Preview
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
COUNTY OF CHARLESTON
AUBREY W. GLADSTONE CIVIL ACTION COVERSHEET
Plaintiff(s)
2024-CP 10_- 2X63
VS.
JEFFREY D. SUITER, SUITER CONSTRUCTION CO.,)
INC., and COBALT CONSTRUCTION, LLC )
Defendant(s) )
Submitted By: AubreyW. Gladstone, Pro se, Plaintiff SC Bar #: N/A
Address: 740 NE Harbour Dr., Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone #: (561) 634-1500
Fax #: N/A
Other:
E-mail: Aubrey@GladstoneConsulting.com
NOTE: The coversheet and information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by
law. This form is required for the usc of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of docketing cases that are NOT E-Filed. It must be filled out completely,
signed, and dated. A copy of this coversheet must be served on the defendant(s) along with the Summons and Complaint. This form is NOT required to
be filed in E-Filed Cases.
DOCKETING INFORMATION (Check ail that apply)
*If Action is Judgment/Settlement do not complete
(X] JURY TRIAL demanded in complaint, NON-JURY TRIAL demanded in complaint
C1 This case is subject to ARBITRATION pursuant to the Court Annexed Alternative Dispute Resolution Rules.
(This case is subject to MEDIATION pursuant to the Court Annexed Alternative Dispute Resolution Rules. eB
(J This case is exempt from ADR. (Certificate Attached) 2
NATURE OF ACTION (Check Que Box Below)
Contracts Torts - Professional Malpractice Torts — Personal Injury ‘al Property
Constructions (100) a Dental Malpractice (200) Conversion (310) Chi &Delivéry (400)
Debt Collection (110) 11 Legal Malpractice (210) Motor Vehicle Accident (320) Cog ion (430) ord
Generai (130) C1 Medical Malpractice (220) Premises Liability (330) Forech (4205.
Breach of Contract (140) Previous Notice of Intent Case # Products Liability (340) Mecha Lien 490)
ve
Fraud/Bad Faith (150) 20 “ - - Personal Injury (350) Partition 0)
Failure te Deliver! o Notice/ File Med Mal (230) Wrongful Death (360) Posses: (450)
‘Warranty (160) D1 other 299) Assault/Battery (370) Building Code Violation (460)
Employment Discrim (170) Slander/Libei (380) Other (499)
Employment (180) Other (399)
Other (199),
Inmate Petitions Administrative Law/Relief Judginents/Settlements Appeals
PCR (500} Reinstate Drv. License (800) Death Settlement (700) Arbitration (900)
Mandamus (520) Judicial Review (810) Foreign Judgment (710) Magistrate-Civil (910)
Habeas Corpus (530) Relief (820) Magistrate's Judgment (720) Magistrate-Criminal (920)
Other (599) Permanent Injunction (830) Minor Settlement (730) Municipal (930)
Forfeiture-Petilion (840) Transcript Judgment (740) Probate Court (940)
Forfeiture--Consent Order (850) Lis Pendens (750) SCDOT (950)
Other (899) Transfer of Structured Worker's Comp (960)
Settlement Payment Rights Zoning Board (970)
Application (760) Public Service Comm, (990)
Special/Complex /Other a Confession of Judgment (770) Employment Security Comm (994)
Environmental (660) oO Pharmaceuticals (630) Petition for Werkers
Automobile Arb, (610) oO Unfair Trade Practices (640) Compensation Settlement Other (999)
Approval (780)
Medical (620) a Qui-of State Depositions (650) o Incapacitated Adult
Settlement (790)
Other (699) o Motion to Quash Subpoena in an C1 Other (799)
Qut-of County Action (660)
a Sexual Predator (510) oO Pre-Suit Discovery (670)
oO Permanent Restraining Order (680)
o Tnterpleader (690)
Submitting Party Signature: h LA Date: June 4, 2024
SCCA / 234 (04/2021) Page | of 2
Note: Frivolous civil proceedings may be subject to sanctions pursuant to SCRCP, Rule 11, and the South Carolina Frivolous Civil
Proceedings Sanctions Act, S.C, Code Ann, §15-36-10 ct. seq.
Effective January 1, 2016, Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) is mandatory in all counties, pursuant
to Supreme Court Order dated November 12, 2015.
SUPREME COURT RULES REQUIRE THE SUBMISSION OF ALL CIVIL CASES TO AN ALTERNATIVE
DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCESS, UNLESS OTHERWISE EXEMPT.
Pursuant to the ADR Rules, you are required to take the following action(s);
I The parties shail select neutral and file a “Proof of ADR” form on or by the 2 10" day of the filing of this
action. If the parties have not selected a neutral within 210 days, the Clerk of Court shall then appoint a
primary and secondary mediator from the current roster on a rotating basis from among those mediators
agreeing to accept cases in the county in which the action has been filed.
The initial ADR conference must be held within 300 days after the filing of the action.
