Athens couple out $9,000 after contractor never finishes job
ATHENS, Tenn. (WATE) — A couple in Athens has taken every step possible to get the contractor they hired to return and finish the work he started three months ago.
Johnny and Amy Guillot realize now that they made a mistake by paying their contractor upfront. They paid the contractor more than $9,000, but the couple says he's never worked a full day and has come up with a lot of excuses. He did start the job, which was supposed to take less than a week, but then he quit and hasn't returned.
Bean Station sewer project gets $1.5 million in state funding
Amy Guillot and her husband operate a canine obedience and training business. The couple also boards dogs of all sizes at their home. They hired a contractor to lay flooring in their hallway, but it is now coming apart. They also paid him to install a new ceiling in their basement, add four new light fixtures and add structures to level the floor above their basement. None of this work was done.
Dip in the Guillot's basement celling (WATE)
'He was supposed to relevel the entire upper floor of the house. So we got gaps up there. Here you can see that there is a dip. And significantly, this dips really good. This area is part of the main concern on both sides of the basement,' said Amy Guillot.
There is new flooring in the bedroom and down the hallway. The workmanship is questionable, though. Amy Guillot pointed to incomplete work.
Gov. Bill Lee issues first-ever veto to reject bill making it easier to deny parole
'We're missing baseboards. Not done, not complete. In here, well, we've got a hole in the wall. He never put all of the baseboards up. All these baseboards are lying all over the place. It's kind of like a jigsaw puzzle of baseboards that belong everywhere,' said Amy Guillot.
Missing baseboards on Guillot's floors (WATE)
Gap in the Guillot's flooring (WATE)
Hole in the wall of the Guillot's home (WATE)
Baseboards stacked inside the Guillot's home (WATE)
Baseboards stacked inside the Guillot's home (WATE)
Flooring popping up at the Guillot's home (WATE)
'We just wanted someone to put some flooring in for us and have the job done. That was it. It was that simple. He said he could do it in three to four days,' said Johnny Guillot.
The contract was signed in February and the couple paid him everything upfront.
'He hasn't been here in over a month,' said Amy Guillot. 'Unfortunately, this floor here is coming apart already because it is not complete. There is supposed to be some trim work right there. He did not put a transition at the top of the stairs. Since he never did that there is nothing pushing against the floor to keep it in place, so it is popping up pretty good.'
The contractor is Jerry Gardner from Decatur. He calls his business Home Improvement.
'Amy sent many messages to him and said, 'Hey, are you coming today?' 'Yes, I'm on my way.' Never shows up and that's happened numerous times,' said Johnny Guillot.
Buddy's Bar-B-Q reopens on East Magnolia Avenue after 2024 fire
The couple said Gardner claims to be licensed and insured.
'Amy Guillot explained,' Amy Guillot explained. 'He will not furnish the insurance. When I asked him about the license, he said he has a business license.'
They sent a demand letter on April 14, giving Gardner 10 days to respond. He didn't.
Demand letter sent to Gardner by Amy and Johnny Guillot.
'At this point, I don't know anymore. I don't know, I want him to come finish the job, considering that it is not even good work,' said Amy Guillot.
She wrote about her experience with Gardner on Facebook.
'I have had several people who have come forward after I made a post on social media. I was shocked because numerous people came forward to tell me they were having the same problem,' she said.
She has tried to get in touch with Gardner for weeks.
'I'm blocked. He will not take my call. He will not answer my messages,' said Amy Guillot.
So, we called Jerry Gardner on our phone, thinking maybe he'll answer. He didn't. We left a message on Gardner's other phone. There's been no response.
'I really prefer that we just get the materials so we can move on and hire someone else. Maybe some part of a reimbursement, so we can pay someone else to do the job correctly,' said Amy Guillot.
