Lori D Warriner Loretta A Warriner CONTRACTORS BEWARE exeter New Hampshire

First of all the check that homeowner was convicted of crime is not the bounced check. It is the forged check of which homeowner (lori d) was trying to defraud me out of thousands of dollars. SHE was CONVICTED and pleaded guilty. by a court of law of which has all access to my reputation. Ripoff report states make sure statements are true or be prepared to get sued.

Homeowner should stick to repairing her own reputation. And the facts of the case. She is the one with the  criminal record.

Bad mouthing me and bringing my wifes heath into this is not too proffesional.    

 I think all you'll need to do is check out my professional reputation (all positives) and then check out his reputation - all negatives.  He has been sued and in court over 23 times and has declared bankruptcy multiple times.  He's been convicted in assault cases and done time in jail.  I think that about covers it.  yes, my check bounced and then I gave him cash to cover it.  I'm pretty sure that doesn't make me a criminal.  lol.

Fortunately we found a good roofing contractor that finished the job in 4 days (vs bobo's 4 month long oddessy) and documented all the problems with photographs.  All work bobo did was removed because it was done wrong. Perforating the membrane pretty much voids a warrantee, as does improperly affixing the shingles to the roof.   

And I wouldn't waste my vomit on that pathetic creature.  Its good to know that he and his wife are on social security disability... at least he isn't screwing up other peoples houses!

Please don't read much into this report as for the most part it's bogus and there are many facts which appear to have been deliberately omitted to slant the situation as opposed to what actually occurred.  I would suggest that if any party is guilty of anything in this matter, it would be the contractor whom authorized Ms. Warriner to sign off on the check that was issued in both parties names as it was only done so funds could be promptly provided to the contractor for work to be done (which turned out to be of poor craftsmanship thus requiring a competent contractor at a much additional expense to Ms. Warriner).  Legally this insurance carrier should have issued their check in the name of the mortgage holder and mortgagee.  In any event there is much more to this matter that has not been revealed by the contractor whom posted this report and the only thing that Ms. Warriner was guilty of was signing off on the issued check, with the confirmed authorization of the contactor and then providing a majority of those funds while holding the remainder to be forwarded upon satisfactorily completing the repairs to her building/multiple unit dwelling in Exeter, NH.