris was slated to provide a general overview of the measure; a senator presented the bill’s intent to create criminal liability where a contractor knowingly intends to defraud a client under an agreement for home or land improvement. The presenter told the committee that current remedies often force victims into costly civil suits with little practical recourse.
The committee then heard from Tammy (no last name given), who said she and her husband paid a deposit to a contractor for an outside renovation estimated at “around 33,000” but that work never began. Tammy said, “It was supposed to be a full outside, renovation totaling around 33,000. So we gave half.” She described repeated assurances from the contractor followed by a claim he was out of business, a bankruptcy filing and no restitution. “In my opinion, he never had any intention of doing it,” she said.
Tammy gave a timeline: the contract and deposit were completed in May (the transcript lists “May 2021 or ’22”); by September 2022 she and others were raising concerns that the contractor had stopped doing work and was not ordering materials the contracts required. Tammy said she and other victims met with staff in the state’s attorney’s office and were told prosecutors were pursuing criminal charges at one point; a later appellate development she described as a supreme‑court reversal undermined that path. Tammy said the prospective plea and asset recovery that victims expected did not materialize and that, after a bankruptcy filing, “our hands were tied.” She also said the effort to pursue civil court recovery added at least “$2,000 for a lawyer.”
A committee member followed up to confirm that the contractor cashed the check and that the contracted work “was never started.” Members discussed that prosecutors had declined further action after an appellate or supreme‑court ruling; the transcript does not specify which court made the decision or the exact legal ruling referenced.
Committee members told Tammy the panel will take additional testimony from different parties in the coming weeks as it works through the bill. No formal votes or motions on SB 183 occurred during the session.
The committee paused the meeting for a short break and said it would revisit the bill and related testimony at a later date.
