Background
Allen and Sabrina Knott operated Knott’s Roofing in Page County, Virginia, and faced mounting financial troubles from 2018 onward. The company accumulated approximately $250,000 in debt to their primary supplier, ABC Supply Company. Despite their inability to complete existing jobs, the Knotts continued accepting new roofing contracts and requiring customers to pay substantial upfront deposits—often 70–80 percent of the total contract value. Between January 2020 and January 2021, Sabrina deposited customer checks totaling roughly $252,000.
Multiple customers testified at trial that after paying deposits, the Knotts never completed the promised work—and often never began it. When customers called seeking updates, they received vague excuses about delays or were met with silence and blocked calls. Several customers sent 15-day demand letters requesting refunds of their deposits. Text messages seized from the Knotts revealed that Allen instructed Sabrina to “lie big. And lie good” if questioned and to promise customers a discount “to cool them off.”
The Commonwealth charged both Knotts with construction fraud and obtaining money by false pretenses, among other offenses. A jury convicted both defendants of 24 counts of obtaining money by false pretenses, 21 counts of construction fraud, and one conspiracy count for each offense. Both received sentences of 141 years with all but 4 years and 6 months suspended.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals addressed whether the construction fraud statute’s requirement—that demand letters be sent “by certified mail, return receipt requested” (Code § 18.2-200.1)—was satisfied when return receipts lacked a checked “certified mail” box. The Knotts argued that unmarked boxes negated the statutory requirement. The court rejected this argument, holding that victim testimony that they sent letters by certified mail, combined with return receipts showing delivery, satisfies the statute’s plain language. The statute does not require the Commonwealth to prove the “certified mail” box was marked; it requires only that the letter be sent by certified mail with return receipt requested.
However, the court reversed construction fraud convictions as to Clay Mayes and Roy Campbell because the Commonwealth presented insufficient evidence that either sent his demand letter by certified mail. Mayes testified he sent his letter by certified mail but presented no return receipt. Campbell testified he sent his letter by regular mail, not certified mail, and the Commonwealth presented no receipt proving otherwise. The court affirmed convictions as to Jory Lawson, Nathan Kuhn, Joyce Comer, and Joan Jackson, each of whom testified they sent certified letters and whose return receipts were admitted into evidence.
On the fraudulent intent element, the court held the evidence was more than sufficient. The Knotts continued signing contracts and collecting deposits despite knowing they owed $250,000 to their supplier and could not complete existing work. The text messages revealed deliberate deception. The pattern of taking deposits, failing to perform, and avoiding customer contact supported an inference that the Knotts intended to defraud from the outset.
Key Takeaways
- Under Code § 18.2-200.1, victim testimony that a demand letter was sent by certified mail, combined with return receipts showing delivery, satisfies the statutory notice requirement even if the post office did not check the “certified mail” box on the receipt.
- The Commonwealth must still prove that a demand letter was actually sent by certified mail; failure to do so defeats a construction fraud conviction on that count.
- Fraudulent intent in construction fraud cases may be inferred from circumstantial evidence, including a contractor’s continued acceptance of deposits despite known inability to perform, false representations to customers, and efforts to avoid contact.
- Text messages between defendants admitting deception and strategizing false excuses constitute strong evidence of fraudulent intent.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies the procedural requirements for construction fraud prosecutions under Virginia law. It establishes that the certified mail requirement is not defeated by clerical omissions on postal receipts, but it also reaffirms that the Commonwealth must affirmatively prove the letter was sent by certified mail in the first instance—through victim testimony, receipts, or both. Contractors cannot evade accountability merely because a post office employee failed to mark a box, but prosecutors cannot succeed without evidence of actual certified mailing.
The decision also reinforces that fraudulent intent in construction fraud cases rests on circumstantial evidence: accepting deposits from multiple customers despite mounting debt, failing to perform, and employing deceptive communications all support a finding of fraud at inception. The Knotts’ text messages—urging their spouse to “lie big” and manipulate customers—exemplify the kind of direct evidence courts have identified as probative of intent.