Homeowners Sue Contractor, Claiming Fraud : Lawsuit: Action charges that Culver City construction company collected money in advance, failed to complete remodeling.

Eleven homeowners have filed a lawsuit against a now-defunct Culver City construction company, alleging that it accepted payments for remodeling projects but never completed the work. The suit by the homeowners, who have dubbed themselves “Homeowners Fighting Back,” accuses the Pierpont Construction Group--also known as Force Ten Systems Inc.--of fraud, breach of contract and misrepresentation.

“These are accomplished con artists, very personable and very professional,” said Maria Walp, the homeowners’ lawyer.

The suit, filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, asks that Pierpont pay the homeowners restitution, punitive damages and damages to their property caused by company workers. The group is also asking the court for a cancellation of contracts with Pierpont and of loans taken out by homeowners to pay for the remodeling, Walp said.

The president of the company, Mark R. Blacher, and other Pierpont representatives could not be reached for comment. Pierpont’s offices are closed and its telephone is disconnected.

The State Contractor’s Licensing Board has investigated and confirmed the allegations. It is now asking the district attorney to revoke the company’s license, said Ray Hendrickson, special investigator in the board’s Norwalk office.

The homeowners, who live in a various parts of Los Angeles County, were all taken in by a well-thought-out scheme, Walp said.

Pierpont advertised in publications using several different names. Many of the homeowners contacted the company through these ads, Walp said. Some homeowners had called other companies and were given price quotes they could not afford. They were later approached by Pierpont representatives with lower bids.

Walp said she suspects that representatives inside the companies were skimming jobs for Pierpont. In each case, Pierpont asked the homeowners for the money up front, Walp said, promising it would complete the work quickly. In many instances the company arranged loans for the homeowners, she said.

Pierpont representatives told customers that the money would be placed in an escrow account, which gave many a sense of security, the lawyer said.

“At best they thought (the money) was safe until the job was finished,” Walp said.

Ronald and Diane Becker wanted to add a second-story to their Lynwood home and needed to have the project completed by Christmas.

A Pierpont representative said the company could finish the job if the couple paid $82,000 up front. “That was the whole catch,” Diane Becker said. “If we (gave them) the money up front they could go in a speedy manner.”

The Beckers were told the money would be placed in escrow and paid out to Pierpont as the work progressed. The firm promised that the final payment would be made only when both parties were satisfied with the job, the Beckers said.

“The plan they offered sounded good to us,” Diane Becker said. “It sounded as if everyone would be protected.” The couple paid Pierpont $46,700, and took out a second deed of trust for $17,500. The company also arranged for the couple to receive a $17,450 loan from HUD, Diane Becker said.

But Pierpont never even started the job, the couple said.

Instead of having a new second story, the Beckers are stuck making monthly payments on their loan and have already lost close to $50,000. “It’s been a nightmare,” Diane Becker said.

The Beckers later learned that their money had never been placed in an actual escrow account.

“Instead, Pierpont just set up a bank account called Pierpont Escrow Account,” Walp said, and the money was taken out arbitrarily.

Hendrickson said he has received more than 40 complaints about Pierpont in the course of about 45 days.

The company was issued a contractor’s license in February, 1989. His office started receiving complaints in November, Hendrickson said.

After investigating the complaints, Hendrickson filed an administrative action against the company with the district attorney, charging the firm with construction fraud and seeking to revoke its contractor’s license.

“It looks like the intent was to take a bunch of money from people and then disappear--which is exactly what happened,” Hendrickson said.

In many cases, as with the Beckers, the company never started the work. In others, workers started construction but never finished the job, Hendrickson said.

John and Cherie Wescott of North Hollywood contracted with the company to add a bedroom and bathroom to their home for $30,000.

John Wescott said Pierpont subcontracted the job to another company, which started the work but then sub-contracted the job to a third company.

“Work was incredibly slow and incredibly shoddy,” Wescott said. “There were different people working here every day.” After several starts and stops, the work finally ground to a halt, Wescott said. The couple was left with a leaky roof, crooked walls and a $10,000 loss.

Walp and Hendrickson said Pierpont has closed its doors and neither has been able to locate company President Mark Blacher.

The homeowners joined together after one disgruntled customer learned that the company was about to close and alerted others. Later the group organized and contacted Public Interest Inc., a nonprofit public benefit corporation that supplies low-cost legal assistance.

Walp heads the corporation’s legal clinic.

Because the company used several different names, Walp believes others may have been victimized as well.

Several banks and lending institutions also were named in the lawsuit. Walp said they acted improperly in cashing the checks Pierpont had received from customers and “they knew or should have known” that the company was fraudulent.