Wisconsin homeowner accuses contractor of leaving remodeling job unfinished

Listen to this article

A southeastern Wisconsin homeowner is suing a local contractor for unfinished renovation work and the sisters who sold her a home in Kenosha County last year.

Amy Rose, who recently bought a house in Trevor, is suing Racine-based ZP Construction and company owner Zachary Petersen for allegedly accepting thousands of dollars and failing to complete promised renovation work, according to a civil complaint filed in the Kenosha County Circuit Court.

Rose made payments totaling $236,100 to ZP Construction for labor and materials, according to the complaint. The complaint alleges the project that started in the basement of the home Rose bought expanded to work on the roof, windows and upstairs and left many repairs unfinished.

“ZP has been in business for 11 years and this is the first complaint they’ve ever had. They’re denying the claims and the relationship was far more involved than it’s being portrayed as,” said Christopher Conrad, an attorney at DeMark, Kolbe, & Brodek, S.C representing Petersen and ZP Construction.

The sellers, two sisters who were co-successors of a property trust, were also named defendants in the lawsuit. According to the complaint, they agreed to sell Rose the property in January 2025 without disclosing defective conditions in the house. In November 2024, Rose backed out of buying the property and asked the sellers to complete repairs before entering into a purchase agreement in January 2025.
In April, an attorney representing the sellers filed a court document denying all claims against them.

Rose is seeking the costs of placing the property, repair costs, attorney fees and more from the sellers. In the answer filed in April, the defendants said that Rose bought the property at her own risk with defects that were known or discovered during inspections. Rose said the house was sold to her as renovated and that the sellers introduced her to the contractor.

The sellers’ attorney did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Renovation project racks up thousands of dollars in costs

According to the complaint, Petersen reached out to Rose in January 2025 and offered his services as the property was scheduled to close that month, the complaint showed. Rose, who was living outside Wisconsin, wanted to remodel the basement as a living space for her college-aged children during summer months.

Rose hired Petersen to remodel the basement of the home, and she paid the down payment and estimate. However, when Petersen started construction downstairs, he found electrical problems that needed further work.

According to the complaint, Rose agreed to expand the scope of the project based on Petersen’s representations of the condition of the property. The project eventually expanded into substantial renovation and remodeling work that included a full roof replacement, window installation and remodeling of the upstairs bathroom, master bedroom and kitchen.

Through January and May, Rose said she paid thousands of dollars to ZP Construction through estimates and invoices.

• On Jan. 17, 2025, Rose paid the defendant a down payment of $3,000 required by an estimate.
• Five days later, she paid $23,050 for remainder of the previous estimate and for future work.
• By April 4, 2025, Rose paid $116,100 to ZP Construction, according to the complaint.
• On May 15 and May 23, 2025, Rose paid $80,000 and $40,000 to ZP Construction, bringing her total payments for labor and materials to $236,100.

The complaint alleges ZP Construction had not prepared written estimates, invoices or contracts specifying the scope and timing of future work in the Jan. 22 estimate.

According to the complaint, Petersen in May 2025 presented Rose with a document titled “Amy Rose Home Remodel” dated Feb. 4, 2025. The complaint described this as a “backdated estimate,” for a proposed scope of work and pricing for the expanded remodel project months after the fact.

Project plug pulled after accused work without permit

Rose alleged that construction progress lagged and she had already paid for items listed on the February document. She asked Petersen for documentation and the contractor said the work she paid for was completed.

In May 2025, Rose said she found work that was defective, incomplete or not performed at all. In June, Rose shut down the project after finding out from a building inspector that the contractor did work without paying for a building permit.

The complaint alleges Rose paid an estimated $118,028 for work that was not completed or needed additional repairs. In one invoice, she paid $170,000 where work totaled only $99,500 and $38,800 in another invoice where work totaled only $18,250, according to the complaint.

The complaint also alleges the contractor did not comply with Wisconsin Home Improvement Practices Act requirements to secure permits before starting construction, and for giving timely notice for delay beyond June 15, 2025, the project deadline.

Rose is seeking $118,028 in damages in the breach of contract claim, pre-judgement interest and double damages under Wisconsin’s consumer protection law, attorney fees and other costs.