‘Don't hire him' Customers out thousands after contractor leaves jobs unfinished
Records show Jerry Gardner was taken to court last year, lost the case, but never paid up. Two women in Monroe County found out about him because he places ads on Angi.com and responds to social media sites for those looking for a contractor.
Libby Robinson hired Gardner to install flooring one year ago. The agreed-upon cost was $8,000, although Robinson paid more.
'All total, I have paid $9,572. But the bad thing is I didn't have the three bedrooms and the two baths done. They were included in that $8,400,' said Robinson, who questions Gardner's workmanship. 'Oh, it just squeaks when you walk on it. You can hear it. He didn't put it down. You can hear the sounds. I think he just wedged it in there, beat it down, and left it.'
NCAA responds to Zakai Zeigler lawsuit seeking to play another season on Rocky Top
Gardner was supposed to install jacks under the home to add support, but visual evidence shows no jacks or any type of support were added. Robinson said Gardner told her the job would take two weeks.
Katharyn Ahart hired Gardner two years ago.
'He was supposed to do a complete remodel, new floor, new cabinets,' said Ahart.
Gardner quit before finishing the kitchen and never painted the walls inside her home. Hardwood flooring was laid, but the workmanship is questionable.
'He put in the floors and they're uneven. I can feel stuff underneath the floor. It kind of ripples,' said Ahart.
Her initial contract was $23,000, but costs kept on adding up.
'I had to pay more money for tile. I had to pay more money for the flooring, my own countertop,' said Ahart. 'He ghosted me when I told him I was not going to pay him another dime until he was done.'
She paid him a total of $39,500.
'What I'm left with [is] a house I could not live in,' said Ahart.
Sweetwater Police: Bear spotted near North Main Steet
Because Gardner left so many things undone in the home when he quit, Ahart recently moved back into her home after living with her mother for quite a while.
'Three months shy of two years… long time. A long time to pay my mortgage without being able to live in my own house,' said Ahart.
Ahart sent a four-page demand letter to Gardner, but it went unanswered.
Robinson became so frustrated with Gardner, she filed a civil lawsuit charging him with breach of contract and won the case. But Robinson hasn't collected a dime.
We tried to reach Gardner at the number he gave to his customers, but received the following message: 'We're sorry the number you dialed has calling restrictions that prevent the completion of your call.'
Athens couple out $9,000 after contractor never finishes job
Amy Guillot and her husband were the first to tell us about Gardner early last month.
'We just wanted someone to come in to put some flooring in for us and have the job done,' said Johnny Guillot. 'We paid him everything upfront,' Amy Guillot added.
The contract with the couple was signed in February. They paid Gardner more than $9,000 for work left undone.
'Don't hire him. Do not hire him,' said Ahart.
$5 million in funding available for Tennessee senior centers: What to know
The people we talked with had to hire a second contractor to complete the work that Gardner never finished. There is a law in Tennessee that says contractors may be charged with a felony when they start work, quit, don't respond to a demand letter, and if law enforcement believes there is enough evidence to press a theft charge. The people we've met with in Athens, Sweetwater, and Tellico Plains said they are considering filing theft charges.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Washington Post
a day ago
- Washington Post
Virginia Tech is reviewing claim that coach tried to lure NC Central player into transfer portal
BLACKSBURG, Va. — Virginia Tech is looking into an allegation by North Carolina Central's coach that a Hokies assistant improperly tried to lure running back J'Mari Taylor into the transfer portal last season. Virginia Tech released a statement on Saturday saying it was made aware of the allegation a day earlier.
