By Macy Lu
SACRAMENTO – Conflicting details between the testimonies of defendant Michael O’Brien—an unlicensed contractor—and a homeowner victim emerged here in Sacramento County Superior Court Friday.
The court was center stage at a restitution hearing for a case in which the alleged victim paid O’Brien for a remodeling job O’Brien attempted but failed to finish.
The victim claimed to hire O’Brien in September of 2017 after “the person [she] refinanced [her] house with” recommended O’Brien as a contractor. From September to December, the victim paid a total of $49,000 in a series of seven checks.
Two years later, the job was finally completed by another contracting company, Earth First Builders, for a total of $33,780.
Allegedly, the victim neither asked nor knew whether O’Brien was a licensed contractor, only that he came “highly recommended.” She did state that he had given her a quote of about $35,000 for the entire project and promised her several times that he could finish the job before December. Instead, he started appearing less regularly and progress slowed by that month.
Finally, O’Brien left the job half-finished after the victim refused to pay any more until he finished what he said he would with the $49,000.
Another issue concerned who was responsible for acquiring the building permit. In a statement the victim sent to the District Attorney investigator, she had claimed that when she asked about 
permitting, O’Brien “said it would be easier if we got the permit afterwards, and I assumed and he assured me that we could do it.”
A call later with the city about after-the-fact permits gave her the impression that that was legal. She was later cited for her lack of a permit and was also required to pay a “school fee.”
After the victim discovered the defendant’s unlicensed status, the victim emailed the defendant on January 5, 2018, demanding that he pay her $15,000 or else she would report him to authorities as an unlicensed contractor and sue him for the entire $49,000. The DA argued this is akin to a civil compromise.
When O’Brien testified, he claimed that she was actually paying him $250 for each working day at the end of each week, to which the victim scoffed and shook her head in disbelief. He also noted that he never offered her a quote, never gave an estimate for when he would complete the job, and never agreed to take care of the permit, refuting all her earlier claims.
As Deputy District Attorney Douglas Whaley would point out, O’Brien’s claim that he was just “doing odd jobs for $250 a day” while “receiving tens of thousands of dollars” does not add up.
Given the fact that there apparently was no written record of any sort during the remodeling process—contract, progress report, completion dates—between the victim and defendant besides the seven checks, the witnesses’ testimonies alone are all there were as support evidence.
This was a matter of serious concern for the defendant’s defense attorney McGee, who commented that “it’s staggering to me that this amount of money was given over without any written agreement,” insinuating that something “suspicious” had occurred.
He wondered why the victim did not immediately report him to the Contractors State License Board but waited approximately three months, and then she demanded the $15,000.
Furthermore, he added that “these restitution hearings are to deter people from committing unlicensed contracting.”
Therefore, “allowing individuals to go out on their own and hire unlicensed contractors, learn he is unlicensed, then threaten the individual with legal action if they don’t get paid” seems counter-intuitive.
“In this case, yes, [the victim] asked $15,000 but another individual could ask for $40,000 all under the threat of I will report you if you don’t pay me.”
In a closing statement, on behalf of the victim, DDA Whaley argued that she is entitled to the “cost of repair, which in this case would be the finishing and correction of the project that was contracted with Mr.O’Brien.”
The total amount resulted in $40,764.70 and, additionally, accounted for the additional “code enforcement fee, the building permit fee, and the school fee,” all of which neither defendant nor victim handled at the onset of their relationship.
After both parties submitted, Judge Steve White concluded that he was “satisfied that there was an agreement, that the agreement was as [the victim] testified.” He did not find O’Brien’s testimony credible, given the evidence of the $49,000 payment in checks.
Judge White will issue a written order regarding the actual amount of restitution the defendant will be expected to pay.
Macy is a junior from Orange County, CA, studying Communications and English at UC Davis. She loves meeting people, reading books, and writing creatively.
To sign up for our new newsletter – Everyday Injustice – https://tinyurl.com/yyultcf9
Support our work – to become a sustaining at $5 – $10- $25 per month hit the link:
