Dean Construction, Inc.

The person you are referring to as the person filing the complaint is a *** customerA Margaret *** *** ** *** *** *** ** ** *** Details of the project are such: The project was originated because the client was assisted with a residential insurance claim which our
company met with field claims agent resulting in an approximately $10,claim which was grossly underestimated by the client’s insurance providerAfter many months the final settlement amount came to around $40,The client had been under contract to our company such as to allow us to negotiate with the insurance provider to come to agreementAfter negotiation was complete, work commencedWork performed, for the majority of the insurance claim was very specific, that we would perform services for agreed amount with insurance provider, and that no warranty for work performed would occur until all work was paid for in fullHowever prior to starting work the client was being very kind and asking for design services- for free ( no payment was ever made), because she wanted to make her property look as nice as she could possibly do so for the money the insurance provider was providing funds forBut that request was not part of the written contract which is extremely specificThat said we made a break with operating procedure, provided client with upscale gutter product, storm doors far superior to what the insured had previously, custom colored architectural roofing shingles to replace the 3-tab roofing product she had previously, high end synthetic felt replacing the paper felt she had previously, EDPM flat roof which was a required to make her property building code compliant- previous roof was 3-tab composition roofing and illegal as per current MN building code, painted her entire deck which was not covered by her insurance provider fully, or supplemented by her, a tasteful front door light fixture to accent her newly installed custom storm doors which she did not pay an upgrade cost for and even custom gutter guard which she also did not pay forIn she did not pay for $worth of custom gutter guard, $work of carpentry services charged at a lower rate of $to provider her tenant with weather protection, custom storm doors which were installed correctly and valued at $1200, accent light in front of dwelling and made many vulgar statements when it came time for payment for servicesOther services were also provided such to correct numerous areas of disrepair to exterior of dwellingHowever rather than approach her for proper payment, we simply decided it was easier to accept her last payment and be finished with her as a client as she became extremely *** and difficult to work with as the project progressedHowever recently, we received demand to return to her property to fix a gutter, which due to her nonpayment in full for services provided, is not under warrantyThat is when we informed her that because she had not paid her contract in full, she was in breach of contract and that no warranty for services existsThis is clearly stated in bold type in our contractAfterward she stated she would contact the Revdex.com to file a complaint against our company. We responded that we would respond to Revdex.com such as to detail why no warranty services are provided because she is in severe breach of contractShe then stated she would take us to courtThat triggered our statement that under terms of our contract that the client is responsible for any attorney’s fees for our representation under circumstances of nonpayment for servicesAfter that she quickly retracted her statement of taking us to courtAt current we are contemplating further action due to GROSS BREACH OF CONTRACT BY THIS *** *** who would not have had the opportunity for any construction services to be made to her property minus our expert assistance in resolving her insurance claim and our exemplary design and construction services which transformed a property with vastly low grade building components, into a vastly improved propertyBut there is moreAfter realizing she could not pressure us into more services she did not want to pay for*** *** *** *** ** * *** ** *** *** *** ** * *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ** * *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** * *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ** * *** *** *** ** *** ** *** *** *** *** *** *** ** ** *** *** *** *** We said we would respond to her Revdex.com complaint, and that she would be bound to cover our attorney’s costs for any court action which she has since retracted, such at all she can now do is slander our company to her clientele*** *** *** ** ** *** *** *** *** *** ** *** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ** ** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ** *** ** *** *** *** ** *** ** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ** *** ** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ** *** ** *** ** *** *** *** ** *** ** *** *** ** *** ** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ** *** *** *** ** *** *** ** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ** *** *** *** *** ** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Highlighted portions of above emails are made by contractor. As mentioned previously, per terms of contract when owner does not pay contract in full NO warranty exists. Under terms of contract contractor is due payment for any extra work owner requests under time and materials portion of contract. When client had questions about storm door installation ORIGINALLY- she had noted "gaps". Contractor noted that "gaps" client was referring to were not avoidable because size of "parts" that came with storm door installation kit are standard. These "parts" refer to the "threshold frame" the storm door attaches to, and that original construction opening in her case was marginally larger than installation framing, but did not affect operation of storm doors. On date doors were installed contractor showed client how to lock and unlock fully operational doors for which locks on different doors had