NBC News
a day ago
- NBC News
What to know about Donald Trump's executive order on NIL and college sports
President Donald Trump on Thursday issued an executive order titled 'SAVING COLLEGE SPORTS,' a directive aimed at regulating the rapidly shifting landscape in college sports. Since 2021, college athletes have been able to profit off their name, image and likeness after a Supreme Court ruling on antitrust laws went in favor of the athletes. In the ensuing years, players have been able to get paid legally via third parties, and after a separate lawsuit was settled in June, athletes can now also be paid directly by their schools. The NIL era, however, has raised a variety of concerns for both schools and athletes, with issues ranging from maintaining equality in women's sports to a potential push for collective bargaining between athletes and their respective colleges. Trump's order, which is not itself a law, essentially calls for an implementation of policies that are widely viewed as NCAA (as opposed to athlete) friendly. Here's what to know. What exactly does Trump's order call for? Trump's order said that, in the wake of legislation that allows athletes to be compensated and transfer freely between schools, 'the future of college sports is under unprecedented threat.' The EO goes on to say that the recent rulings have unleashed 'a sea change that threatens the viability of college sports' and more guardrails are needed to ensure a fairer system. So, what would Trump like to see? The order calls for the following: Prohibiting third parties from engaging in direct 'pay-for-play' payments to athletes, which the order deems improper. Currently, school boosters can sign players to multimillion-dollar NIL deals that are widely viewed as a workaround to directly paying players to attend a certain university. Trump's order says players should only earn 'fair market value' for a legitimate service to a third party, such as a brand endorsement. Advocates for athletes say this would impose a cap on their earnings. Protections on scholarships for nonrevenue sports, requiring schools to maintain or increase scholarships for such sports, depending on the revenue of their athletic departments. This would be a measure largely to protect Olympic sports and women's sports from potential decreases in funding as more money goes to revenue-generating athletes in football and basketball. A clarification from the National Labor Relations Board on the employment status of athletes 'that will maximize the educational benefits and opportunities provided by higher education institutions through athletics.' During the Biden administration, the NLRB issued a memo stating that certain college athletes should be considered employees. That memo was rescinded earlier this year, and now Trump is seeking to codify athletes as non-employees, which would almost certainly take away any opportunity they have to collectively bargain with schools. Protections for the NCAA from lawsuits by athletes. The NCAA has been lobbying for these protections for many years, as many of the big changes in college athletics have come as the result of antitrust lawsuits. Protections against further court cases would allow the NCAA to enforce its rules on issues such as transfers and third-party payments without fear of them being upended by another court ruling. What does this all mean for the immediate future? Nothing immediately. Trump cannot unilaterally impose rules in this scenario. His executive order also comes as the House tries to push through the SCORE Act, a bipartisan piece of legislation that is aligned with much of Trump's executive order. The SCORE Act has moved through committee and can be debated on the House floor when representatives return from recess in September. Meanwhile, there has been a bipartisan push in the Senate to introduce its version of legislation regarding college athletes, with Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., among those involved. 'The many challenges facing college sports are important and complex,' Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., said in a statement to NBC News. 'The Executive Order recognizes the importance of preserving Olympic sports, women's sports, and maintaining competitiveness for big and small schools alike. I'm disappointed that the President abandoned his earlier plan for a commission to examine all the issues facing college sports. We need a sustainable future for college sports, not a future dominated by the biggest and wealthiest schools who can write their own rules without accountability.'
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
What does Trump's college sports executive order mean? Breaking down the impact
'President Donald J. Trump Saves College Sports.' If only it was that simple. The 176th executive order President Trump signed in the past seven months was announced Thursday with an audaciously headlined statement from the White House. We don't know how this will play out long term. But these are the key facts surrounding the executive order and the questions that need to be answered. What's happened in college sports that brought it to the federal government? The NCAA has been under attack on numerous legal fronts for more than a decade, particularly when it comes to paying athletes. Its policy for decades was strict amateurism — any compensation athletes received beyond their scholarships would render them ineligible. The model began cracking through a series of antitrust cases brought by former athletes, most notably Alston vs. NCAA in 2021. The Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that schools must be allowed to provide additional academic awards. By then, states began passing legislation allowing athletes to earn money from their name, image and likeness — i.e. endorsement deals — in direct opposition to the NCAA's longstanding ban. On July 1, 2021, the NCAA relented and began allowing NIL payments, which touched off another antitrust case, House v. NCAA. A class of former athletes sued for back pay for missing out on NIL opportunities. The defendants agreed to a $2.8 billion settlement, part of which allows schools to pay athletes directly for the first time, up to $20.5 million. A judge approved the settlement on June 6, 2025. But the lack of an organized NIL system has led to chaos, with boosters exploiting the lack of enforcement. And with other legal challenges forcing the NCAA to eliminate its longstanding rules about transfers, athletes now routinely hop from one school to another in search of their next payday. Desperate for regulation, college sports leaders have been lobbying Congress for help in the form of a federal law for years, but not until recently has there been any significant movement on a bill. What are the key takeaways of the executive order? The order essentially makes recommendations for how college athletic departments should operate and directs several government agencies to weigh in on issues that will shape the future of college sports. It also delivers the NCAA and conferences much of what it has been lobbying for on Capitol Hill. However, the order's ability to turn ideas into action is questionable. The order: Gives a nod to protecting women's and Olympic