READ: More top stories on WATE.com
The Guillots have filed a complaint against Gardner with the state Department of Commerce and Insurance. They have also sent one more demand letter to him. When hiring a home improvement contractor, payments are made in stages, with a deposit upfront ranging from 10% to 25% to secure the contractor's services and materials. Remaining payments are made at specific project milestones, and the final payment is typically due after the project is complete. In this case, the project is far from being finished.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
For the latest news, weather, sports, and streaming video, head to WATE 6 On Your Side.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
29 minutes ago
- CNN
How a Supreme Court decision backing the NRA is thwarting Trump's retribution campaign
As Harvard University, elite law firms and perceived political enemies of President Donald Trump fight back against his efforts to use government power to punish them, they're winning thanks in part to the National Rifle Association. Last May, the Supreme Court unanimously sided with the gun rights group in a First Amendment case concerning a New York official's alleged efforts to pressure insurance companies in the state to sever ties with the group following the deadly 2018 school shooting in Parkland, Florida. A government official, liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote for the nine, 'cannot … use the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression.' A year later, the court's decision in National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo has been cited repeatedly by federal judges in rulings striking down a series of executive orders that targeted law firms. Lawyers representing Harvard, faculty at Columbia University and others are also leaning on the decision in cases challenging Trump's attacks on them. 'Going into court with a decision that is freshly minted, that clearly reflects the unanimous views of the currently sitting Supreme Court justices, is a very powerful tool,' said Eugene Volokh, a conservative First Amendment expert who represented the NRA in the 2024 case. For free speech advocates, the application of the NRA decision in cases pushing back against Trump's retribution campaign is a welcome sign that lower courts are applying key First Amendment principles equally, particularly in politically fraught disputes. In the NRA case, the group claimed that Maria Vullo, the former superintendent of the New York State Department of Financial Services, had threatened enforcement actions against the insurance firms if they failed to comply with her demands to help with the campaign against gun groups. The NRA's claims centered around a meeting Vullo had with an insurance market in 2018 in which the group says she offered to not prosecute other violations as long as the company helped with her campaign. 'The great hope of a principled application of the First Amendment is that it protects everybody,' said Alex Abdo, the litigation director of the Knight First Amendment Institute. 'Some people have criticized free speech advocates as being naive for hoping that'll be the case, but hopefully that's what we're seeing now,' he added. 'We're seeing courts apply that principle where the politics are very different than the NRA case.' The impact of Vullo can be seen most clearly in the cases challenging Trump's attempts to use executive power to exact revenge on law firms that have employed his perceived political enemies or represented clients who have challenged his initiatives. A central pillar of Trump's retribution crusade has been to pressure firms to bend to his political will, including through issuing executive orders targeting four major law firms: Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale and Susman Godfrey. Among other things, the orders denied the firms' attorneys access to federal buildings, retaliated against their clients with government contracts and suspended security clearances for lawyers at the firms. (Other firms were hit with similar executive orders but they haven't taken Trump to court over them.) The organizations individually sued the administration over the orders and the three judges overseeing the Perkins Coie, WilmerHale and Jenner & Block suits have all issued rulings permanently blocking enforcement of the edicts. (The Susman case is still pending.) Across more than 200-pages of writing, the judges – all sitting at the federal trial-level court in Washington, DC – cited Vullo 30 times to conclude that the orders were unconstitutional because they sought to punish the firms over their legal work. The judges all lifted Sotomayor's line about using 'the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression,' while also seizing on other language in her opinion to buttress their own decisions. Two of them – US district judges Beryl Howell, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, and Richard Leon, who was named to the bench by former President George W. Bush – incorporated Sotomayor's statement that government discrimination based on a speaker's viewpoint 'is uniquely harmful to a free and democratic society.' The third judge, John Bates, said Vullo and an earlier Supreme Court case dealing with impermissible government coercion 'govern – and defeat' the administration's arguments in defense of a section of the Jenner & Block order that sought to end all contractual relationships that might have allowed taxpayer dollars to flow to the firm. 'Executive Order 14246 does precisely what the Supreme Court said just last year is forbidden: it engages in 'coercion against a third party to achieve the suppression of disfavored speech,'' wrote Bates, who was also appointed by Bush, in his May 23 ruling. For its part, the Justice Department has tried to draw a distinction between what the executive orders called for and the conduct rejected by the high court in Vullo. They told the three judges in written arguments that the orders at issue did not carry the 'force of the powers exhibited in Vullo' by the New York official. Will Creeley, the legal director at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, said the rulings underscore how 'Vullo has proved its utility almost immediately.' 'It is extremely useful to remind judges and government actors alike that just last year, the court warned against the kind of shakedowns and turns of the screw that we're now seeing from the administration,' he said. Justice Department lawyers have not yet appealed any of the three rulings issued last month. CNN has reached out to the department for comment. In separate cases brought in the DC courthouse and elsewhere, Trump's foes have leaned on Vullo as they've pressed judges to intervene in high-stakes disputes with the president. Among them is Mark Zaid, a prominent national security lawyer who has drawn Trump's ire for his representation of whistleblowers. Earlier this year, Trump yanked Zaid's security clearance, a decision, the attorney said in a lawsuit, that undermines his ability to 'zealously advocate on (his clients') behalf in the national security arena.' In court papers, Zaid's attorneys argued that the president's decision was a 'retaliatory directive,' invoking language from the Vullo decision to argue that the move violated his First Amendment rights. ''Government officials cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors,'' they wrote, quoting from the 2024 ruling. 'And yet that is exactly what Defendants do here.' Timothy Zick, a constitutional law professor at William & Mary Law School, said the executive orders targeting private entities or individuals 'have relied heavily on pressure, intimidation, and the threat of adverse action to punish or suppress speakers' views and discourage others from engaging with regulated targets.' 'The unanimous holding in Vullo is tailor-made for litigants seeking to push back against the administration's coercive strategy,' Zick added. That notion was not lost on lawyers representing Harvard and faculty at Columbia University in several cases challenging Trump's attacks on the elite schools, including one brought by Harvard challenging Trump's efforts to ban the school from hosting international students. A federal judge has so far halted those efforts. In a separate case brought by Harvard over the administration's decision to freeze billions of dollars in federal funding for the nation's oldest university, the school's attorneys on Monday told a judge that Trump's decision to target it because of 'alleged antisemitism and ideological bias at Harvard' clearly ran afoul of the high court's decision last year. 'Although any governmental retaliation based on protected speech is an affront to the First Amendment, the retaliation here was especially unconstitutional because it was based on Harvard's 'particular views' – the balance of speech on its campus and its refusal to accede to the Government's unlawful demands,' the attorneys wrote.
Bloomberg
35 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
We Now Know the Meaning of 'Religious Enough'
Back in 1959, the chief administrative officer of the United Presbyterian Church warned that churches wielded too much 'economic power' due to their tax-exempt status. Unless religious groups were taxed like everyone else, the nation might soon face 'revolutionary expropriations of church property.' Well, the revolution hasn't yet come for the churches. But regulatory creep has nevertheless nibbled at the margins of religious freedom, with states finding one activity or another to deem not truly religious and therefore subject to tax.
Bloomberg
38 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Changing the Rules of the Game with China and With Those Pesky Lawyers
Welcome to the Wall Street Week newsletter, bringing you stories of capitalism about things you need to know, but even more things you need to think about. I'm David Westin, and this week we held a roundtable discussion with Larry Summers of Harvard and Niall Ferguson of the Hoover Institution about the future of China and explored the developing world of investing in law firms. If you're not yet a subscriber, sign up here for this newsletter. President Donald Trump held his long-awaited phone call with President Xi Jinping of China this week, trying to find a way forward for the relationship between their two countries. Though things may be moving forward, there is a long way to go to address what the president says is "hundreds of billions of dollars a year we lose with China.' US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent says "we have a plan, we have a process," and that "over the next 90 days we can accomplish a lot."