different keys. Owner was shown how to operate her new storm doors and at the time was very pleased with them, but claimed she was tired and wanted to lay down for nap, not want to go through door operation any more than open and closing operation. A day or so later she contacted contractor to say she was not satisfied with work performed, wanted something else. At that time contractor was on other work, could not immediately respond, but informed client that if they had any issue they could ask for second opinion. Contractor recommended City of Mpls. Building Inspector. Client said she would get another contractor's opinion. Dean Construction Inc. responded that if client wanted to get another estimate client could do as she wished. Around 1 week after original door installation, client had contacted Dean Construction Inc. to inform that she had paid another contractor to also perform work on doors, and that she would be deducting $450 from contract she signed. When Dean Construction Inc. representative came back to home later to perform other work, checked storm doors, no noticeable work was observed. And doors still opened, closed, locked properly. However because client said she had someone else performed work this voided any responsibility by original contractor as to contractor's original work which was satisfactory because new doors opened, shut, and locked. And contractor demonstrated this to client before she laid down for her nap. At points after storm doors were installed and shown to be working properly, client started making multiple comments that doors were not installed properly and at one point even mentioned they were installed upside down. and event that other contractor said doors were bad, they were upgraded from type of door over tenants door to deluxe units by contractor for no additional cost to owner. Conservative upgrade value $600 for both. Other contractor per owner wanted to install their doors for $1200 as stated by client at that time. Dean Construction Inc. Mentioned to client at that time that client could have any other contractor install any type of door they wanted but that her insurance provider had and was only going to pay her for what she had original to her home and they she was not entitled to anything more than she had per her insurance coverage. (Conclusions from storm doors per Dean Construction Inc. Client was attempting to [redacted]. Work was performed satisfactory and if client wished to take contractor to court this would be proven.) Next. Additional work was performed and not paid for by client of additional work performed. Client had a previous exterior addition over her tenants door that was removed when client had a new deck installed by another contractor the previous year or so before Dean Construction started its work. After Dean construction had successfully removed and replaced the undamaged deck in order to remove and replace hail damaged roofing below which was upgraded to a EDPM roof, from a 3-tab shingle roof, client asked what could be done to recreate what she had previously. We came to agreement of $1800 for framing costs. Work was performed. After completion owner liked majority of work, but didn't like seeing roofing nails and once asked for them to be snipped off, creating a smooth surface such that she would not see the nails. Dean Construction mentioned that was not possible and that even MN Building Code requires a distance for nails to penetrate through the wood. Client said at that time she did not care about MN Building Code as her rebuttal. Contractor then mentioned that as change order, for $350 that client agreed to at that time a soffit and fascia trim could be installed. Client agreed. Client did not give any details as to what materials would be used, told Dean Construction to use materials that would hide the nails. Work was performed. Afterward said she didn't like how it looked, wanted something different, but never specified exactly what she wanted. At this time contractor mentioned that client would have to come up with exact specification for what she wanted. Later after all projects completed, client when into rant about why she was not going to pay for certain parts of contract that she agreed to pay previously. Dean Construction did not want to respond after she sent what she said was her final payment. But since contract was not paid in full per contractual document client signed, no warranty exists on work performed, therefore no warranty work may be performed.   Terms of Contract client has violated that may be proven, in court of law if company wishes to proceed with court action it is entitled to under contract provisions. Client is currently in breach of contract for not financially satisfying terms of contract financially such that: No warranty exists until Agreement is paid in full. Other terms of contract, but not limited to those listed here: THIS CONTRACT AND ANY AGREEMENT PURSUANT HERETO IS BETWEEN DEAN CONSTRUCTION, INC. HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS "COMPANY" AND THE CUSTOMER(S) NAMED HEREIN ON THE REVERSE SIDE WILL BE SUBJECT TO ALL APPROPRIATE LAWS, REGULATIONS AND ORDINANCES OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA AND THE FOLLOWING TERMS AND CONDITIONS. 2. SHOULD DEFAULT BE MADE IN PAYMENT OF THIS CONTRACT, CHARGES SHALL BE ADDED FROM THE DATE THEREOF AT A RATE OF ONE AND ONE-HALF (1-1/2) PERCENT PER MONTH (18% PER ANNUM) WITH A MINIMUM CHARGE OF $2.00 PER MONTH, AND IF PLACED IN THE HANDS OF AN ATTORNEY FOR COLLECTION, ALL ATTORNEY'S FEES AND LEGAL AND FILING FEES SHALL BE PAID BY CUSTOMER ACCEPTING SAID CONTRACT. 16. ANY REPRESENTATIONS, STATEMENTS, OR OTHER COMMUNICATIONS, NOT WRITTEN ON THIS CONTRACT ARE AGREED TO BE IMMATERIAL, AND NOT RELIED ON BY EITHER PARTY, AND DO NOT SURVIVE THE EXECUTION OF THIS CONTRACT. Client created invoice? Invoices not created by contractor are not invoices, not recogninized. What client sent along with what she said was her final payment were statements allowing her to justify to herself why she was making such payment.