sports by setting benchmarks for scholarships and opportunities based on the amount of money an athletic department makes. Bans 'pay-for-play' to athletes by schools, a bedrock principle of the NCAA and college sports that leaders are still clinging to. The order does try to carve out exceptions for endorsement and sponsorship deals with third-party businesses. Calls on the Secretary of Labor and the National Labor Relations Board to clarify the employment status of student-athletes. Under a Republican administration, that likely decreases the chances athletes would have the right to organize. Directs the Attorney General and the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission to find ways to hand rule-making power back to the NCAA, conferences and other college sports governing bodies and away from courts and state legislatures. Who benefits from this? Considering how much it falls in line with what college sports leaders have been asking for, it would be difficult to call it athlete-friendly. Yes, it tries to protect non-revenue programs and force schools to fund a wide-range of teams for athletes to participate in college sports, but limiting compensation by regulating NIL compensation and banning pay-for-play has been at the root of problems for decades. 'Looks like an NCAA press release,' said Marc Edelman, professor of sports law at Baruch College and antitrust expert who has been a critic of NCAA policies. Several ideas for student-athlete compensation have emerged over the years to help relegate the market, from collective bargaining agreements to defining student-athletes as university employees. Though how much athletes actually want those things is hard to say; with more than 190,000 athletes competing in Division I sports, gauging consensus is tricky. Will this actually change anything? In the short term: no. In the long term: maybe. The biggest possible downside of the executive order is it could create more uncertainty for college sports, creating policies that may or may not hold. 'It very much depends on how this gets enforced moving forward, and whether it gets enforced moving forward,' said Sam Ehrlich, assistant professor at Boise State's college of business and economics. 'Maybe this could just end up being just a statement that goes absolutely nowhere.' What can the executive order do? It's not so much what an executive order can do as what it can't. It can't make a law, it can't provide an antitrust exemption and it can't override state laws. Congress can do that. And that's what college sports needs. Any policies that come from an executive order can either be challenged in court and reversed by the next administration, which means college sports continues to operate under a blanket of uncertainty when it comes to defining the relationship between schools and athletes. That's exactly what college sports leaders are trying to stop. What power does the government have in these situations? The executive branch does not have the authority to provide straightforward solutions to college sports' problems, most importantly some form of antitrust exemption. That has to come from Congress, and right now will require bipartisan support. The president's involvement could prioritize the issues in a way that motivates lawmakers to build on recent momentum in the Republican-controlled House, where a college sports bill made it out of committee for the first time earlier this week. Or maybe pervasive political divisiveness makes Democrats recoil from the idea of giving the president a symbolic victory. While the complicated problems facing college sports now are not quite a matter of life and death, it remains to be seen if presidential involvement makes finding solutions easier or harder. What is The SCORE Act? The SCORE Act is a House bill that would provide the NCAA and conferences some antitrust protection, pre-empt state laws related to NIL compensation and bolster the terms of the House settlement. The SCORE Act made it through two Republican-led House committees on partisan lines earlier this week. No college sports bill has ever gotten so far. When Congress returns for the fall session, the bill could go to the House floor for a vote and it will probably pass. That's meaningful and a positive sign for many in college sports after years of inaction by lawmakers. The bill also has little support from Democrats in the House and stands very little chance of making it through the Senate, where seven Democrats would have to vote with Republicans to get the 60 necessary to pass. What divides Republicans and Democrats? The debate over college sports legislation on Capitol Hill is akin to a labor dispute. Republicans, who currently control both chambers and the White House, are focused on ways to shield the NCAA and college sports conferences from litigation and state laws that make it impossible for them to effectively govern national competition. Democrats are demanding greater protections for the workers (the athletes) and are hesitant to provide the antitrust protections college sports leaders have been lobbying for. The NCAA and conferences want a law that would prevent college athletes from being deemed employees. Democrats want that option left open, along with athletes' rights to organize and maybe even join unions. What precedents are there involving federal legislation and higher education in sports? The president's EO is the most significant and direct entry by the executive branch into college athletics since Teddy Roosevelt's calls for safety reforms in football led to the creation of the NCAA in 1906. Lyndon Johnson's executive order signed in 1967, led to the passage of the federal Title IX gender discrimination law, which has been credited with paving the way for an explosion of opportunities for women in college sports. What does this mean for the NCAA? The NCAA as a governing body is ceding power to conferences and the newly formed College Sports Commission. However, it played a pivotal role in lobbying for federal legislation and has been much better received by lawmakers since former Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker took over as NCAA president two years ago. The NCAA's future will ultimately be determined by college sports stakeholders, not politicians. Why is the president getting involved? The White House's announcement hailed Trump's long-held interest in college athletics, including preserving Olympic and women's sports amid the changing landscape. Until now, Trump's engagement with higher education has been adversarial, threatening federal funding and litigation against schools for Title IX violations or allegations of antisemitism and discrimination through the promotion of diversity at universities. Trump came away from a meeting with former Alabama football coach Nick Saban in May motivated to get involved. The formation of a presidential commission led by Saban and billionaire oil businessman Cody Campbell, a former Texas Tech football player and current board chair, was considered then put on hold as lawmakers worked on legislative solutions. This article originally appeared in The Athletic. College Football, Men's College Basketball, Women's College Basketball, College Sports 2025 The Athletic Media Company
