Anthony Winkelman

 

 

Preface

 

Overview

On June 10, 2022, Steve Sokolowski contacted Anthony Winkelman to replace a deck and windows at a home in Port Matilda, Pennsylvania. The house is owned by Steve and occupied by his mother, Jean Sokolowski. Winkelman convinced Jean to withdrawal $3,000 in cash to purchase materials, even though he did not provide a list of materials to be purchased. On June 14, Steve informed Winkelman that he had decided to exercise his 3-day right to rescind the contract under Pennsylvania law. Winkelman did not perform any work, did not deliver any materials, did not provide a refund on the deposit, and has disappeared, failing to respond to contact by Jean, Steve, and Angi, a contracting website.

 

The Deck

A former employee of Steve's moved to the Port Matilda residence in August 2017. After she resigned to marry and relocate, Jean took over her lease and moved to the house on December 31, 2019, when she filed for divorce from Henry Sokolowski. An overview of that case is listed at here. On June 2, 2022, Steve purchased the property from the landlord.

The back deck was deteriorating beyond repair, as shown in the images below (click to view 108MP master images:)

Rather than solely replacing the deck as-is, Jean decided to build a better deck, covered by a roof and enclosed with screens and windows. However, likely due to the poor economy that created the massive labor shortage, none of the approximately 20 contractors Steve contacted on Angi or elsewhere returned Steve's calls.

 

Angi

Angi (https://angi.com) is a home improvement contracting website, which allows buyers and sellers of home improvement services to connect and bid jobs. A subset of Angi's contractors are "certified." On Angi's "frequently asked questions" page, the following section describes some of the requirements of "Pro Certification and Screening (these are verbatim quotes:)"

The business’s owner, principal, or relevant manager must also uphold all applicable state and local licenses and pass a criminal background check every two years.

We perform a background check before allowing a business into our Angi Certified network and any time concerns are brought to our attention.

The owner, principal, or relevant manager of every Angi Certified business (with the exception of Corporate Accounts, see below*) must pass a criminal background check.

When a business has passed an Angi background check and screening, they will display a special designation next to their listing (e.g., an “Angi Certified” or “Approved Business” badge, or something similar). Any business that doesn’t display one of these badges hasn’t passed a background check.

Any business that fails a background check is barred from advertising anywhere on the Angi site. They will not appear in general search results, and they will also have a “Background Check Failure” notification on their listing if located by a direct company name search in the Angi Directory.

When a company is added to Angi, we ask them whether they’re appropriately licensed, registered, bonded and/or insured.

The source document is located here, but it may have been modified since the time of the incident, which is when the text above was binding.

Winkelman advertised using Angi's services. A checkmark was posted next to the Winks Construction listing to indicate the Winks Construction business had been certified.

Note that while Angi does bear some responsibility for this incident, Angi acted honorably in resolving it and came to a settlement with Steve. Therefore, this document should not be taken as a negative review of Angi; on the contrary, there is no evidence of repeated issues at Anti, Anthony Winkelman is entirely at fault, and Angi made a single mistake out of the many thousands of contractors they review.

 

The Right of Recission

In Pennsylvania, multiple statues protect consumers with a "right to rescind." These rights are summarized on government websites. One rule specifically covers health clubs, where customers may cancel a contract within the first three days for a full refund, regardless of any text in the contract that prohibits cancellation.

Of particular importance to this incident, contracts of any type worth more than $25 entered into at the home may be cancelled within three business days. Another statute that overlaps in this instance provides for the right to rescind home improvement contracts, even if they were not entered into at the buyer's residence. In all cases, these statues do not require any reason to be provided for the cancellation.

 

Timeline

The following sections present events relevant to the deck incident in chronological order.

 

Before 2011: Assault

Sometime before October 31, 2011, Winkelman pleaded guilty to a charge of simple assault. On February 13, 2012, a court sentenced Winkelman to 20 days to 23 months in prison. What happened in the assault case and whether Winkelman actually served his jail term for this charge is unclear from currently available public records.

 

November 2012: Violent robbery

According to The Express, in November 2012, Winkelman committed a strong-arm robbery against Tina M. Bailey, while Bailey was walking home from a store. Winkelman's accomplice, juvenile "Sammy Seid," sprayed a liquid on Bailey, while Winkelman punched Bailey twice in the head. Bailey's nose was broken in the incident and she suffered severe lacerations. Winkelman stole Bailey's purse, which contained bank cards, $120 in cash, and a medical prescription. When Winkelman was interviewed, he was found to be in possession of the drug suboxine. A more detailed review of this incident is available at the original article.

