A home remodel is supposed to be an act of hope — new kitchens, second-story additions, sunrooms and decks that make a house into the home a family always wanted. For three Western Washington homeowners, that hope allegedly turned into a six-figure loss. In June 2025, Washington's Office of the Attorney General charged Everett-area contractor Linda Kim Brown (a/k/a Linda K. Gardenhire) with four counts of first-degree theft and one count of filing a false tax return.
<cite index="11-1,11-3">Charging papers say Brown cheated some Western Washington homeowners out of half a million dollars for construction work she never started, making excuses and breaking promises to three customers for well over a year about the lack of work on their expensive home remodeling projects.</cite> <cite index="10-8,14-12">Brown also goes by the name Linda K. Gardenhire, according to court papers listing addresses for her in Bellevue and Mill Creek, and she was a registered contractor and owner of Aura Construction LLC, KAIX Remodel LLC and Probuilt LLC when the incidents allegedly occurred from July 2021 to mid-October 2023.</cite>
What Happened
The alleged scheme followed a consistent pattern across all three victims. <cite index="11-8">According to charging papers, Brown arranged for engineering, drawings and permits on her customers' projects, but failed to start construction on any of them.</cite> The preparatory paperwork gave the appearance of forward motion — while the actual building never began.
The losses were substantial. <cite index="11-9">Subtracting the cost of the preparatory services, the homeowners individually lost over $98,000, $165,000, and $310,000 in down payments to the contractor.</cite> <cite index="1-6">The homeowners lived in Edmonds, Bellevue, and Lynnwood.</cite>
The Lynnwood case illustrates the scale. <cite index="11-12,11-13,11-14">In March 2022, the Lynnwood homeowner signed a $662,400 contract with Brown to move her kitchen and build a second-story addition with a bedroom, bathroom, sunroom, and a deck. She paid Brown a deposit of $325,824 — nearly 50 percent down, according to an L&I report cited in charging documents. The project was supposed to be completed by that September.</cite> <cite index="19-12,19-13">Soon after signing the contract, however, Brown repeatedly delayed the start of construction, telling the homeowner she needed to be patient, charging papers said. By February 2023 — about five months after the project should have been completed — the homeowner texted Brown that she wanted to cancel the contract.</cite>
Why It Was Easy
The mechanics of the alleged fraud reveal a structural weakness in how residential remodeling deals are commonly financed: large deposits paid directly to a contractor, up front, before meaningful work begins. When a homeowner hands over 30, 40, or nearly 50 percent of a contract value as a lump-sum down payment, that money is immediately controlled by the contractor — with no built-in mechanism forcing it to be spent on the project.
Brown's registration status added another layer of false reassurance. She was a registered contractor at the time, which many homeowners treat as a stamp of trustworthiness. But registration is not a guarantee of performance. <cite index="19-4">L&I, which enforces contractor registration laws, suspended Brown's registration for KAIX Remodel LLC in May 2022, and for her other two businesses in April 2024, when their insurance policies expired or were cancelled.</cite> By the time those suspensions landed, deposits had already changed hands.
The recovery gap is stark. In Washington, <cite index="17-9">if the contractor was registered, a homeowner may recover up to the bond amount — $12,000 for general contractors.</cite> Against individual losses of $98,000, $165,000 and $310,000, a $12,000 bond is a fraction of a fraction.
Dishonest contractors are stealing more than cash — they're stealing the long-held dreams of homeowners.— Steve Reinmuth, assistant director of L&I's Field Services and Public Safety, Washington State Department of Labor & Industries news release, June 2025
What the Investigation Found
The case began with the victims themselves. <cite index="19-5,19-6">The three victims filed complaints with L&I about Brown in 2023, and L&I investigated and referred the case for potential criminal charges to the state Office of the Attorney General (AGO), which is now prosecuting Brown.</cite> <cite index="1-13">L&I's contractor registration program interviewed the victims, collected contracts and other documents, and visited one of the contractor's job sites.</cite>
The financial picture that emerged went well beyond the missing deposits. <cite index="20-9">Charging papers state that an AGO investigator found bank, customer and other records showing she actually deposited over $1.5 million into her business accounts during the period she claimed no income.</cite> <cite index="20-1">Brown also faces charges of tax evasion for allegedly failing to report $1.5 million in business income and withholding $72,400 in retail sales tax collected from customers.</cite> <cite index="19-1">In addition, Brown collected $72,400 in retail sales tax from customers but didn't pass the money on to the state Department of Revenue, charging papers said.</cite>
Brown has denied wrongdoing. <cite index="11-4">Brown, 36, has pleaded not guilty to four counts of first-degree theft and one count of filing a false tax return.</cite> <cite index="12-2">Each of the four theft counts carries a maximum 10-year prison sentence and a $20,000 fine, and the false-tax-return count carries a maximum 5-year prison sentence and a $10,000 fine.</cite> <cite index="11-5,20-6">Her trial was originally scheduled for Aug. 22, 2025, in Snohomish County Superior Court in Everett, but was rescheduled for October 10, 2025.</cite>
What Escrow Would Have Changed
The single fact that made these alleged losses possible is that the down payments went straight into Brown's business accounts and stayed there. A construction escrow — or a milestone-based disbursement arrangement through a neutral third party — is designed to break exactly that chain.
Under an escrow structure, the homeowner's deposit is deposited with an independent escrow agent rather than the contractor. Funds are released only when defined, verifiable milestones are met: permits pulled, foundation poured, framing inspected, and so on. A contractor who "arranges for engineering, drawings and permits" but never breaks ground would, under escrow, receive only the small tranche tied to that early stage — not a $325,824 lump sum. The other roughly 90 percent of the Lynnwood deposit would have remained beyond the contractor's reach until real construction occurred.
Escrow also creates an audit trail. Because a third party controls disbursement and requires proof of progress, it becomes far harder to divert customer money into general business accounts — the exact behavior the AGO alleges when it says over $1.5 million flowed into Brown's accounts. And when a project stalls, escrowed funds can be returned rather than chased through a bond capped at $12,000 or a small-claims court with a $10,000 ceiling.
L&I's own guidance points in the same direction of not fronting large sums to a contractor. <cite index="1-9">To help avoid losing money to crooked contractors, L&I encourages consumers to get three written bids, verify contractors are currently registered, and pay suppliers directly for building materials.</cite> Escrow takes that principle a step further, converting good advice into an enforced financial control. Paying suppliers directly, verifying registration, and staging payments to progress are all defenses — but escrow is the structural version that does not depend on a homeowner's vigilance holding up over the many months a remodel can take.