Background
Allen and Sabrina Knott operated “Knott’s Roofing,” a roofing company that fell into severe financial distress. By 2018, the company owed approximately $250,000 to ABC Supply Company, its primary materials supplier. Unable to meet supplier obligations, the Knotts nonetheless continued accepting roofing contracts from new customers, regularly collecting advance deposits representing 70 to 80 percent of the contract price. Between January 2020 and January 2021, the company collected approximately $252,000 in customer advances.
Multiple customers testified to an identical pattern: after contacting the company for roof repairs, signing contracts, and making substantial advance payments, the Knotts failed to commence work or contact them. When customers pursued inquiries, they received shifting excuses about COVID-19 and staffing shortages, or were simply blocked and avoided. Cell phone records revealed text messages in which Allen Knott instructed Sabrina to fabricate stories and promised discounts to customers as a stalling tactic, with Allen explicitly stating “if you got to lie, lie big. And lie good.”
The Knotts were charged with multiple counts of construction fraud under Virginia Code § 18.2-200.1 and obtaining money by false pretenses under Code § 18.2-178. Following a joint jury trial, both were convicted on 24 counts of obtaining money by false pretenses, 21 counts of construction fraud, and one count each of conspiracy. Both received sentences of 141 years imprisonment, with all but 4 years and 6 months suspended.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals upheld the convictions for obtaining money by false pretenses and affirmed construction fraud convictions as to customers Jory Lawson, Nathan Kuhn, Joyce Comer, and Joan Jackson. However, the court reversed construction fraud convictions as to Clay Mayes and Roy Campbell, finding insufficient evidence of compliance with the statutory notice requirement.
Virginia Code § 18.2-200.1 requires that demand letters for return of construction advances be sent “by certified mail, return receipt requested.” The court found that Mayes presented no evidence he requested a return receipt, and Campbell testified he sent his letter by regular mail, not certified mail. The Commonwealth failed to provide documentation proving Campbell’s actual compliance. For the four other victims, however, each testified credibly that they sent demand letters by certified mail, and the Commonwealth presented return receipt documentation proving delivery to the Knotts. The court held that such victim testimony satisfies the statutory requirement even if postal return receipts lack a postal clerk’s “certified mail” checkbox. The statutory language does not require “evidenced by” return receipt—a standard applied to similar statutes—permitting juries to rely on witness testimony without perfect postal documentation.
On fraudulent intent, the court found circumstantial evidence sufficient: the Knotts’ pattern of accepting new deposits while demonstrably unable to complete existing obligations, their provision of fabricated explanations, their documented communications revealing intent to deceive, and their deliberate avoidance of customer inquiries all supported findings that fraudulent intent existed when they procured the advances.
Key Takeaways
- Victims’ credible testimony alone that they sent demand letters by certified mail, return receipt requested, satisfies Virginia Code § 18.2-200.1, even without perfect postal documentation.
- The absence of a postal clerk’s “certified mail” checkbox on a return receipt does not preclude compliance when other evidence corroborates the victim’s mailing testimony.
- Fraudulent intent in construction fraud cases may be established through circumstantial evidence, including patterns of soliciting deposits while insolvent, failing to perform promised work, providing false excuses, and actively avoiding customer contact.
- The statutory phrase “by certified mail, return receipt requested” (omitting “evidenced by”) indicates no requirement for documentary proof of the mailing method itself.
Why It Matters
This decision significantly impacts construction fraud prosecutions in Virginia by clarifying that prosecutors need not produce perfect postal documentation when victims credibly testify to their mailing practices. The ruling balances the Commonwealth’s burden of proof against practical realities: demanding postal clerk certifications would often be impossible for individual consumers. Simultaneously, the court affirms that statutory notice requirements remain material elements that must be proven—conviction will not stand when evidence affirmatively shows regular mail was sent or return receipts were not requested.
The opinion also reinforces that construction fraud rests fundamentally on proving intent to defraud at the time of soliciting advances. Text messages revealing deliberate deception and patterns of conduct showing simultaneous insolvency and continued solicitation of deposits constitute powerful circumstantial evidence. For practitioners, the decision clarifies that victim testimony is a reliable path to satisfying statutory requirements, while defense counsel must focus on either challenging the sufficiency of mailing proof itself or directly attacking evidence of fraudulent intent at contract formation.