Winkelman pled guilty to robbery, aggravated assault, and theft by unlawful taking. In exchange for the plea additional charges of receiving stolen property, simple assault, disorderly conduct, possession of a controlled substance, and harassment were dropped. The total prison time ordered for these felony convictions was between 4.5 and 20 years.

Winkelman appealed part of his conviction (see full document). The appeal was dismissed without prejudice. While the appeal may have been refiled, no publicly available court documents were able to be located indicating that Winkelman appealed again. Winkelman was also sentended to three years of probation for theft, which was to begin after he was released from prison.

 

June 9, 10 and 22, 2022: Business registrations

On June 9, 2022, Winkelman filed a "home improvement contractor" license registration with the Pennsylvania Attorney General's office. He was assigned license number PA174353. The business address for the company is listed as 125 10th Street, in Renovo, Pennsylvania. This registration can be verified by searching for the license number at the Pennsylvania Attorney General website.

On the application form (click to view), Winkelman checked the box to answer yes to the question "Has the above named individual ever been convicted or pled guilty of theft?" This information can be verified by calling the Attorney General's office at 1-888-520-6680 and asking the representative whether the box was checked on that license number's application form.

Winkelman registered Winks Construction as a business on Angi. Because Angi does not allow unlicensed businesses to register, it can be inferred that Winkelman registered at Angi no earlier than June 9 or June 10. An Angi representative indeed stated that Winks Construction had recently registered, although the representative did not disclose the exact date for the registration.

On June 22, 2022, a corporate entity named "Wink's Construction LLC" was registered in the state of Pennsylvania (source here,) with entity number 7551594. The corporation's business address is hidden, providing the address of a registration company, "United States Corporation Agents." The corporate officers are not listed, so it is unclear if Winkelman registered this limited liability company. If this business is actually owned by Winkelman, it does not shield him from personal liability in running a sole proprietorship because the registration was granted after the incidents in this document.

 

June 10, 2022: First contact

Earlier in June, Steve Sokolowski contacted approximately 20 contractors in regards to repairing the deck. Five of these contractors were listed on Angi; Steve had contacted the Angi contractors on June 9. All of the contractors did not respond to the contacts or declined the work.

On June 10, 2022, Steve received an E-Mail advertisement at around 8:30am through Angi and responded within five minutes. At around 10:00am that morning, Winkelman responded and scheduled an appointment at the house for an estimate on the following day at 10:00am.

 

June 11, 2022: Survey

At 9:55am on June 11, Winkelman arrived at the property and greeted Steve, who was painting the garage. When asked about what it would take to have someone else finish the garage work that Steve was doing, Winkelman stated that he could have workers there the following day.

Winkelman walked to the back of the house and discussed the condition of the deck with Jean. Winkelman was left alone for approximately 10 minutes to take measurements. When Winkelman returned to the front of the house, he pointed out that the deck was not level, which in late June was agreed to by one other contractor but disputed by a third contractor.

Winkelman stated something to the effect that he was earning at least one million dollars per year, and that he was working with two crews. When later asked to clarify what he meant by that Statement, on June 14 Winkelman stated that he had run estimates that he would earn approximately one million dollars per year, and that he has been working with two crews in his previous position as a contractor. Winkelman showed some photos of the work that the crews had performed on his phone. One photo was of an electrical box on the exterior of a building with green siding. Winkelman stated that he would not be doing the work himself, but promised to be onsite frequently to supervise his crews. He stated that labor was "cheap," which caused Steve to become surprised, but Steve didn't say anything at the time. Winkelman stated that he lived in Renovo but was relocating to State College soon to work on his business. Jean talked with Winkelman about her experiences living in a bigger city, as State College is a much bigger city than Winkelman's current location in Renovo.

Winkelman stated that he performed a variety of contracting work; the number of types of work that Winkelman performed was greater than any other contractor who Steve had contacted. Winkelman offered to replace the house's windows, and walked around the property to count the windows. He was nonspecific about the type of deck that would be built; however, he did show some images of potential decks and promised to build something similar to one image that Jean liked. Steve confirmed to Winkelman, and Winkelman agreed, that the deck would have full windows and would not be built with drywall.

