Contractor Demands Home Owner’s Credit Card for Extra Purchases and Walks Off Job after Requiring More Pay.


Home Owner Files Lawsuit against Houzz Construction for Breach of Contract

Shobha hired Houzz Construction to make repairs on her home. Together, they drew up a contract that outlined a complete kitchen remodel, including demolition, electrical, plumbing, painting, cabinet installing, and ventilating. On March 17, Shobha and Houzz Construction signed the contract with the completion date of April 9 and cost $21,279.50 with a down payment of $5K.

Demolition began on March 20th. Four days later, Shobha recalled that Houzz Construction told her that the exterior back wall needed to be resided, claiming it would cost an additional $16K. She negotiated a new price of $8K and paid $5K toward this additional project. Shobha shared that a few days later she received a call from Houzz, demanding her credit card number to pay almost $3K for extra materials. Shobha shared that a few days later she received a call from Houzz, demanding her credit card number to pay almost $3K for extra materials.When she asked for a list of the materials, Shobha remembered that they threatened to walk off the job and leave her house in disrepair. She gave her credit card number.

According to Shobha, that same day, Houzz Construction informed her that they were unable to perform the electrical work that they were contracted for so they demanded that she use an electrician of their choosing. Once again, Shobha incurred extra costs. And then, Shobha shared that Houzz did another material run, again requiring her credit card number for a charge of $1.5K and not giving her an itemized list, showing what the material was intended for.

On April 24th, 15 days after the job was meant to be completed, Houzz Constuction visited Shobha to check on the work, promising more workers the following day to complete the project. The next day, Shobha recalled that she was presented with another change order that required an additional cost of $6K. According to Shobha, when she asked for more information, she was told she had 90 seconds to sign or Houzz Construction would walk off the site. With her home still in pieces, Shobha had no choice but to sign.

According to Shobha, a few construction workers pulled her aside to confess that they believed that Houzz Construction was doing bad flooring work. Houzz Construction denied the allegation but wanted another change order to correct the work. Shobha explained that when she didn’t respond fast enough, Houzz Construction walked off the job.

Finally on May 2, Shobha contacted Houzz Construction and requested that the work she had paid for be completed. Houzz Construction countered the request with a demand for an additional $1K, which Shobha did not agree. The project was left uncompleted. Shobha had paid almost $20K toward the job, which stands incomplete and in disrepair. She estimates that she’ll have to pay $35K to correct the poor work and complete the kitchen remodel.

As a client of KM&A, Shobha fights Houzz Construction for breaching their contract by not completing the work by the agreed upon date and walking off the job. Home owners should receive what they paid for. KM&A challenges building contractors who try to take advantage of home owners.


Full text of this complaint, as filed with the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, is available at docket no: AR-18-000533

Kraemer, Manes & Associates LLC is an employment law firm with principal offices in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia, serving all counties in Pennsylvania, focusing on employment law, business law, litigation, and civil issues. KM&A clients include employees, small businesses, parties in litigation, and people with a variety of legal issues.

For more information about this case, contact Attorney Prabhu Narahari at 412-626-5588 or at

NOTICE: All information contained in this statement comes from the Complaint which has been filed as a public record with the court. As dedicated civil rights attorneys, we strongly believe in the public value of telling our clients’ stories: violators can be held accountable, and other silent victims can feel empowered to stand up for their legal rights. Although we make every attempt to verify our clients’ claims, note that the defendant is expected to oppose our client’s position, and the court has not ruled one way or the other as of the date of this statement.