A home renovation project can turn into a costly dispute when promised materials never arrive and the work fails to meet the contract.
asserted
work → turn → contract
In Indiana, a couple who hired a contractor to repair a house and garage secured an $82,020 judgment against his construction company after a court found that it had breached the contract and made material and fraudulent misrepresentations.
asserted
it → hire → misrepresentations
On October 26, 2026, an appeals court ruled that the contractor himself could also be held personally liable.
uncertain
contractor → rule → October
According to the Indiana Court of Appeals’ memorandum decision in Robert Burgner, et al. v. Jeremy Swenson, et al., available on
Justia, the contractor had accepted cheques and a Ford F-350 truck as part of the arrangement, but the promised manufactured roof trusses were never supplied as agreed.
uncertain
trusses → accord → arrangement
The appellate court reversed the lower court’s refusal to impose personal liability on Jeremy Swenson, concluding that he could not use his company as a shield against responsibility for fraudulent conduct in which he had personally participated.
uncertain
he → reverse → which
Couple hired contractor for house and garage repairs
The dispute began in early 2022, when Robert Burgner contacted Swenson about repairs and improvements to a property on Harrison Street in Veedersburg, Indiana.
asserted
Burgner → hire → Veedersburg
The property included a house and a garage that had been unoccupied for several years.
asserted
that → include → years
Swenson operated a construction business called SwenCrest, LLC, of which he was the sole member.
asserted
he → operate → which
He prepared a written estimate on the company’s letterhead, outlining the planned work and estimated material costs.
asserted
He → prepare → work
The contract, signed in April 2022, quoted a total of $25,286.75, with labour costs listed as zero.
asserted
costs → sign → zero
The parties agreed that Burgner would transfer ownership of a 2005 Ford F-350 truck as payment for the work.
asserted
Burgner → agree → work
The agreement specified the use of manufactured roof trusses.
asserted
agreement → specify → trusses
The couple also made additional payments by cheque to cover materials, including $9,000 in April 2022 and $6,000 in July that year.
asserted
couple → make → July
The money was intended to pay for trusses and other construction materials, including roofing supplies.
asserted
money → intend → supplies
Manufactured roof trusses were never delivered
asserted
trusses → manufacture → ?
By July 2022, Burgner discovered that the roof trusses had not been ordered.
asserted
trusses → discover → July
He and Swenson subsequently visited Ferguson Lumber, where Swenson placed an order for the materials, which were expected to arrive in November.
asserted
which → visit → November
However, the lumber supplier later cancelled the order.
asserted
supplier → cancel → order
According to an employee of Ferguson Lumber, the cancellation occurred because Swenson had an unpaid account with the supplier.
uncertain
Swenson → accord → supplier
In September 2022, Swenson took possession of the Ford F-350, and Burgner transferred the vehicle’s title documents, assigning the truck to SwenCrest, LLC.
asserted
Burgner → take → LLC
The following month, the couple issued another cheque for $2,023.36 at Swenson’s direction, making it payable to him personally.
asserted
it → issue → him
Swenson later acknowledged that he deposited the cheque electronically and then cashed it at the couple’s bank.
asserted
he → acknowledge → bank
He repaid the amount about 30 days after Burgner raised the issue.
asserted
Burgner → repay → issue
In November, Burgner visited Swenson’s home to investigate the missing trusses.
asserted
Burgner → visit → trusses
There, he discovered trusses being constructed in the contractor’s backyard for the couple’s project.
asserted
he → discover → project
Burgner rejected them because the contract specified manufactured trusses rather than the ones being made on-site.
asserted
contract → reject → site
The couple also encountered delays in the remaining work.
asserted
couple → encounter → work
Swenson claimed that he had obtained a building permit, but records from the Town of Veedersburg showed that neither he nor his company had applied for one for the property.
asserted
he → claim → property
Construction company ordered to pay more than $82,000
asserted
company → order → 82,000
In June 2023, the couple terminated the contract and demanded repayment of $17,000 paid for materials that had not been ordered, along with $10,000 for damage caused by faulty workmanship.
asserted
that → terminate → workmanship
They subsequently filed a lawsuit against Swenson, his wife and the construction business, alleging breach of contract, fraud and other claims.
uncertain
They → file → contract
During the proceedings, evidence raised questions about the company’s financial records and its handling of funds.
asserted
evidence → raise → funds
Swenson acknowledged that some personal expenses had appeared in the company’s bank account.
asserted
expenses → acknowledge → account
He also could definitively identify only about $500 in receipts as relating to the Burgners’ project.
uncertain
He → identify → project
In July 2025, the trial court found that SwenCrest had breached the contract and made material and fraudulent misrepresentations.
asserted
SwenCrest → find → misrepresentations
It awarded the couple damages, including amounts they had paid, costs for repairs and further work by another contractor, estimated future repair costs, attorney’s fees and filing fees.
asserted
they → award → contractor
After trebling the damages, the court entered judgment against SwenCrest, Inc., for $82,020.08, plus costs.
asserted
court → treble → 82,020.08
However, it declined to hold Swenson personally liable, finding that the circumstances did not justify piercing the corporate veil.
asserted
circumstances → decline → veil
The couple challenged that part of the decision.
asserted
couple → challenge → decision
Appeals court says contractor can be held personally liable
The Indiana Court of Appeals concluded that Swenson could be held personally liable for his own participation in the fraudulent conduct, even without piercing the corporate veil.
uncertain
Swenson → say → veil
…and 8 more, not listed.
The Aporia