I am rejecting this response because:  The information in Pete [redacted] rebuttal is incorrect.  It is correct that he negotiated with my insurance company to get all that was allowed in the insurance contract.  For this, I have repeatedly thanked him and should point out that he benefited from this more than me.  He was paid all of the money that was issued from the insurance company.  My home will not appreciate in value as much as was his profit.  He is ABSOLUTELY INCORRECT in saying I requested design services.  Although, he felt it necessary to repeatedly tell me how good he was in design; I did not and do not share his opinion. Therefore, I did not ask him to design my home.  He showed me options and offered up opinions.  I chose what I liked best.  Some of the decisions made may have been in line with what he liked; however, in no way did I rely on his design aesthetic.  My sister taught design at the University of MN.  If I felt the need to rely on any professional for design ideas, I would have consulted her.  Regardless, conversations regarding design are typical anytime anyone is improving their home.  Pete [redacted] did not offer more than any other professional contractor in regard to design.  As for work being guaranteed, I looked over my copy of the signed contract and did not see anything that said he would not guarantee his work.   Pete [redacted] said he made a break from the normal operating procedure by providing me with upscale gutters, storm doors, and roofing shingles.  If he offered anything over and above what the insurance policy provided, it was an option he gave to me as part of the claim.  Some items were upgraded in an attempt to engage my business.  These items included the gutter shields and storm doors.  As for the light fixture Pete [redacted] included, he offered to take me to [redacted] to pick out a new exterior light.  At that time, I assumed it was included in the insurance claim.  I asked him at the store and he said he would pay for it which reinforced my assumption.  It wasn't until he tried to sell me $300. mailboxes before I realized it was not part of the insurance claim.  The synthetic roofing was covered by my insurance.  The only reason Pete [redacted] used higher end materials was because the material he wanted to use was not available.  The deck that I had installed two years prior had to be taken off to install this roofing.  The re-installation left a lot to be desired and the reason he wanted to paint my deck is two-fold.  First, he did not like the color and second, the insurance company said he would have to replace the floor boards which was not done.  He wanted the inspector to see a different color and believe it was new flooring.Pete [redacted] describes me as [redacted] and difficult to work with.  This was due to him not listening to what I was saying or to what I was requesting.  [redacted]  I ask is it [redacted] to expect doors to be installed correctly? It is frustrating to be ignored and left with work completed incorrectly and not at all.  There are several things that have been left unfinished and he charged me for $50.00 for a one by one piece of wood which he did not secure to my door.  It is a fact that Pete [redacted]'s worker installed the doors incorrectly; although, he still refuses to acknowledge this.  I will send the invoice from [redacted] in another email.  I did file something with the conciliation court and I did retract it.  Pete [redacted] told you it was because I was afraid I would have to pay his attorney's fees.  This is incorrect.  I retracted it because the claim wasn't as egregious as I originally thought and the problem was resolved with a $10.00 bottle of glue.  Pete [redacted] claims I slandered his company.  This is not true.  I simply relayed my experience with his company to a person who wanted windows and roof repair.