Pre-suit medical malpractice mediations required by S.C. Code §15-79-125 shall be held not later than 120
days after all defendants are served with the “Notice of Intent to Fi ile Suit” or as the court directs,
Cases are exempt from ADR under ADR Rule 3(b) upon the following grounds:
a. Special proceeding, or actions seeking extraordinary relief such as mandamus, habeas corpus, or
prohibition;
Requests for temporary relief;
Appeals;
Post Conviction relief matters;
Contempt of Court proceedings;
Forfeiture proceedings brought by governmental entities;
Mortgage foreclosures; and
Cases that have been previously subjected to an ADR conference, unless otherwise required by
Rule 3 or by statute.
Cases may also be exempt from ADR under ADR Rule 3(c) upon motion to and approval by the court.
6 Tn cases not subject to ADR, the Chief Judge for Administrative Purposes, upon the motion of the court or
of any party, may order a case to mediation.
Application of a party to be exempt from payment of neutral fees due to indigency should be filed with the
Clerk of Court prior to the scheduling of the ADR conference.
Please Note: You must comply with the Supreme Court Rules regarding ADR.
Failure to do so may affect your case or may result in sanctions.
SCCA / 234 (04/2021) Page 2 of 2
ZoIW- CP 1O- 2eeR
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA ) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
COUNTY OF CHARLESTON NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
AUBREY W. GLADSTONE,
Plaintiff,
JEFFREY D. SUITER, SUITER COMPLAINT
CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.,
and COBALT CONSTRUCTION, LLC,
Defendants.
Plaintiff Aubrey W. Gladstone sucs Defendants Jeffrey D. Suiter, Suiter Construction
ee
Company, Inc. and Cobalt Construction, LLC, and avers: eos
eS
PARTIES
1 Plaintiff Aubrey W. Gladstone is an individual residing in the State of Fidrid ag
co - at
740 NE Harbour Drive, Boca Raton, Florida 33431 (“Gladstone” or “Plaintiff”). Plai n
owner of the subject property at 199 Ionsborough Street, Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464 (“Property ).
2 Defendant Jeffroy D. Suiter (“Mr, Suiter”) is an individual resident of South
Carolina at times material with a home and business address of 3489 Ashwycke Street, Mt.
Pleasant, SC 29466.
3 Defendant Suiter Construction Company, Inc. (“Suiter Construction”) was a
South Carolina corporation at times material with an address of 3489 Ashwycke Street, Mt.
Pleasant, SC 29466. Suiter Construction was listed on the building permit and insurance
certificate for construction at the Property, despite being dissolved on August 18, 2015.
4 Defendant Cobalt Construction, LLC, d/b/a Cobalt Custom Home Builders and/or
Cobalt Custom Homes, LLC (“Cobalt”), is a South Carolina corporation at tines material with
an address of 3489 Ashwycke Street, Mt. Pleasant, SC 29466. Cobalt was represented to be the
ministerial affiliate of Suiter Construction to processes Suiter Construction’s billings for tax
purposes (collectively, the Defendants are referred to herein as “Suiter” or “Defendants”).
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
5 This Court has jurisdiction over the parties as the events giving rise to this action
took place in Charleston County and the subject construction project is in South Carolina.
6 Venue is proper in Charleston County as the acts giving rise to Plaintiffs causes
of action occurred in this County, at times material Defendants resided in this County, and
Suiter’s mechanic’s lien and lis pendens were filed in this County.
7
This dispute is governed by the laws of the State of South Carolina.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
8 This is an action for breach of contract accompanied by fraudulent acts,
sceking monetary and punitive damages for Defendants’ fraudulent billings in connection with
the construction of Plaintiff's home in Charleston County.
9 In early 2021, homeowner (Gladstone) and builder (Suiter) entered into an
agreement to build Gladstonc’s house for the cost of labor and material plus 15% for the
contractor’s fee and overhead. As a material part of Gladstone’s agrecment to fund, Suiter was
required to submit the third-party reccipts representing the labor and material costs along with
Suiter’s periodic Billings.
10. However, Suiter breached the agreement by submitting fabricated more than a
dozen duplicate invoices, which Plaintiff unknowingly paid.
BREACH OF CONTRACT ACCOMPANIED BY FRAUDULENT ACT
THE CONTRACT
11. Plaintiff re-alleges and re-avers the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-10 as if
fully set forth herein.
12. In early 2021, Gladstone and Suiter entered into a verbal agreement for the
construction of a house in Mt. Pleasant. The agreement was described by Suiter! as follows:
I Deposition transcript of Jeffrey Suiter on January 24, 2024 at page 16, lines 16-20.
2
“When we first started the house...we agreed to build the house for
cost of labor and material plus 15%. And {IJ would give [Gladstone]
Backup of the big invoices.”
13. A material element of the agreement for Gladstone to fund the cost of labor and
material was that the costs must be verified as part of Suiter’s periodic Billings. Suiter was
required to deliver legitimate receipts from his subcontractors and vendors (which receipts Suiter
labelled “Back-up”) along with cach Billing. The partics agreed that Suiter’s detailed Back-up
must be submitted with each request (i.¢., included in cach of Suiter’s Billings #1-13), which
Gladstone agreed fund promptly. In other words, Suiter was required to submit the subcontractor
and vendor invoices (Back-up), and in return, Gladstone was to wire transfer the “Balance Duc”
within a day or so.
14. Correspondence in 2021 outlined the billing procedures:
» April 22 email from Gladstone to Suiter:
“] got your invoice, and as I mentioned when we met on the lot, I’ve
always been a stickler for paperwork, Could you please send me
supporting invoices...”
