Microsoft Word - Right to Bear Farms-Complaint 8.17.23(22238800.1).docx

Downs

Rachlin

Martin PLLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

THE RIGHT TO BEAR FARMS LLC & )

SILLY GOOSE PRODUCTIONS LTD, )

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. ) Case No. ____________

)

DEGRENIER CONTRACTING AND )

PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LLC, )

CHAD DEGRENIER, & CARIN )

DEGRENIER, )

Defendants. )

COMPLAINT

NOW COME Plaintiffs The Right to Bear Farms LLC and Silly Goose Productions LTD,

by and through their attorneys, Downs Rachlin Martin PLLC, and hereby complain against

Defendants DeGrenier Contracting and Property Management LLC, Chad DeGrenier, and Carin

DeGrenier as follows:

Parties

1. Plaintiff The Right to Bear Farms LLC is a Delaware limited liability company

whose registered agent is The Corporation Trust Company, located at 1209 Orange Street in

Wilmington, Delaware. As a single-member LLC, The Right to Bear Farms LLC is controlled

solely by a revocable trust whose sole trustee is Susan Sarandon.

2. Plaintiff Silly Goose Productions LTD is a New York business corporation whose

registered agent is CT Corporation System, located at 28 Liberty Street in New York, New York.

3. Defendant DeGrenier Contracting and Property Management LLC is a

Massachusetts limited liability company whose registered agent and manager is Defendant Chad

DeGrenier.

Case 3:23-cv-30084 Document 1 Filed 08/17/23 Page 1 of 33

Downs

Rachlin

Martin PLLC

4. Defendant Chad DeGrenier lives at 654 River Road in Clarksburg, Massachusetts.

5. Defendant Carin DeGrenier is married to Chad DeGrenier and performs

invoicing, accounting, and record-keeping services for DeGrenier Contracting and Property

Management LLC. Defendant Carin DeGrenier lives at 654 River Road in Clarksburg,

Massachusetts.

Jurisdiction

6. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, this Court has jurisdiction over the claims in this

matter because it is between citizens of different States and the amount in controversy exceeds

$75,000.

7. Additionally, this Court has jurisdiction over those claims in this matter that

pertain to the Construction Management Agreement entered into by Silly Goose Productions

LTD and DeGrenier Contracting and Property Management LLC because that Construction

Management Agreement states that “any lawsuit or proceeding regarding or relating to an

unresolved dispute between the parties, regardless of whether there are other parties to the

dispute, shall be commenced and filed in the state or federal court located in Berkshire County,

in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.”

8. Additionally, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, this Court has supplemental

jurisdiction over those claims in this matter that pertain to the Caretaker Agreement entered into

by The Right to Bear Farms LLC and DeGrenier Contracting and Property Management LLC

because those claims “are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that

they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States

Constitution.”

Case 3:23-cv-30084 Document 1 Filed 08/17/23 Page 2 of 33

Downs

Rachlin

Martin PLLC

Facts

9. In 2018, through The Right to Bear Farms LLC, Ms. Sarandon purchased the

property located at 1040 County Road in Stamford, Vermont (the “Stamford Residence”

property) from Robert Moulton, Jr. Pursuant to that sale, Mr. Moulton conveyed the Stamford

Residence property to The Right to Bear Farms LLC by warranty deed dated June 1, 2018.

10. The Stamford Residence property consists of roughly 45 wooded and meadowed

acres, including a hilltop portion overlooking the Hoosac Range in Western Massachusetts. At

the time that The Right to Bear Farms LLC purchased the Stamford Residence property, that

property was entirely undeveloped except for a small cabin located on it.

11. When she purchased the Stamford Residence property through The Right to Bear

Farms LLC, Ms. Sarandon had a clear vision for the property’s use. Specifically, in light of

increasing global environmental instability, Ms. Sarandon envisioned constructing a single-

family home (the “Stamford Residence”) on the property. Ms. Sarandon envisioned that the

Stamford Residence would serve as a haven for herself, her children, and her grandchildren, and

that it would function as a second home for her family and eventually as a primary home for

herself.

12. To that end, Ms. Sarandon envisioned that the Stamford Residence would not

only have capacity for herself, her family, and occasional visitors, but also would provide the

comforts and dependability of a permanent home. Moreover, it would be sustainable; as Ms.

Sarandon envisioned, the Stamford Residence would ideally be entirely off-the-grid, where she

and her family could grow their own food, utilize solar panels for electricity, utilize water from

the property’s well, and rely solely on geothermal energy for heating and cooling.

Case 3:23-cv-30084 Document 1 Filed 08/17/23 Page 3 of 33

Downs

Rachlin

Martin PLLC

13. In furtherance of this sustainability objective, Ms. Sarandon envisioned that the

Stamford Residence would make substantial use of corten steel (also known as COR-TEN or

weathering steel), including using corten steel for its roof and exterior siding.

14. As she entered retirement and relocated permanently to the Stamford Residence,

Ms. Sarandon envisioned that she would become involved in the local community, where she

already had friends and where she anticipated eventually teaching theater to children at a local

school.

15. In addition to costs associated with purchasing the undeveloped property, clearing

and leveling of the homesite, and pouring of the foundation’s concrete, Ms. Sarandon’s budget

for construction of the Stamford Residence was $2,000,000. To finance that construction, Ms.

Sarandon would have to sell her New York City apartment, where she had lived for roughly

twenty-five years and had raised her three children.

16. In September 2018, Ms. Sarandon retained Kevin Walz of Walzworkinc to design

the Stamford Residence.

17. Upon Mr. Walz’s recommendation, through Silly Goose Productions LTD, Ms.

Sarandon retained Chad DeGrenier of DeGrenier Contracting and Property Management LLC to

serve as construction manager for the Stamford Residence.

18. Prior to Ms. Sarandon’s signing of the Construction Management Agreement, Mr.

DeGrenier represented to Ms. Sarandon that he was qualified to manage the construction of a

home like the Stamford Residence and that he had extensive experience in both remodelling and

constructing single-family homes in the Stamford, Vermont area, including managing the

construction of multiple single-family homes like the Stamford Residence.

Case 3:23-cv-30084 Document 1 Filed 08/17/23 Page 4 of 33

Downs

Rachlin

Martin PLLC

19. Based on these representations, through Silly Goose Productions LTD, Ms.

Sarandon signed a Construction Management Agreement with DeGrenier Contracting and

Property Management LLC on October 16, 2018.

20. Nevertheless, DeGrenier Contracting and Property Management LLC was not

organized as a limited liability company until December 4, 2018.

21. The Construction Management Agreement imposed several construction-related

obligations on Mr. DeGrenier as construction manager, including to (1) on the basis of their

qualifications and ability to perform the requisite work in an efficient manner, select qualified,

independent contractors who would construct or install specific portions of the home after

consultation with and approval from Ms. Sarandon and her staff; (2) manage those contractors to

ensure that their work would be performed in a workmanlike manner and without defects;

(3) advise and make recommendations to Ms. Sarandon and her staff regarding progress on the

construction process; (4) manage any necessary corrections to work performed by contractors;

and (5) ensure that construction of the Stamford Residence would ultimately be fully completed

such that it would be suitable for habitation as a permanent home.

22. The Construction Management Agreement also imposed several invoicing,

accounting, and record-keeping-related obligations on Mr. DeGrenier as construction manager,

including to (1) maintain all accounting records pertaining to work performed; (2) collect and

transmit invoices from contractors to Ms. Sarandon and her staff; (3) ensure the proper payment

of contractors; and (4) upon completion of all work or termination of the Construction

Management Agreement, provide all documentation prepared, collected, or transmitted in the

course of the construction process to Ms. Sarandon and her staff.

Case 3:23-cv-30084 Document 1 Filed 08/17/23 Page 5 of 33

Downs

Rachlin

Martin PLLC

23. Upon information and belief, because of her responsibility for performing

invoicing, accounting, and record-keeping services for DeGrenier Contracting and Property

Management LLC, Carin DeGrenier had responsibility for the above-described invoicing,

accounting, and record-keeping-related obligations.

24. Pursuant to the Construction Management Agreement, Mr. DeGrenier reiterated

his prior representation that he was qualified to manage the construction of a home like the

Stamford Residence by specifically representing that he was “fully experienced and properly

qualified to perform the Services as provided under this Agreement”:

CM represents that it is fully experienced and properly qualified to

perform the Services as provided under this Agreement and that it

is, and will remain for the duration of this Agreement, properly

permitted, licensed, equipped, organized and financed as is

necessary to perform such Services.

Construction Management Agreement, Article III.

25. Pursuant to the Construction Management Agreement, Mr. DeGrenier

acknowledged that Ms. Sarandon and her staff would be relying on his experience, expertise, and

professionalism in his performance of his obligations as construction manager:

CM is hereby given notice that Owner will be relying upon the

accuracy, competence, and completeness of CM’s services.

Construction Management Agreement, Article III.

26. Also upon Mr. Walz’s recommendation, through The Right to Bear Farms LLC,

Ms. Sarandon retained John Carnett of Cubist Engineering LLC to serve as a construction

consultant. Specifically, Mr. Walz recommended Mr. Carnett due to his experience working

with corten steel.

Case 3:23-cv-30084 Document 1 Filed 08/17/23 Page 6 of 33

Downs

Rachlin

Martin PLLC

27. Through The Right to Bear Farms LLC, Ms. Sarandon signed a contract with

Cubist Engineering LLC for Mr. Carnett’s construction consultant work on January 4, 2019.

28. When it became clear that the design work completed by Mr. Walz would greatly

exceed Ms. Sarandon’s $2,000,000 budget for construction of the Stamford Residence, those

designs were entirely abandoned. Instead of proceeding with Mr. Walz’s designs or services,

Mr. Carnett became responsible for designing the Stamford Residence, with general direction

and input from Ms. Sarandon.

29. The designs developed by Mr. Carnett were less complex than those developed by

Mr. Walz. In general terms, they envisioned the Stamford Residence as a rectangular single-

story main portion with an additional three-story tower portion. The main portion would consist

of a great room surrounded by sliding glass doors—which would serve as the foyer, kitchen,

dining room, and living area—as well as a children’s bunkroom, two guest bedrooms, and a

primary bedroom, all connected to the great room by a hallway running along the side of the

main portion. The tower portion would consist of a first floor mechanical and laundry room, a

second floor screening room, and a third floor family room surrounded by windows and offering

views of the surrounding landscape.

30. Consistent with Mr. Carnett’s experience working with corten steel and Ms.

Sarandon’s reason for retaining him as a construction consultant, the designs developed by Mr.

Carnett made substantial use of corten steel, including using corten steel for the Stamford

Residence’s roof and exterior siding.

Case 3:23-cv-30084 Document 1 Filed 08/17/23 Page 7 of 33

Downs

Rachlin

Martin PLLC

31. Following completion of the designs for the Stamford Residence, as well as

clearing and leveling of the homesite, Mr. DeGrenier managed work on the home beginning in or

around October 2019.

32. To stay informed about the construction process, throughout that process, Ms.

Sarandon and her staff would regularly be in communication with Mr. DeGrenier by phone, text

message, and email.

33. Additionally, Ms. Sarandon and her staff would regularly visit the Stamford

Residence property every few months to observe progress on the construction process, increasing

their visits as construction neared completion.

34. In or around October 2019, Mr. DeGrenier managed preliminary work on the

home’s foundation.

35. Following delays occasioned by the coronavirus pandemic, in or around October

2020, Mr. DeGrenier managed the pouring of the foundation’s concrete.

36. Through 2021 and 2022, Mr. DeGrenier continued to manage construction of the

Stamford Residence.

37. During this period, Mr. Carnett continued to provide construction consulting

services, including regarding his designs for the Stamford Residence. Additionally, Mr. Carnett

did construction and installation work on specific portions of the home.

38. In 2021, Mr. DeGrenier recommended that the corten steel envisioned for the

Stamford Residence’s roof be replaced with a wooden structure with asphalt shingles.

39. According to Mr. DeGrenier, he recommended this change to allow for the

placement of solar panels on the roof rather than in a meadow on the property.

Case 3:23-cv-30084 Document 1 Filed 08/17/23 Page 8 of 33

Downs

Rachlin

Martin PLLC

40. On this basis—and relying on Mr. DeGrenier’s experience, expertise, and

professionalism, as contemplated by the Construction Management Agreement—Ms. Sarandon

accepted his recommendation and approved the design change.

41. Shortly after this design change, Mr. DeGrenier additionally recommended that

the corten steel envisioned for the Stamford Residence’s exterior siding be replaced with wood

paneling.

42. According to Mr. DeGrenier, he recommended this change solely to reduce

construction cost.

43. On this basis—and again relying on Mr. DeGrenier’s experience, expertise, and

professionalism, as contemplated by the Construction Management Agreement—Ms. Sarandon

accepted his recommendation and approved the design change.

44. As a result of these two design changes, no corten steel would be used in the

construction of the Stamford Residence.

45. Because his experience working with corten steel was no longer necessary and

because his new ideas for construction of the home did not align with Ms. Sarandon’s vision, in

January 2022, Mr. Carnett ceased working on the Stamford Residence.

46. Throughout the construction process, Mr. and Mrs. DeGrenier were inconsistent

in their invoicing, accounting, and record-keeping practices. Frequently, rather transmitting

original invoices from contractors to Ms. Sarandon and her staff, they developed and transmitted

invoices on DeGrenier Contracting and Property Management LLC’s own letterhead, ostensibly

reflecting the work performed and the cost for that work, but without any means for Ms.

Sarandon and her staff to verify whether that work had actually been performed, whether

Case 3:23-cv-30084 Document 1 Filed 08/17/23 Page 9 of 33

Downs

Rachlin

Martin PLLC

DeGrenier Contracting and Property Management LLC’s invoices reflected the actual cost for

that work, or whether the selected contractors were qualified to perform such work.

47. These invoicing inconsistencies increased during the latter stages of the

construction process.

48. Upon information and belief, in summer 2022, without permission, Mr.

DeGrenier took paint and cypress wood paneling from the Stamford Residence for use at his or

his mother’s house.

49. As substantial construction of the Stamford Residence wrapped up in summer

2022, with Mr. DeGrenier’s approval, Ms. Sarandon began moving her furniture, artwork, and

personal effects to the home in order to prepare it for use as second home for her family, and

eventually as a primary home for herself.

50. Around the same time, Mr. DeGrenier recommended that, after completion of that

construction, he continue to work at the property as its caretaker.

51. To that end, in summer 2022, Mr. DeGrenier transmitted a proposed Caretaker

Agreement to Ms. Sarandon’s staff.

52. That proposed Caretaker Agreement listed numerous items that did not even exist

at the Stamford Residence property: among other items, the property contained no underbrush

requiring clearing and no greenhouse. Accordingly, Ms. Sarandon declined the Caretaker

Agreement.

53. Despite Ms. Sarandon declining the Caretaker Agreement, in October 2022, her

staff nevertheless signed that agreement on her behalf.

Case 3:23-cv-30084 Document 1 Filed 08/17/23 Page 10 of 33

Downs

Rachlin

Martin PLLC

54. Pursuant to the Caretaker Agreement, Mr. DeGrenier was eventually paid

$125,000 as an initial down payment for work, as well as $7,142.85 per month for two months of

caretaking work at the property.

55. Roughly one month after Ms. Sarandon’s staff signed the Caretaker Agreement on

her behalf, in November 2022, Ms. Sarandon and her family spent Thanksgiving at the Stamford

Residence. During that visit, they observed a number of issues with construction completion and

quality.

56. Despite Ms. Sarandon and her staff’s practice of maintaining regular

communication with Mr. DeGrenier by phone, text message, and email, as well as of regularly

visiting the Stamford Residence property throughout the construction process, the issues with

construction completion and quality were not observable until Ms. Sarandon moved into the

home.

57. Ms. Sarandon immediately brought these issues to Mr. DeGrenier’s attention, but

he did not correct them sufficiently or properly and did not engage proper professionals to do so.

Instead, he largely downplayed the issues and falsely stated that they were normal and to be

expected, or otherwise did not require completion or correction.

58. Additionally, in response to the issues at the home, Ms. Sarandon requested that

Mr. DeGrenier compile and transmit a punch list of outstanding items that required completion

or correction, but he did not compile or transmit that punch list.

59. In January 2023, Ms. Sarandon and her friends again spent considerable time at

the Stamford Residence. During that visit, they observed even more issues with construction

completion and quality.

Case 3:23-cv-30084 Document 1 Filed 08/17/23 Page 11 of 33

Downs

Rachlin

Martin PLLC

60. Ms. Sarandon again immediately brought these issues to Mr. DeGrenier’s

attention, but he again did not correct them sufficiently or properly and did not engage proper

professionals to do so. Instead, he again largely downplayed the issues and falsely stated that

they were normal and to be expected, or otherwise did not require completion or correction.

61. Additionally, Ms. Sarandon again requested that Mr. DeGrenier compile and

transmit a punch list of outstanding items that required completion or correction, but he again did

not compile or transmit that punch list.

62. Through the late 2022 period, Mr. DeGrenier visited the Stamford Residence

property several times but without clarifying whether he was doing so pursuant to the

Construction Management Agreement or to the Caretaker Agreement and without sufficiently or

properly correcting the issues with construction completion and quality.

63. Moreover, Mr. DeGrenier frequently charged Ms. Sarandon $100 per visit,

without explaining what work—if any—he performed during those visits.

64. In response to the issues at the home and Mr. DeGrenier’s failure to correct them

sufficiently or properly, in February 2023, Ms. Sarandon retained engineers to conduct an

engineering investigative report.

65. Both that engineering investigative report and further observations by Ms.

Sarandon, her staff, and independent contractors have revealed numerous issues at the home that

require completion or correction, including:

Exterior

(1) Buckled siding in multiple portions of the exterior.

(2) Lack of furring strips or air cavity between wood paneling

and wall sheathing.

Case 3:23-cv-30084 Document 1 Filed 08/17/23 Page 12 of 33

Downs

Rachlin

Martin PLLC

(3) Cracked trim around at least one window.

(4) Lack of flashing over several exterior windows.

(5) Improperly executed joints in trim and siding.

(6) Gaps in siding.

(7) Poor caulking around exterior doors.

(8) Lack of trim beneath exterior windows and exterior door

thresholds.

(9) Over-nailed exterior wood paneling, including nailing done

after painting.

(10) Poorly finished soffit trim above the left exterior patio.

(11) Cracked foundation around porch supports.

(12) Exposed outdoor pipes that have not been finished but

instead have been covered with a bag and cups from

McDonalds.

(13) Mold developing on the exterior overhang by the porch.

(14) Unfinished base portions of gutters that are either entirely

exposed or covered with a rock.

Primary Bedroom

(15) Unfinished ceiling at primary bedroom.

(16) Loose trim at exterior windows, including at the primary

bedroom window.

(17) Unfinished trim beneath sill at the primary bedroom

window.

(18) Gaps in trim at the bedroom ceiling.

(19) Poorly finished ceiling around the closet light.

Case 3:23-cv-30084 Document 1 Filed 08/17/23 Page 13 of 33

Downs

Rachlin

Martin PLLC

(20) Gaps at exterior doors.

Great Room

(21) Front door that does not open all the way due to getting

stuck on concrete floor.

(22) Unfinished ceiling and cupped ceiling boards.

(23) Loose, damaged, and marked ceiling boards in the living

room.

(24) Lack of priming or paint on the steel beams used in the

living room.

Roof and Insulation

(25) Numerous issues with the roof, including an improperly

supported ridge beam, separation of studs beneath the ridge

beam, and separation of laminated veneer lumber at the

ridge beam.

(26) Poor, insufficient, improperly, or inconsistently installed

insulation throughout the home, including uninsulated

portions of roof viewable from the attic, resulting in

improper functioning and suitability of the geothermal

energy system and solar panels and necessitating the

purchase of liquid propane to maintain proper heating in

the home.

(27) Missing insulation, such as spray foam, around the area of

the roof through which the solar panels were installed,

resulting in holes or gaps leading directly from the attic to

the exterior.

(28) Ice damming on multiple portions of the roof, indicating

poor and/or inconsistent roof insulation.

(29) Consistently high temperature in the home, indicating

poorly insulated or vented roof.

(30) Shingles that are warping and buckling, either due to

unworkmanlike installation, lack of appropriateness for a

home of this nature, or a combination thereof.

Case 3:23-cv-30084 Document 1 Filed 08/17/23 Page 14 of 33

Downs

Rachlin

Martin PLLC

(31) Failure to properly overhang shingles, particularly on roof

of tower portion.

Tower

(32) Exterior door to the mechanical and laundry room that does

not open or close properly.

(33) Loose, gapped, buckling, and cupped wall finishes in the

tower portion of the home.

(34) Missing, poorly finished, gapped, or improperly installed

trim in the tower, including trim that blocks the awning

feature.

(35) Loose ceiling boards in the tower.

Miscellaneous

(36) Sheetrock extending into the shower area in the bunkroom

bathroom.

(37) Cracking in sheetrock in the living room.

(38) Unpainted interior doors.

(39) Unfinished and exposed—and therefore potentially

unsafe—electrical wiring in multiple portions of the home.

(40) Electrical panel without labeling, unfinished circuits,

incorrect and unsafe breakers, and open wiring left

unfinished beneath the panel.

(41) No gate to the property, even though Ms. Sarandon paid for

one.

(42) Insufficient and inadequate air conditioning system,

causing heat and humidity problems.

(43) Insufficient reliance on geothermal energy for heating and

cooling.

Case 3:23-cv-30084 Document 1 Filed 08/17/23 Page 15 of 33

Downs

Rachlin

Martin PLLC

(44) Sliding doors throughout the home requiring far more force

to open than should be necessary.

(45) Screen to the patio area sliding doors that does not close all

the way.

(46) Patio sliding doors that have a gap between them when

closed.

(47) Poorly secured and inconsistently installed sliding door

handles.

66. Pursuant to the Construction Management Agreement, it was Mr. DeGrenier’s

responsibility to ensure that these items were constructed or installed in a workmanlike manner.

67. Upon information and belief, many of these construction defects are due to Mr.

DeGrenier’s consistent failure to select and manage qualified, independent contractors, and his

practice of selecting friends and family members to construct or install specific portions of the

home, as well as due to his failure to properly manage those contractors that he did select.

68. Also upon information and belief, Mr. DeGrenier made many recommendations

not on the basis of making decisions in accordance with Ms. Sarandon’s vision for the Stamford

Residence but instead to suit the abilities of his lesser-qualified friends and family members or

because of his lack of qualifications to manage the construction of a home like the Stamford

Residence.

69. Such recommendations included, but were not limited to, Mr. DeGrenier’s

recommendations to replace the corten steel envisioned for the Stamford Residence’s roof with a

wooden structure with asphalt shingles and to replace the corten steel envisioned for the home’s

exterior siding with wood paneling.

Case 3:23-cv-30084 Document 1 Filed 08/17/23 Page 16 of 33

Downs

Rachlin

Martin PLLC

70. Also upon information and belief, other of the construction defects are due to Mr.

DeGrenier’s failure to use proper materials in the construction of the Stamford Residence.

71. At roughly the same time that these construction defects became apparent in early

2023, inconsistencies in Mr. and Mrs. DeGrenier’s invoicing, accounting, and record-keeping

practices also became apparent.

72. More specifically, on November 10, 2022, Ms. Sarandon sent Mr. and Mrs.

DeGrenier an advance of $150,000 for the limited purpose of pond excavation. Since Mr. and

Mrs. DeGrenier’s receipt of that advance, they have paid out $75,000 to Norm D. Excavating,

which should leave $75,000 remaining. However, according to Norm D. Excavating, despite its

requests to be paid for additional pond excavation work, Mr. and Mrs. DeGrenier claim that there

are insufficient funds. Moreover, in their invoices to Ms. Sarandon and her staff, it appears that

Mr. and Mrs. DeGrenier have labelled the advance as being for just $100,000.

73. Additionally, it eventually became apparent that Mr. and Mrs. DeGrenier’s

practice of developing and transmitting invoices on DeGrenier Contracting and Property

Management LLC’s own letterhead was no longer accurately reflecting the work performed by

contractors and the cost for that work.

74. In particular, in January 2023, Mr. and Mrs. DeGrenier transmitted an invoice to

Ms. Sarandon and her staff for tree removal work performed by Norm D. Excavating and tree

planting work performed by James Sutton. When Ms. Sarandon and her staff followed up

directly with those contractors, they informed Ms. Sarandon and her staff that the cost of their

work was significantly less than reflected in the invoice prepared by Mr. and Mrs. DeGrenier.

Case 3:23-cv-30084 Document 1 Filed 08/17/23 Page 17 of 33

Downs

Rachlin

Martin PLLC

75. Vagueness and lack of specificity in other invoices developed and transmitted by

Mr. and Mrs. DeGrenier indicate that similar discrepancies may also exist between the costs

charged by Mr. and Mrs. DeGrenier and the actual costs charged by contractors.

76. For many of the contractors who have contributed to work at the Stamford

Residence, Mr. and Mrs. DeGrenier claimed to have paid them, but without providing checks or

invoices for those payments and without obtaining approval from Ms. Sarandon or her staff

beforehand.

77. Accordingly, upon information and belief, throughout the construction process,

Mr. and Mrs. DeGrenier may have been inflating invoices to secure higher payments to

themselves, without then sufficiently or properly passing necessary payments on to contractors,

and may have been charging Ms. Sarandon for items that were never installed or constructed at

the Stamford Residence.

78. In light of these invoicing, accounting, and record-keeping concerns, pursuant to

the Construction Management Agreement, Ms. Sarandon has repeatedly requested invoices for

labor, materials, and services; accounting of all time and materials that Mr. DeGrenier charged;

all written proposals, estimates, proposed change orders, and approved change orders that he

received; all other documentation that he relied on in preparing invoices; all written warranties,

manuals, technical specifications and bulletins for all of the appliances and mechanical and

electrical components incorporated into the home; the Certification of Compliance with the

Vermont Residential Building Energy Standards; and all as-built drawings, sketches, plans, and

other documents evidencing how the home was actually constructed.

Case 3:23-cv-30084 Document 1 Filed 08/17/23 Page 18 of 33

Downs

Rachlin

Martin PLLC

79. Such documents have been requested to determine what materials were used in

the construction or installation of specific portions of the home, as well as to verify whether

work had actually been performed, whether the invoices transmitted to Ms. Sarandon reflected

the actual cost for that work, and whether the selected contractors were qualified to perform such

work.

80. Mr. and Mrs. DeGrenier have repeatedly failed to transmit the requested

documents to Ms. Sarandon.

81. Accordingly, Mr. DeGrenier’s work at the Stamford Residence pursuant to the

Construction Management Agreement is faulty for two primary reasons: (1) construction defects

throughout the home, and (2) improper invoicing, accounting, and record-keeping practices.

82. The construction defects at the Stamford Residence are unaesthetic, cause

inconvenience and physical discomfort, degrade residents’ and visitors’ enjoyment of the home,

will lead to structural problems at the Stamford Residence, and in many cases raise potential

safety concerns for occupants.

83. Moreover, given that so much of the home was constructed in an unworkmanlike

manner or otherwise not to the requested specifications, it is highly likely that other conditions—

including perhaps even more concerning conditions—will come to light.

84. Correction of the extensive problems at the Stamford Residence will require

significant expenditures, as many items or portions of the home will have to be removed and

reinstalled or reconstructed entirely from scratch. Ms. Sarandon will have to remove her

furniture, artwork, and personal effects, and she will not be able to use the home for an extended

period of time.

Case 3:23-cv-30084 Document 1 Filed 08/17/23 Page 19 of 33

Downs

Rachlin

Martin PLLC

85. Since observing the issues with construction completion and quality, Ms.

Sarandon has learned that, prior to her signing of the Construction Management Agreement, Mr.

DeGrenier misrepresented to her that he was qualified to manage the construction of a home like

the Stamford Residence. Upon information and belief, contrary to his representations to Ms.

Sarandon, he does not have extensive experience in managing the construction of multiple

single-family homes like the Stamford Residence.

86. Meanwhile, Mr. DeGrenier’s failure to provide documentation and a punch list,

explain numerous expenses, or account for funds that were advanced to him make it impossible

for Ms. Sarandon and her staff to fully determine the entire scope of work performed, whether

contractors or vendors were properly retained or paid, or whether payments that were made were

reasonable or instead inflated.

87. Despite Ms. Sarandon and her staff raising these issues with Mr. DeGrenier

numerous times throughout late 2022 and early 2023, Mr. DeGrenier has consistently ignored

her concerns regarding construction defects throughout the home and improper invoicing,

accounting, and record-keeping practices.

88. Additionally, Mr. DeGrenier has failed to engage in the dispute resolution

provisions of the Construction Management Agreement.

89. Pursuant to those dispute resolution provisions, counsel for Plaintiffs requested a

meeting with Mr. DeGrenier by April 25, 2023, to engage in a good-faith settlement attempt

aimed at resolving all concerns with the Stamford Residence. Without explanation, Mr.

DeGrenier did not engage in those settlement attempts and therefore has waived those dispute

resolution provisions.

Case 3:23-cv-30084 Document 1 Filed 08/17/23 Page 20 of 33

Downs

Rachlin

Martin PLLC

90. On May 12, 2023, pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 93A,

Section 9, counsel for Plaintiffs sent a demand letter to DeGrenier Contracting and Property

Management LLC describing the above-described issues. Mr. DeGrenier has failed to provide

an offer of settlement, to correct the construction defects, or to correct his and Mrs. DeGrenier’s

improper invoicing, accounting, and record-keeping practices.

91. Additionally, Mr. DeGrenier’s work at the Stamford Residence pursuant to the

Caretaker Agreement is faulty. Upon information and belief, despite receiving nearly $140,000

pursuant to the Caretaker Agreement, Mr. DeGrenier has performed essentially no work pursuant

to that agreement.

92. Instead, upon information and belief, Mr. DeGrenier used roughly $91,000 of the

money received pursuant to the Caretaker Agreement to purchase a snowblower and register it in

his name.

93. After repeated questioning about his work—or lack thereof—pursuant to the

Caretaker Agreement, in April 2023, Mr. DeGrenier rescinded that agreement.

94. Nevertheless, despite rescinding that agreement, Mr. DeGrenier has failed to

explain what work—if any—he performed pursuant to the Caretaker Agreement or to return the

amounts given to him pursuant to that agreement.

Count I: Breach of Contract – Construction Management Agreement

95. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each allegation from the preceding paragraphs as if

fully stated herein.

Case 3:23-cv-30084 Document 1 Filed 08/17/23 Page 21 of 33

Downs

Rachlin

Martin PLLC

96. Pursuant to the Construction Management Agreement, Defendants had numerous

construction-related obligations and numerous invoicing, accounting, and record-keeping-related

obligations concerning the Stamford Residence.

97. As previously described, Defendants failed to (1) on the basis of their