 

June 11, 2022: Contract

During the survey, Winkelman stated that he would create a contract with the terms of what was being discussed. He implied that the contract would be detailed and Steve understood that standard legal terminology and a description of the job would be included.

After the survey had been completed, Winkelman called someone offsite and talked on the phone for several minutes. Meanwhile, Steve and Jean discussed Winkelman's proposal. They agreed that Winkelman was knowledgable about construction techniques and that the price he eventually quoted, $22,500, was reasonable. They agreed that, given the state of the economy, the only way to actually have the deck constructed would be come to an initial agreement while the contractor was onsite; otherwise, the contractor was likely to take other jobs or simply not return at all.

Winkelman went to his large blue pickup truck and used a "guest check" like carbon paper pad to write a receipt, which he asked Steve to sign. Steve signed the below receipt, which listed a high-level overview of the materials to be purchased (click to enlarge):

Winkelman did not state at any time that the receipt was the final contract for the job. Given that this receipt does not confirm to Pennsylvania contracting regulations, such as notifying the signer of the 3-day right of refusal, Steve expected that a detailed contract would arrive later in the weekend. Jean provided a check postdated to Monday, June 13 for $16,500, the deposit required to purchase the materials.

The check was payable to Anthony Winkelman; Winkelman stated that he was unable to obtain a bank account for his business. Steve decided not to question Winkelman on this issue because he himself had had several personal and business accounts terminated by banks due to undisclosed reasons or outright false information (see blog post) and refused to allow banks to dictate how people do business.

Winkelman left the property around 11:00am, and no further activity related to the deck project occurred that day.

 

June 12, 2022: Design

Winkelman did not communicate with either Steve or Jean until after 2:00pm on June 12. Steve told Jean at around that time to contact Winkelman and ask for the detailed contract and for a bill of materials, on the grounds that Winkelman should not be using the money to purchase any materials without a list of what he was purchasing. Jean was concerned in particular that the windows that Winkelman might buy would not be the exact specifications she wanted.

Jean told Steve that Winkelman had communicated with her through text messages or calls during that Sunday afternoon about the specific types of materials that were to be purchased. However, when asked on July 13, Jean stated that she no longer recalled whether she had had conversations about the design of the deck on June 12. Despite Jean's lack of recollection, Steve definitively heard Jean tell him that she was now confident enough to pay Winkelman his deposit despite a bill of materials not having been sent. She told Steve that Winkelman had spoken to her while driving in his truck; eventually he stopped driving and later that afternoon either provided images or discussed by voice the specific window types that were to be used.

 

June 13, 2022: The bank incident

Note: the following statements are provided by Jean, as Steve was not present. Steve is unable to verify what happened during this incident to the same standard as everything else in this document. Therefore, this section should be treated as hearsay and Jean is fully responsible for what she told Steve happened in this section. For that reason, this section is listed in a different color from the rest of the document. Testimony in court should be pursued from Jean, and Steve intends to subpoena the bank manager and surveillance footage if necessary.

On Monday, June 13, the PNC Bank in downtown State College opened for business at 9:00am. Winkelman drove to the bank and, shortly after the bank opened, called Jean to inform her that the manager was unable to cash the $16,500 check. He asked Jean to travel to the bank as soon as possible to assist him, which Jean did.

Jean stated that Winkelman was present at the bank with a family member, who for most of the conversation remained quiet and in the background. Jean could not recall the name of the relative, although Winkelman did introduce him to Jean. The bank's manager was also present.

Jean said that upon arrival, she was informed that the money had not yet been transferred into her PNC account from the stock sale she had made two days earlier. Later, it was discovered that there had been a miscommunication between her and her financial advisor; Jean believed that two days would be required for the transfer, while the advisor had actually meant two business days. As a result, only $3,000 from her Social Security and pension payments was present in Jean's account at the time and the additional $16,500 would be available the next day. Jean stated that Winkelman became "frustrated" and "aggressive" after learning of the banking difficulties, pressuring her to resolve the issue. Jean stated that, in response, the bank manager took her aside and asked Jean whether she knew Winkelman, on the grounds that the transaction was suspicious.

Jean said that Winkelman stated that his suppliers needed cash to purchase the supplies. She said that Winkelman told her and the bank manager that he used customer funds to purchase materials, which is why he needed to make the withdrawal. Jean said that the bank manager warned Winkelman that even if he could withdraw the entire $16,500, it would be dangerous for him to be carrying so much cash around.