« April 23 email from Gladstone to Suiter:
“1 always put everything into a 3-ring binder to keep track of
projects and investments, so what I really need is an invoice for
cach major expense... you explained that there would certainly be
a couple of small payments for which you may not get reccipts in
the ficld, but the others can be provided.”
» June 10 email from Suiter to Gladstone:
“I have attached a copy of Billing #3 along with a backup of the
major invoices by category.”
15. In the above example, on June 10, 2021 Suiter submitted Billing #3 with 21 pages
of Back-up. Included in Suiter’s email was his one-page spreadsheet showing a “Balance Duc”
of $127,123, along with seventeen (17) subcontractor and supplier invoices. Suitcr email stated:
“I have attached a copy of Billing #3 along with a backup of the major invoices by category.”
‘THE BREACH
16. Suiter’s June 10, 2021 email (i.c., Billing #3 plus Back-up) included a number of
fraudulent invoices ~ either fabricated, previously paid, or otherwise irregular. Suiter’s Back-up
also included two self-generated fabrications (not invoices, but rather self-created fictions printed
from Suiter’s own computer), some having been submitted and previously paid, and some
otherwise inappropriate to support Suiter’s $127,123 payment demand. By submitting
fraudulent invoices, represented to be from his subcontractors and suppliers, Sutter materially
breached the agreement with Gladstone with a fraudulent act.
FRAUDULENT INTENT RELATING TO THE BREACTL
17. Because Suiter was unable to pay his subcontractors without gaining access to his
clients’ money, he was desperate to get his Billings funded as fast as possible. Accordingly, on
June 10, 2021, in order to induce Gladstone to wire $127,123 into Suiter’s unrestricted bank
account the next day, Suiter submitted fraudulent paperwork dressed up as legitimate Back-up.
Suiter knew that Gladstone, living 500 miles away, would have little opportunity in 24 hours to
check the legitimacy of local vendor invoices, nor was Gladstone likely to catch Suiter’s
fabricated “Bills”, and most unlikely to compare one billing cycle’s Back-up to the others.
Suiter kept pressure on Gladstone to fund immediately, and in this example, on April 22, 2021
Suiter sent an cmail Gladstone pushing for an expedited payment of $92,038:
“Let me know if you have any questions as my subs and
suppliers will need to be paid tomorrow.” [empbasis added]
18. Suiter knew that Gladstone was anxious to get his house finished, such that
Gladstone would not be likely to delay the project by looking too closely at Suiter’s supporting
Back-up. Moreover, Gladstone’s project was self-funded with no bank financing, such that
Suiter knew there would be no institutional controls that could trigger an audit, computer
analysis, or otherwise detect fraud.
19. After the relationship devolved, Suiter withheld his financial records, and to this
day, despite requests for transparency, Suiter has failed and refused to provide all the receipts.
20. On October 28, 2022, Gladstone wrote to Suiter:
“Accordingly, please provide an analysis (in PDF
format) for each vendor, including contracts, billings,
payments, and warranties. As we have commented
previously, your Google spreadsheets are difficult to
decipher and don’t offer detail, so someone will have to
review the underlying data.”
21. On November 11, 2022, Gladstone wrote to Suiter again:
“We had been expecting back-up documents to support
your billings, but unfortunately, detail is still lacking,
and a number of questions persist.”
FRAUDULENT ACTS ACCOMPANYING THE BREACH
22. Suiter’s submission of fraudulent invoices in a scheme to obtain money from
Gladstone is a fraudulent act. Suiter’s submission of fraudulent paperwork across state lines in a
scheme to obtain money from an out-of-state homeowner is a fraudulent act. Suiter engaged in
an interstate scheme to defraud Gladstone into reimbursing for invoices that did not apply, for
which Plaintiff's special counsel wrote: “The clearest applicable criminal statute, federal or state,
to Mr. Suiter’s conduct is the federal Wire Fraud Statute...” [18 U.S.C. §1343]
23, Additionally, it is unlawful under South Carolina Code § 16-13-10 to falsely
make, forge, or counterfeit any writing or instrument of writing, or publish as true any false,
forged, or counterfeited writing or instrument of writing. On April 9, 2021, Suiter falsely made a
counterfeit invoice to deceive Gladstone into believing that Suiter’s self-generated “Bill” was
legitimately from his subcontractor, Palmetto Grading. Moreover, Suiter’s self-generated “Bill”
was designed to deceive Gladstone into believing that it was Palmetto Grading who had stamped
“PAID” on Suiter’s Bill, rather than a computer image from Mr. Suiter himself.
24. Submitting duplicate invoices for the same work (i.¢., “double billing”) is
dishonesty in fact, unfair dealing, and the unlawful appropriation of another's property by design.
5
On June 11, 2021, Suiter unlawfully obtained $127,123 of Gladstone’s money by submitting
some of the same charges a second time — a fraudulent act.
