For 23 New Hampshire homeowners, hiring a roofer turned into a lesson in how easily prepaid money can disappear. Gerard Michael Healey (owner of Pinnacle Metal Roofing), a company formerly located in Meredith, collected deposits for roofing work he never performed — and kept the money.
The scale is documented and precise. According to the New Hampshire Department of Justice, Healey stole a total of $212,394 in deposits from 23 victims who provided the money as prepayments for roofing work on their houses that he did not perform. What makes the case remarkable is not simply the theft, but that it was, in effect, a repeat performance. As the Attorney General's office stated, he took and kept 19 of those deposits in criminal violation of a consent judgment he had already entered into with the Department of Justice's Consumer Protection and Antitrust Bureau in 2017.
In other words, Healey had already been caught taking deposits for work he never completed, had signed a legal agreement over it — and then did the same thing to a new set of homeowners.
What Happened
The Belknap County Grand Jury indicted Gerard Michael Healey, then 56, of Meredith, in November 2023 on two counts of theft by misapplication of property and one count of theft by unauthorized taking. The Attorney General's Office, which prosecuted the case, brought the charges as an extension of a Consumer Protection and Antitrust Bureau investigation.
Healey pleaded guilty in Belknap County Superior Court in October 2024. In January 2025, he was sentenced on a class A felony count of theft by unauthorized taking or transfer, a class A felony count of theft by misapplication of property, and a class A misdemeanor count of violating an injunction issued under the New Hampshire Consumer Protection Act.
The court sentenced Healey to 4½ to 10 years in state prison for the theft by unauthorized taking or transfer charge. On the theft by misapplication charge, he received a 7½-to-15-year sentence, fully suspended, with the suspended term ending 10 years after his release. On the misdemeanor CPA violation, he received a one-year jail sentence, fully suspended.
Why It Was So Easy
Roofing deposits are ordinary and expected. Deposits allow a contractor to secure materials and labor before a job begins, and most reputable roofing companies request 10% to 20% of the total project cost. Homeowners hand over money at the very start of the relationship — before any shingles arrive, before any crew shows up — precisely when they have the least leverage and the least information.
That structural weakness is what a fraudster exploits. Once a deposit check is made out to the business and cashed, the money is commingled with the contractor's own funds. There is nothing built into the ordinary transaction that keeps a customer's deposit segregated from a contractor's personal spending. In Healey's case, that gap let him collect from customer after customer for projects he never intended — or was never able — to complete.
The 2017 consent judgment shows how limited paperwork-based remedies can be. Healey had already agreed to repay deposits for uncompleted work, yet a signed agreement did not physically stop him from accepting and spending 19 more deposits. A promise on paper is not a barrier to cash in hand.
What the Investigation Found
The felony charges grew directly out of the Consumer Protection and Antitrust Bureau's work. That investigation had previously led to Healey being charged with 19 misdemeanor counts alleging he collected money from customers for home renovation projects but instead used the money for other purposes. Those misdemeanor charges were filed after Healey allegedly violated the 2017 consent agreement, in which he had agreed to pay back deposits made by property owners for work he never completed.
The pattern investigators documented is consistent: money solicited as a deposit, taken in, and then treated as the contractor's own rather than applied to the customer's project. The final tally — $212,394 across 23 victims — reflects a scheme that continued despite prior state intervention.
What Escrow Would Have Changed
The Healey case is a near-perfect illustration of why deposits should not sit in a contractor's operating account. Under an escrow arrangement, a customer's prepayment is held by a neutral third party and released to the contractor only as defined milestones are met — materials delivered, work commenced, phases completed. The money is never the contractor's to spend on the day it is collected.
Had Healey's 23 customers paid into escrow instead of writing checks directly to Pinnacle Metal Roofing, the outcome would have looked very different. Because he performed no work, no milestone would have been satisfied, and no funds would have been released. The homeowners would still have their deposits — not a felony judgment they can only hope to collect against.
Escrow also solves the enforcement gap that the 2017 consent judgment could not. A court order asked Healey to behave; escrow removes the opportunity to misbehave. Instead of relying on a contractor's good faith, the structure itself withholds the money until performance is proven. That is the difference between a promise and a protection.
For homeowners, the practical takeaways align with what consumer advisors already recommend: verify licensing and insurance, insist on a written contract that defines scope and a payment schedule, keep all payments traceable, and be wary of anyone demanding unusually large upfront sums. But those steps reduce risk at the margins. Only a structural safeguard like escrow removes the core vulnerability that Healey exploited twice — the moment a deposit becomes the contractor's cash before a single nail is driven.