Jean stated that she became "afraid" of Winkelman during the transaction, and was convinced to allow him to withdraw the current balance of the account, $3,000, in part because she wanted to leave the bank as soon as possible. Jean later stated that she was afraid that Winkelman would harm her. That fear was severe enough that, over a month later on July 13, Jean broke down in tears when Steve informed her that he was going to create a record of what had happened in this document. She begged him not to share what had happened because she was worried that Winkelman would kill her or Steve.

The $3,000 in cash was withdrawn from a "virtual office" machine, as the bank didn't retain that amount of cash in an area where local tellers could access it. The withdrawal occurred at 11:24:23am. The following image is a receipt of the withdrawal (click to enlarge):

Winkelman complained that $3,000 was not enough to purchase all of the required materials. Jean stated that Winkelman asked her for a $13,500 check to cash when the rest of the money arrived, and she provided one. The check was payable to Anthony Winkelman, rather than to a corporate entity named "Winks Construction." Winkelman never stated at any time during the entire month of June that he had either a personal or a corporate bank account. Jean stated that Winkelman told her that he had plans to go to Dorney Park that Thursday. Winkelman, the relative, and Jean left the bank. The bank was the last time anyone involved in this incident saw Winkelman in person.

The PNC bank statement follows. Prior to the incident at the bank, the balance of this account was $3,424.19. The withdrawal of $3,000 is displayed. Later that day, the "stop payment" order on the $13,500 check, for which Jean was charged $33, is listed. As the financial advisor had promised, the full amount of $16,500 was deposited in the account the following day. Click to enlarge:

 

June 13, 2022: Discussion of materials

Note: this section, as above, was relayed to Steve by Jean, and therefore would be hearsay in Steve's testimony. Requests for further clarifications should be directed to Jean.

Jean told Steve that sometime later in the morning of June 13, after Jean arrived home from the bank, Winkelman called her and discussed the purchase of materials for the deck. Jean stated that Winkelman told her what type of siding and windows would be used for the deck. Jean also stated that, at some point during that day, either in that call or in another communication, Winkelman told her that he had not yet purchased the materials.

Jean stated that Winkelman, later that afternoon, then contradicted his earlier statement at the bank and said that he had indeed purchased materials with his own money. Jean said that Winkelman asked her whether the remaining $13,500 was in the account yet, because he needed to reimburse himself for that purchase. Jean stated that at one point on Monday, she told Winkelman she simply wanted to cancel the contract. According to Jean, Winkelman because enraged and falsely stated that it was illegal for her to cancel the contract within the first three days. When Steve learned about this conversation, he told Jean to call Winkelman and ask him to deliver the materials he had purchased to the job site and if he provided recipts, she could pay him hire another contractor to perform the labor. It is unknown whether Jean actually made that call. Jean stated that Winkelman threatened to sue her, and she again became afraid of Winkelman. She placed a "stop payment" order on the $13,500 check.

Despite Jean having no standing in enforcing the contract, Winkelman did not contact Steve about the banking issue or discuss any of the issues related to payment or materials at any time during the morning of June 13.

 

June 14, 2022: Research

On the morning of June 14, Steve talked with Jean, as Jean was uncertain as to whether to rescind the contract. Steve asked Jean to wait for several hours and began to perform research, because he had noticed that Winkelman had been frequently contradicting himself in his discussions with Jean and Steve. Between 10:00am and noon, Steve discovered the information about Winkelman's criminal history. He did not find any online references to Winks Construction or any reviews of the company. The only reference to the company anywhere was the official registration with the state of Pennsylvania, and a business card that he provided Jean (click to enlarge):

Steve found that Alyssa Winkelman, who is listed on the business card, appears to be Anthony Winkelman's wife. The two aparently married on February 21, 2022, as indicated in the following facebook profile. Alyssa's face was removed from this image because Steve was not able to prove that Alyssa even knew about Anthony Winkelman's company (see below.) Note that the blue pickup truck that Winkelman drove, which is distinctive in its enormous size, is pictured in the background of Winkelman's profile picture (click to enlarge):

Steve and Jean discussed what to do based upon the findings. They resolved to cancel the contract, not because of the criminal history, but because Winkelman had been dishonest in applying for Angi's "certified" program while knowing that he was ineligible according to the prominent FAQ on Angi's website.

 

June 14, 2022: Recission

Steve called Winkelman at noon on June 14 and left him a voicemail message. Winkelman called back at 1:35pm and the following conversation was recorded:

Recording of call

The call begins with a discussion of how much experience Winkelman had as a contractor. Steve asks Winkelman whether he had been just starting out. Winkelman corrects Steve on his assertion that he was just starting out, instead stating that he had been foreman on other jobs. He then stated that "this year it was looking like" he would earn $1.4 million.

Next, Winkelman claims that he had already spent $7,000 on materials using his own money. Winkelman then falsely claimed that the contract was unable to be cancelled after 72 hours (the statute allows 3 business days, not 3 days.) Winkelman states that the work is going to be "amazing" and that he was a good guy and would do exactly what he had said. He continues that if Steve and Jean weren't satisfied with the materials he had ordered when they saw them, they could return them all.

Winkelman states that he was working on multiple construction jobs. When asked what jobs he had going right now, Winkelman clarified that he had several estimates in progress.

The conversation then turned to Winkelman's criminal history. Steve accuses Winkelman of misrepresenting his background to Angi, but Winkelman disagrees, stating that he had never made a statement about his crimes to Angi and that Angi's team only looked back for seven years. (Winkelman's appeal was judged in 2015, which was still within the seven-year window.) Winkelman states that he had done "nothing major" and that he had done stupid things while young.

Winkelman claimed that he had been 17 years old when his crime had occurred. Winkelman states that he was now more than 30 years old. Public records indicate that an "Anthony Winkelman" in Renovo was born in 1989 or 1990, so the crimes in question would have had to occur before 2007 to be committed while 17. No evidence of any crimes at that time was found in Steve's research, only the crimes in 2011 and 2012. The crimes in 2011 and 2012 did not charge Winkelman as a juvenile.

There was several more minutes of discussion about materials. Steve requested that Winkelman provide immediately, but Winkelman declines to provide them. He takes offense at being asked for the receipts, stating that he has been "100% honest" about his actions in this deck project and about his past and that he does have to prove himself to anyone.

When asked about the robbery on his record, Winkelman admits to having committed the robbery and states that he wasn't armed because there was "no gun or nothing involved."

Winkelman then states that he will see Steve and Jean in court, and ends the call. After this conversation, Winkelman was never heard from or seen again, either by Steve, Jean, Angi, or anyone else involved in the case.

 

June 14-29: Follow-up

Steve followed up with Winks Construction throughout the remainder of June. On June 14, Steve, in compliance with Pennsylvania law, mailed by certified mail a notice of recission to Winkelman, directing him to return the $3,000 to Jean before June 24. The 10-day notice period required by Pennsylvania law elapsed on June 24.

Click to read the cancellation letter

Click to see certified mail receipt

Steve also sent the following text message to Winkelman on June 14:

Why not just issue a refund, and then I will give you a good review on Angi and you can move on to get a new job. I don't think you would do bad work, and if you approach the next customer with less pressure, a more detailed contract, a bill of materials, and different customer service, I am sure you will create a great business.

The letter and message were both received and ignored. Steve called Winkelman four additional times in June, demanding payment. After Winkelman did not reply to those calls, Steve sent one final text message:

I just wanted to send you a message providing a final warning that, as stated in the demand letter, I will be proceeding to litigation if you do not pay $3,000 to me by tomorrow, June 24. Since it is too late to pay by mail, please call at this number to arrange a meeting for payment - thanks!

When Winkelman ignored that message, Steve called Alyssa Winkelman. She didn't answer the phone at first, so he called again until she did answer. Steve introduced himself and asked if Anthony was home, and Alyssa stated that he would be returning home in ten minutes. Alyssa asked what the issue was about and asked if she could take a message. Alyssa did not answer the phone with the name "Winks Construction," nor did she appear to recognize Steve's name. She did not talk about contracting and simply stated that she would relay the message to Anthony. Steve warned her that, being married to Anthony, a judgment against Anthony would negatively impact her credit score, so it was in her best interest to mediate the dispute. Alyssa was friendly and said that she or Anthony would respond, but Steve never heard from Alyssa again.

Steve was not clear as to whether Alyssa is complicit in Winks Construction, and it is possible that Anthony Winkelman did not even tell Alyssa about this incident. For that reason, Alyssa's face has been removed from all images on this page.