25. Palmetto Grading installed a silt fence, for which Suiter first submitted Palmetto
Grading’s $513 invoice on April 21, 2021 as part of his Billing #2. A fraudulent act occurred on
June 16, 2021 when Suiter submitted a duplicate “Bill” for the same silt fence for the purpose of
appropriating Gladstone’s property. Gladstone, unaware of Suiter’s deception, reimbursed Suiter
for Palmetto Grading’s fence a second time by bank wire transfer on June 11, 2021. See a true
and correct image of Suiter’s fabricated invoice (“Bill”) submitted on June 10, 2021 below:
peat a
pa
ra 7
y a fms
ia
i
ii
ioe Be
84 Totat $613.00
DAMAGES FROM INVOICE FRAUD
26, Suiter had illegally represented as true, fraudulent invoices in his double billings.
Below is a side-by-side example of duplicate billing, showing the valid invoice from Palmetto
Grading (on the left), which Suiter submitted for payment first on April 21, 2021, juxtaposed
against Suiter’s fabricated invoice (on the right), which Suiter submitted for payment a second
time on June 10, 2021. Both of Palmetto Grading’s invoices were paid in full by Gladstone,
unaware of the duplication submitted for payment nine (9) months later.
Bi
}
Femonrions) Coseadey inet,
44650
yo” re
—
Slee Costin
ns
aL
ka Ce aeletastca
a
lechlAabosk |
tele
tan feb
a4
3)
Tol: 2.4035)
[Biting #9} [Billing
# 13)
27, Gladstone recently confirmed with Palmetto Grading that they had installed only
one silt fence at the Property and charged Suiter only $513.00. Gladstone, however, paid twice
for the silt fence, thus suffering direct damages for Suiter’s second “Bill” of $513.00. Suiter then
added another 15% on top making a total of $589.95 in damages from just this one job.
28. Suiter fabricated fourteen (14) fake invoices totaling $49,317.83 and submitted
them to Gladstone for repayment. Suiter’s fabricated invoices, which he labelled “Bills”, were
created to look like genuine subcontractor invoices, even formatted to appear to be stamped
“PAID” to give Gladstone the false impression that it had been the subcontractor who
confirmed the payment.
THE FRAUD
29. Through Suiter’s demands for payment, he misrepresented existing facts he knew
to be false, or misrepresented existing facts with reckless regard of their truth or falsity,
including representing that the subcontractor invoices (i.c., Back-up) was comprised of
legitimate third-party reccipts for the actual cost of labor and material. Suiter intended that his
requests for payment (i.¢., Billings with Back-up) would be acted upon by Gladstone and that
Gladstone would wire money in return.
30. Gladstone was unaware that Suiter’s representations in his Billings and Back-up
were falsc, and Gladstone reasonably relied on the truth of Suiter’s representation to Gladstone’s
detriment. Gladstone had the right to rely on Suiter’s representations as a licensed general
contractor and was consequently and proximately injured thereby.
INVOICE FRAUD
31. Suiter’s deception with the fourteen (14) fabricated invoices described in
paragraph 28 above, as well as his other inappropriate Billings constitute “Invoice Fraud,”
which involved a duplicate, fake, or inflated invoice knowingly submitted with the intent to
defraud. Suiter’s invoices constitute the basis for an invoice fraud lawsuit because many contain
false or fraudulent information for goods or services not rendered, and 14 of his invoices were
forged. A forged invoice, such as Suiter’s fabricated “Bills,” is an invoice that has been created,
altered, or contains a false writing for the purpose of deccitfully obtaining money.
34, To induce Plaintiff to hire Suiter to be the general contractor for Gladstone’s
house, and thereby rely on Suiter’s Back-up paperwork, Mr. Suiter concealed his judicial
reprimand, and even misrepresented the right for Suiter Construction to do business in South
Carolina. Suiter concealed from Plaintiff and others, that the South Carolina Department of
Labor and Regulation Residential Builder's Commission found Mr. Suiter to be in violation of
S.C, Code Ann. § 40-1-110(1)(a), and that Suiter used a “false, fraudulent, or forged statement or
document or committed a fraudulent, deceitful, or dishonest act or omitted a material fact” in
obtaining Mr, Suiter’s builder’s licensure. Contrary to Mr, Suiter’s representations to Plaintiff,
Suiter Construction had on August 8, 2015 forfeited its corporate existence and lost all right to
do business in South Carolina.
36. The South Carolina Department of Labor and Regulation Residential Builder's
Commission had on June 20, 2017 found that Mr. Suiter had “not complied with the building
codes and standards that govern the practice of residential building...” [emphasis added]
“Respondent has not complied with the building codes and
standards that govern the practice of residential building in South
Carolina, as evidenced by the following:
(1) Respondent is in violation of S.C. Code Ann. § 40-1-110(1)(a)
(1976, as amended) in that responded used a false, fraudulent, or
forged statement or document or committed a fraudulent, deceitful,
or dishonest act or omitted a material fact in obtaining licensure
under this article.”
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Aubrey W. Gladstone requests the Court to enter an Order
declaring that Defendants Jeffrey D. Suiter, Suiter Construction Company, Inc. and Cobalt
Construction, LLC have materially breached the contract with Plaintiff by fraudulent acts,
including double billing and invoice fraud; disgorging Defendants’ illicit gains from such
fraudulent acts; setting aside Defendants’ contractor fees; granting actual and punitive damages;
and such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
JURY TRIAL DEMAND
Plaintiff hereby requests a jury trial on all issues so triable.
PLAINTIFF AUBREY W. GLADSTONE
Dated: June 4, 2024
740 NIE Hafbour Drive
Boca Ratof, Florida 33431
Phone (561) 634-1500
Aubrey@GladstoneConsulting.cont
Preview
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF CHARLESTON AUBREY W. GLADSTONE CIVIL ACTION COVERSHEET Plaintiff(s) 2024-CP 10_- 2X63 VS. JEFFREY D. SUITER, SUITER CONSTRUCTION CO.,) INC., and COBALT CONSTRUCTION, LLC ) Defendant(s) ) Submitted By: AubreyW. Gladstone, Pro se, Plaintiff SC Bar #: N/A Address: 740 NE Harbour Dr., Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone #: (561) 634-1500 Fax #: N/A Other: E-mail: Aubrey@GladstoneConsulting.com NOTE: The coversheet and information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law. This form is required for the usc of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of docketing cases that are NOT E-Filed. It must be filled out completely, signed, and dated. A copy of this coversheet must be served on the defendant(s) along with the Summons and Complaint. This form is NOT required to be filed in E-Filed Cases. DOCKETING INFORMATION (Check ail that apply) *If Action is Judgment/Settlement do not complete (X] JURY TRIAL demanded in complaint, NON-JURY TRIAL demanded in complaint C1 This case is subject to ARBITRATION pursuant to the Court Annexed Alternative Dispute Resolution Rules. (This case is subject to MEDIATION pursuant to the Court Annexed Alternative Dispute Resolution Rules. eB (J This case is exempt from ADR. (Certificate Attached) 2 NATURE OF ACTION (Check Que Box Below) Contracts Torts - Professional Malpractice Torts — Personal Injury ‘al Property Constructions (100) a Dental Malpractice (200) Conversion (310) Chi &Delivéry (400) Debt Collection (110) 11 Legal Malpractice (210) Motor Vehicle Accident (320) Cog ion (430) ord Generai (130) C1 Medical Malpractice (220) Premises Liability (330) Forech (4205. Breach of Contract (140) Previous Notice of Intent Case # Products Liability (340) Mecha Lien 490) ve Fraud/Bad Faith (150) 20 “ - - Personal Injury (350) Partition 0) Failure te Deliver! o Notice/ File Med Mal (230) Wrongful Death (360) Posses: (450) ‘Warranty (160) D1 other 299) Assault/Battery (370) Building Code Violation (460) Employment Discrim (170) Slander/Libei (380) Other (499) Employment (180) Other (399) Other (199), Inmate Petitions Administrative Law/Relief Judginents/Settlements Appeals PCR (500} Reinstate Drv. License (800) Death Settlement (700) Arbitration (900) Mandamus (520) Judicial Review (810) Foreign Judgment (710) Magistrate-Civil (910) Habeas Corpus (530) Relief (820) Magistrate's Judgment (720) Magistrate-Criminal (920) Other (599) Permanent Injunction (830) Minor Settlement (730) Municipal (930) Forfeiture-Petilion (840) Transcript Judgment (740) Probate Court (940) Forfeiture--Consent Order (850) Lis Pendens (750) SCDOT (950) Other (899) Transfer of Structured Worker's Comp (960) Settlement Payment Rights Zoning Board (970) Application (760) Public Service Comm, (990) Special/Complex /Other a Confession of Judgment (770) Employment Security Comm (994) Environmental (660) oO Pharmaceuticals (630) Petition for Werkers Automobile Arb, (610) oO Unfair Trade Practices (640) Compensation Settlement Other (999) Approval (780) Medical (620) a Qui-of State Depositions (650) o Incapacitated Adult Settlement (790) Other (699) o Motion to Quash Subpoena in an C1 Other (799) Qut-of County Action (660) a Sexual Predator (510) oO Pre-Suit Discovery (670) oO Permanent Restraining Order (680) o Tnterpleader (690) Submitting Party Signature: h LA Date: June 4, 2024 SCCA / 234 (04/2021) Page | of 2 Note: Frivolous civil proceedings may be subject to sanctions pursuant to SCRCP, Rule 11, and the South Carolina Frivolous Civil Proceedings Sanctions Act, S.C, Code Ann, §15-36-10 ct. seq. Effective January 1, 2016, Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) is mandatory in all counties, pursuant to Supreme Court Order dated November 12, 2015. SUPREME COURT RULES REQUIRE THE SUBMISSION OF ALL CIVIL CASES TO AN ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCESS, UNLESS OTHERWISE EXEMPT. Pursuant to the ADR Rules, you are required to take the following action(s); I The parties shail select neutral and file a “Proof of ADR” form on or by the 2 10" day of the filing of this action. If the parties have not selected a neutral within 210 days, the Clerk of Court shall then appoint a primary and secondary mediator from the current roster on a rotating basis from among those mediators agreeing to accept cases in the county in which the action has been filed. The initial ADR conference must be held within 300 days after the filing of the action. Pre-suit medical malpractice mediations required by S.C. Code §15-79-125 shall be held not later than 120 days after all defendants are served with the “Notice of Intent to Fi ile Suit” or as the court directs, Cases are exempt from ADR under ADR Rule 3(b) upon the following grounds: a. Special proceeding, or actions seeking extraordinary relief such as mandamus, habeas corpus, or prohibition; Requests for temporary relief; Appeals; Post Conviction relief matters; Contempt of Court proceedings; Forfeiture proceedings brought by governmental entities; Mortgage foreclosures; and Cases that have been previously subjected to an ADR conference, unless otherwise required by Rule 3 or by statute. Cases may also be exempt from ADR under ADR Rule 3(c) upon motion to and approval by the court. 6 Tn cases not subject to ADR, the Chief Judge for Administrative Purposes, upon the motion of the court or of any party, may order a case to mediation. Application of a party to be exempt from payment of neutral fees due to indigency should be filed with the Clerk of Court prior to the scheduling of the ADR conference. Please Note: You must comply with the Supreme Court Rules regarding ADR. Failure to do so may affect your case or may result in sanctions. SCCA / 234 (04/2021) Page 2 of 2 ZoIW- CP 1O- 2eeR STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA ) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF CHARLESTON NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT AUBREY W. GLADSTONE, Plaintiff, JEFFREY D. SUITER, SUITER COMPLAINT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., and COBALT CONSTRUCTION, LLC, Defendants. Plaintiff Aubrey W. Gladstone sucs Defendants Jeffrey D. Suiter, Suiter Construction ee Company, Inc. and Cobalt Construction, LLC, and avers: eos eS PARTIES 1 Plaintiff Aubrey W. Gladstone is an individual residing in the State of Fidrid ag co - at 740 NE Harbour Drive, Boca Raton, Florida 33431 (“Gladstone” or “Plaintiff”). Plai n owner of the subject property at 199 Ionsborough Street, Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464 (“Property ). 2 Defendant Jeffroy D. Suiter (“Mr, Suiter”) is an individual resident of South Carolina at times material with a home and business address of 3489 Ashwycke Street, Mt. Pleasant, SC 29466. 3 Defendant Suiter Construction Company, Inc. (“Suiter Construction”) was a South Carolina corporation at times material with an address of 3489 Ashwycke Street, Mt. Pleasant, SC 29466. Suiter Construction was listed on the building permit and insurance certificate for construction at the Property, despite being dissolved on August 18, 2015. 4 Defendant Cobalt Construction, LLC, d/b/a Cobalt Custom Home Builders and/or Cobalt Custom Homes, LLC (“Cobalt”), is a South Carolina corporation at tines material with an address of 3489 Ashwycke Street, Mt. Pleasant, SC 29466. Cobalt was represented to be the ministerial affiliate of Suiter Construction to processes Suiter Construction’s billings for tax purposes (collectively, the Defendants are referred to herein as “Suiter” or “Defendants”). JURISDICTION AND VENUE 5 This Court has jurisdiction over the parties as the events giving rise to this action took place in Charleston County and the subject construction project is in South Carolina. 6 Venue is proper in Charleston County as the acts giving rise to Plaintiffs causes of action occurred in this County, at times material Defendants resided in this County, and Suiter’s mechanic’s lien and lis pendens were filed in this County. 7 This dispute is governed by the laws of the State of South Carolina. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 8 This is an action for breach of contract accompanied by fraudulent acts, sceking monetary and punitive damages for Defendants’ fraudulent billings in connection with the construction of Plaintiff's home in Charleston County. 9 In early 2021, homeowner (Gladstone) and builder (Suiter) entered into an agreement to build Gladstonc’s house for the cost of labor and material plus 15% for the contractor’s fee and overhead. As a material part of Gladstone’s agrecment to fund, Suiter was required to submit the third-party reccipts representing the labor and material costs along with Suiter’s periodic Billings. 10. However, Suiter breached the agreement by submitting fabricated more than a dozen duplicate invoices, which Plaintiff unknowingly paid. BREACH OF CONTRACT ACCOMPANIED BY FRAUDULENT ACT THE CONTRACT 11. Plaintiff re-alleges and re-avers the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-10 as if fully set forth herein. 12. In early 2021, Gladstone and Suiter entered into a verbal agreement for the construction of a house in Mt. Pleasant. The agreement was described by Suiter! as follows: I Deposition transcript of Jeffrey Suiter on January 24, 2024 at page 16, lines 16-20. 2 “When we first started the house...we agreed to build the house for cost of labor and material plus 15%. And {IJ would give [Gladstone] Backup of the big invoices.” 13. A material element of the agreement for Gladstone to fund the cost of labor and material was that the costs must be verified as part of Suiter’s periodic Billings. Suiter was required to deliver legitimate receipts from his subcontractors and vendors (which receipts Suiter labelled “Back-up”) along with cach Billing. The partics agreed that Suiter’s detailed Back-up must be submitted with each request (i.¢., included in cach of Suiter’s Billings #1-13), which Gladstone agreed fund promptly. In other words, Suiter was required to submit the subcontractor and vendor invoices (Back-up), and in return, Gladstone was to wire transfer the “Balance Duc” within a day or so. 14. Correspondence in 2021 outlined the billing procedures: » April 22 email from Gladstone to Suiter: “] got your invoice, and as I mentioned when we met on the lot, I’ve always been a stickler for paperwork, Could you please send me supporting invoices...” « April 23 email from Gladstone to Suiter: “1 always put everything into a 3-ring binder to keep track of projects and investments, so what I really need is an invoice for cach major expense... you explained that there would certainly be a couple of small payments for which you may not get reccipts in the ficld, but the others can be provided.” » June 10 email from Suiter to Gladstone: “I have attached a copy of Billing #3 along with a backup of the major invoices by category.” 15. In the above example, on June 10, 2021 Suiter submitted Billing #3 with 21 pages of Back-up. Included in Suiter’s email was his one-page spreadsheet showing a “Balance Duc” of $127,123, along with seventeen (17) subcontractor and supplier invoices. Suitcr email stated: “I have attached a copy of Billing #3 along with a backup of the major invoices by category.” ‘THE BREACH 16. Suiter’s June 10, 2021 email (i.c., Billing #3 plus Back-up) included a number of fraudulent invoices ~ either fabricated, previously paid, or otherwise irregular. Suiter’s Back-up also included two self-generated fabrications (not invoices, but rather self-created fictions printed from Suiter’s own computer), some having been submitted and previously paid, and some otherwise inappropriate to support Suiter’s $127,123 payment demand. By submitting fraudulent invoices, represented to be from his subcontractors and suppliers, Sutter materially breached the agreement with Gladstone with a fraudulent act. FRAUDULENT INTENT RELATING TO THE BREACTL 17. Because Suiter was unable to pay his subcontractors without gaining access to his clients’ money, he was desperate to get his Billings funded as fast as possible. Accordingly, on June 10, 2021, in order to induce Gladstone to wire $127,123 into Suiter’s unrestricted bank account the next day, Suiter submitted fraudulent paperwork dressed up as legitimate Back-up. Suiter knew that Gladstone, living 500 miles away, would have little opportunity in 24 hours to check the legitimacy of local vendor invoices, nor was Gladstone likely to catch Suiter’s fabricated “Bills”, and most unlikely to compare one billing cycle’s Back-up to the others. Suiter kept pressure on Gladstone to fund immediately, and in this example, on April 22, 2021 Suiter sent an cmail Gladstone pushing for an expedited payment of $92,038: “Let me know if you have any questions as my subs and suppliers will need to be paid tomorrow.” [empbasis added] 18. Suiter knew that Gladstone was anxious to get his house finished, such that Gladstone would not be likely to delay the project by looking too closely at Suiter’s supporting Back-up. Moreover, Gladstone’s project was self-funded with no bank financing, such that Suiter knew there would be no institutional controls that could trigger an audit, computer analysis, or otherwise detect fraud. 19. After the relationship devolved, Suiter withheld his financial records, and to this day, despite requests for transparency, Suiter has failed and refused to provide all the receipts. 20. On October 28, 2022, Gladstone wrote to Suiter: “Accordingly, please provide an analysis (in PDF format) for each vendor, including contracts, billings, payments, and warranties. As we have commented previously, your Google spreadsheets are difficult to decipher and don’t offer detail, so someone will have to review the underlying data.” 21. On November 11, 2022, Gladstone wrote to Suiter again: “We had been expecting back-up documents to support your billings, but unfortunately, detail is still lacking, and a number of questions persist.” FRAUDULENT ACTS ACCOMPANYING THE BREACH 22. Suiter’s submission of fraudulent invoices in a scheme to obtain money from Gladstone is a fraudulent act. Suiter’s submission of fraudulent paperwork across state lines in a scheme to obtain money from an out-of-state homeowner is a fraudulent act. Suiter engaged in an interstate scheme to defraud Gladstone into reimbursing for invoices that did not apply, for which Plaintiff's special counsel wrote: “The clearest applicable criminal statute, federal or state, to Mr. Suiter’s conduct is the federal Wire Fraud Statute...” [18 U.S.C. §1343] 23, Additionally, it is unlawful under South Carolina Code § 16-13-10 to falsely make, forge, or counterfeit any writing or instrument of writing, or publish as true any false, forged, or counterfeited writing or instrument of writing. On April 9, 2021, Suiter falsely made a counterfeit invoice to deceive Gladstone into believing that Suiter’s self-generated “Bill” was legitimately from his subcontractor, Palmetto Grading. Moreover, Suiter’s self-generated “Bill” was designed to deceive Gladstone into believing that it was Palmetto Grading who had stamped “PAID” on Suiter’s Bill, rather than a computer image from Mr. Suiter himself. 24. Submitting duplicate invoices for the same work (i.¢., “double billing”) is dishonesty in fact, unfair dealing, and the unlawful appropriation of another's property by design. 5 On June 11, 2021, Suiter unlawfully obtained $127,123 of Gladstone’s money by submitting some of the same charges a second time — a fraudulent act. 25. Palmetto Grading installed a silt fence, for which Suiter first submitted Palmetto Grading’s $513 invoice on April 21, 2021 as part of his Billing #2. A fraudulent act occurred on June 16, 2021 when Suiter submitted a duplicate “Bill” for the same silt fence for the purpose of appropriating Gladstone’s property. Gladstone, unaware of Suiter’s deception, reimbursed Suiter for Palmetto Grading’s fence a second time by bank wire transfer on June 11, 2021. See a true and correct image of Suiter’s fabricated invoice (“Bill”) submitted on June 10, 2021 below: peat a pa ra 7 y a fms ia i ii ioe Be 84 Totat $613.00 DAMAGES FROM INVOICE FRAUD 26, Suiter had illegally represented as true, fraudulent invoices in his double billings. Below is a side-by-side example of duplicate billing, showing the valid invoice from Palmetto Grading (on the left), which Suiter submitted for payment first on April 21, 2021, juxtaposed against Suiter’s fabricated invoice (on the right), which Suiter submitted for payment a second time on June 10, 2021. Both of Palmetto Grading’s invoices were paid in full by Gladstone, unaware of the duplication submitted for payment nine (9) months later. Bi } Femonrions) Coseadey inet, 44650 yo” re — Slee Costin ns aL ka Ce aeletastca a lechlAabosk | tele tan feb a4 3) Tol: 2.4035) [Biting #9} [Billing # 13) 27, Gladstone recently confirmed with Palmetto Grading that they had installed only one silt fence at the Property and charged Suiter only $513.00. Gladstone, however, paid twice for the silt fence, thus suffering direct damages for Suiter’s second “Bill” of $513.00. Suiter then added another 15% on top making a total of $589.95 in damages from just this one job. 28. Suiter fabricated fourteen (14) fake invoices totaling $49,317.83 and submitted them to Gladstone for repayment. Suiter’s fabricated invoices, which he labelled “Bills”, were created to look like genuine subcontractor invoices, even formatted to appear to be stamped “PAID” to give Gladstone the false impression that it had been the subcontractor who confirmed the payment. THE FRAUD 29. Through Suiter’s demands for payment, he misrepresented existing facts he knew to be false, or misrepresented existing facts with reckless regard of their truth or falsity, including representing that the subcontractor invoices (i.c., Back-up) was comprised of legitimate third-party reccipts for the actual cost of labor and material. Suiter intended that his requests for payment (i.¢., Billings with Back-up) would be acted upon by Gladstone and that Gladstone would wire money in return. 30. Gladstone was unaware that Suiter’s representations in his Billings and Back-up were falsc, and Gladstone reasonably relied on the truth of Suiter’s representation to Gladstone’s detriment. Gladstone had the right to rely on Suiter’s representations as a licensed general contractor and was consequently and proximately injured thereby. INVOICE FRAUD 31. Suiter’s deception with the fourteen (14) fabricated invoices described in paragraph 28 above, as well as his other inappropriate Billings constitute “Invoice Fraud,” which involved a duplicate, fake, or inflated invoice knowingly submitted with the intent to defraud. Suiter’s invoices constitute the basis for an invoice fraud lawsuit because many contain false or fraudulent information for goods or services not rendered, and 14 of his invoices were forged. A forged invoice, such as Suiter’s fabricated “Bills,” is an invoice that has been created, altered, or contains a false writing for the purpose of deccitfully obtaining money. 34, To induce Plaintiff to hire Suiter to be the general contractor for Gladstone’s house, and thereby rely on Suiter’s Back-up paperwork, Mr. Suiter concealed his judicial reprimand, and even misrepresented the right for Suiter Construction to do business in South Carolina. Suiter concealed from Plaintiff and others, that the South Carolina Department of Labor and Regulation Residential Builder's Commission found Mr. Suiter to be in violation of S.C, Code Ann. § 40-1-110(1)(a), and that Suiter used a “false, fraudulent, or forged statement or document or committed a fraudulent, deceitful, or dishonest act or omitted a material fact” in obtaining Mr, Suiter’s builder’s licensure. Contrary to Mr, Suiter’s representations to Plaintiff, Suiter Construction had on August 8, 2015 forfeited its corporate existence and lost all right to do business in South Carolina. 36. The South Carolina Department of Labor and Regulation Residential Builder's Commission had on June 20, 2017 found that Mr. Suiter had “not complied with the building codes and standards that govern the practice of residential building...” [emphasis added] “Respondent has not complied with the building codes and standards that govern the practice of residential building in South Carolina, as evidenced by the following: (1) Respondent is in violation of S.C. Code Ann. § 40-1-110(1)(a) (1976, as amended) in that responded used a false, fraudulent, or forged statement or document or committed a fraudulent, deceitful, or dishonest act or omitted a material fact in obtaining licensure under this article.” WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Aubrey W. Gladstone requests the Court to enter an Order declaring that Defendants Jeffrey D. Suiter, Suiter Construction Company, Inc. and Cobalt Construction, LLC have materially breached the contract with Plaintiff by fraudulent acts, including double billing and invoice fraud; disgorging Defendants’ illicit gains from such fraudulent acts; setting aside Defendants’ contractor fees; granting actual and punitive damages; and such other relief as the Court deems just and proper. JURY TRIAL DEMAND Plaintiff hereby requests a jury trial on all issues so triable. PLAINTIFF AUBREY W. GLADSTONE Dated: June 4, 2024 740 NIE Hafbour Drive Boca Ratof, Florida 33431 Phone (561) 634-1500 Aubrey@GladstoneConsulting.cont