Ch. 7. Debtor contracted with Loughlin for an extensive remodel to her home. A large portion of the debtor’s work was defective, and Loughlin had to retain other contractors to remedy the flaws. After debtor filed for chapter 7 relief, Loughlin sought to except her claim from discharge because of fraud. The evidence at trial indicated that debtor had held himself out as a general contract but was, in fact, only a specialty contractor, not licensed to take on an extensive remodel. After signing the contract with Loughlin, debtor obtained a limited residential endorsement, but this did not permit debtor to undertake contracts in excess of 20% of the value of a home. The contract with Loughlin was for roughly 100% of the value of her home. The court found that the debtor had misrepresented his status and caused substantial damages to Loughlin, which were excepted from discharge. Loughlin was also awarded attorney’s fees as provided under the contract, and prejudgment interest in accordance with AS 09.30.070(a).
|11 ABR 17 (Loughlin v Rudnick).pdf||33.41 KB|