 

Report to Angi

Steve opened a dispute resolution case with Angi on June 17. The representative at Angi stated that he would contact Winkelman and arrange a mediation session. When Winkelman was unable to be contacted, the Angi representative stated that Angi would suspend the Winks Construction account. Angi also offered an arbitration option, which was decided against because it required the agreement of both parties, and Winkelman had disappeared.

In a recorded call on July 8, a manager admitted that Angi discovered the criminal background of Winkelman on a second check, and that Angi had missed the check on its first attempt.

 

Litigation

Steve moved to start litigation in July 2022. As this process began, Steve intended for the following to occur:

1. It was Steve's position that Angi had incurred liability for the erroneous background check. Not only did Angi management admit to having missed the crime on the first attempt, but a single call to the Pennsylania Attorney General's office would have revealed that Winkelman had indicated on his license application that he had pled guilty to theft. If Angi had agreed to pay $3,000 to Jean, Steve had intended to modify this site to prominently feature how Angi acknowledged its mistake and how the company stands by its assertion that verified contractors are people of the highest caliber. He was also willing to vouch for Angi in commercials or testimonials should the company provide reimbursement.
2. Anthony Winkelman should have been honorable and paid Jean $3,000, since he performed no work. If he repaid the money taken at the bank, Steve had intended to remove this document from the Internet and change his negative review on Angi to indicate that Winkelman refunded the money and should be given a fresh start. Steve would have forwarded any repayment to Angi if Angi had already paid Jean.
3. Should neither Angi nor Winkelman pay $3,000, Steve intended to sue one or both of them in Centre County small claims court. If Winkelman were sued, Steve planned to pursue collection efforts such as property seizure and liens against Winkelman's car and home. He intended this step to be an absolute last resort, and believes that a more amicable resolution would be far more desirable. He desired the situation to be turned into positive publicity, demonstrating how people can change and how Angi stood by its customers.

 

Settlement

Before litigation could begin, Angi reached a settlement with Steve on August 16, 2022. The first copy of the contract contained a clause stating that Steve was not to disclose even the fact that the settlement existed. Steve rejected this first contract and returned a modified version allowing him to publish on this site that the settlement had been achieved.

Because of the settlement, Steve decided against continuing legal action against Winkelman. Such action would likely be looked at unfavorably by a court, given that Steve had already reached an agreement with Angi, and recovery in excess of the original loss would be unfair.

Steve was extremely satisfied with the way that Angi handled the situation. Rather than engaging in adversarial litigation, Angi admitted that they should have improved their diligence and came to a reasonable resolution. He would highly recommend Angi for future contracting.

 

Anonymous letters and crime

After the initial publication of this website, Steve received three anonymous letters making allegations against Anthony Winkelman, Alyssa Winkelman, and other people related to Winks Construction. Because the accusers are anonymous, Steve is not publishing the contents of the letters and is not changing his behavior because of what was contained in them. If the anonymous senders identify themselves, Steve will consider following the advice and tips in the letters.

In addition to making statements about Winks Construction, one of the letters recommended that Steve report the incident to the State College police, on the grounds that a crime occurred in the bank. Steve decided against making a report because he believes that no crime occurred.

To indict Winkelman for theft or fraud for the bank incident, evidence of intent would need to exist. Steve served on the Penn State fraternity jury for brother Braxton Becker, and from that experience understood that the bar of "reasonable doubt" is extremely high. Were he on a jury trying Winkelman for the bank incident, he would vote to acquit or would hang the jury, because the fact that Winkelman created a business and could simply be judged as appearing rude in asking insistently for the money would be the non-criminal alternate explanation casting "reasonable doubt" on what occurred at the bank.

Steve filed a complaint with the Pennsylvania Attorney General office. Since Winkelman did not respond to the complaint, since the Office only provides mediation services, and since the settlement with Angi had already been reached, Steve allowed the complaint to expire without further action.

 

Conclusion

Unfortunately, Jean never was able to get the deck repaired, and it continues to deteriorate. There were no contractors available to perform the task at the time when she reached the settlement with Angi, despite at least 10 more contacts. By the time contractors actually were willing to work on the project, the stock and cryptocurrency markets had crashed. She hopes that the markets will recover within 2-3 years - and when they do, Steve will then consider selling stocks and cryptocurrencies to fund the deck repair.