Criminal – Spouses convicted of construction fraud

Where a husband and wife, through their roofing company, took significant deposits for roofing work they knew they could not perform, their convictions for obtaining money by false pretenses and construction fraud were affirmed.

Background

Following a joint jury trial, the circuit court convicted Allen W. Knott and Sabrina G. Knott, who are spouses, of obtaining money by false pretenses and of construction fraud.

Analysis

In their first assignments of error, the Knotts specifically challenge the construction fraud charges brought against them by the Commonwealth as to Jory Lawson, Nathan Kuhn, Roy Campbell, Clay Mayes, Joyce Comer and Joan Jackson. The requirement that the demand letter be sent “by certified mail, return receipt requested” is an “element[] of a statutory crime” and thus “involves a purely legal question that we review de novo.”

The Knotts are correct that the circuit court erred when it failed to grant their motions to strike the construction fraud charges against them as to Clay Mayes and Roy Campbell. Indeed, the Commonwealth concedes on brief that the circuit court should have struck the charge as to Clay Mayes because it “presented no evidence that he requested a return receipt as required by Code § 18.2-200.1.” The circuit court also should have struck the charges as to Roy Campbell because he testified that he sent his demand letter simply by regular mail—not by certified mail.

However, the circuit court did not err when it denied the Knotts’ request to strike the construction fraud charges against them regarding Jory Lawson, Nathan Kuhn, Joyce Comer and Joan Jackson. Each of those victims (or their representatives) testified that they sent their demand letters to the Knotts by certified mail and the Commonwealth submitted copies of the return receipts for those victims into the record.

Despite what the Knotts might claim, Code § 18.2-200.1 does not require that return receipts submitted into the record by the Commonwealth have the “certified mail” box on those receipts filled in by the post office clerk. Lawson, Kuhn, Comer and Jackson each testified that they sent their demand letters by certified mail.

The fact that the return receipts for Lawson, Kuhn, Comer and Jackson do not have the “certified mail” box filled in by the post office is simply not enough to prevent a rational factfinder (here the jury) from finding that the demand letter was sent by certified mail—and that the Knotts did indeed commit construction fraud against those persons.

Construction fraud

Allen argues, “The Circuit Court erred in overruling Defendant’s Motion to Strike and Motion to Set aside the verdict, as there was insufficient evidence to convict the Defendant of Construction Fraud.” The court disagrees.
The evidence presented by the Commonwealth is more than enough to allow a rational factfinder (here the jury) to conclude that the Knotts committed construction fraud because they had a fraudulent intent at the time they signed the disputed contracts with the victims in this case. Many of the victims who testified at Allen and Sabrina’s trial testified to the same set of basic facts: they would reach out to Knott’s Roofing, receive an estimate, sign a contract, pay a substantial portion of the value of that contract up front and then rarely—if ever—hear from Knott’s Roofing again.

False pretenses

Both defendants argue there was insufficient evidence to convict them of obtaining money by false pretense charges. The court again disagrees.

The Knotts kept taking on new projects even though they knew that they could not perform the new work (even as they were promising to do it by a certain time) as (1) they could not perform the work they already had for their current customers—and (2) they were deeply in debt to their primary supplier of materials for their roofing jobs.
Affirmed in part, and reversed and remanded in part.

Knott v. Commonwealth, Record Nos. 0351-24-4, 0399-24-4, May 12, 2026. CAV (Beales). From the Circuit Court of Page County (Ritchie). A. Hunter Jackson (Office of the Public Defender, on brief), for appellant Sabrina G. Knott. Joseph P. Hopson (Joseph P. Hopson, Attorney at Law, PLLC, on brief), for appellant Allen W. Knott. Sabina B. Thaler, Assistant Attorney General (Jason S. Miyares, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee. VLW 026-7-186. 23 pp.

Full-Text Opinion

VLW 026-7-186