Skip to Content

"Another Innocent Victim of Wayne Lorenz Files Complaint with BBB"

Printer-friendly version

People have asked ... why do we continue our pursuit of justice with the complaints against Wayne Lorenz, aka Mickey Mouse Builder? The following complaint filed with the Better Business Bureau is one of the three reasons why we continue to keep this issue in the forefront.

The mother of Wayne Lorenz's first child - a 13 year old daughter recently stopped by to meet me. According to the mother, while allowing her daughter to visit for a week with her father prior to the start of the school year, her father decided to defy court orders and "kidnap" the child. The mother states that in order to keep from paying child support, and after no involvement in the child's life for years, Wayne Lorenz, Amy Lorenz (and as always) the "mother (in-law) of the year" have reported an abuse story against the child's step-father. The child has not been returned for over a period of eight school days, thus making it legal to enter the child in the Fort Zumwalt School district where the Lorenz/Howard family resides. According to law, the mother has to re-address the custody issue in court now. 

This will be the second child that Lorenz/Howard family attempts to keep from a child's family in the last two years. Last year, The Howard's fought for custody of approximately 60-year-old Mr. Howard's, 15 year old SISTER. (What novels could be written about these dyfunctional families that are well known to the Division of Family Services ... and YES ... you read those ages correctly.)

After showing the mother the damages caused by this self-proclaimed builder and sharing facts about the sex offender story, the mother explained that there were other complaints about Wayne Lorenz's work and one of them can be found on the Better Business Bureau site. I have copied and pasted this complaint and response below.

There was also another unhappy client of Mr. Lorenz that he was found to be "juggling" at the time he was to be working in our home. By admission of Wayne Lorenz himself, this client called the police and had him removed from her property when he did not leave by her request. This story was told to us AFTER Mr. Lorenz had our work deposits and was to have started our work. It was the first excuse he gave for his lack of presence on our jobsite.


Thus, in a period of three months, it appears Mr. Lorenz had conflicts with perhaps THREE clients, not just ourselves. This abuse of the system by the perpetrators must be stopped.




Incompetent workmanship. No concept of common building practices. Ruined our roof, and improperly installed our hardwood flooring. Lied about having a business license. My husband, and I brought all issue's to Mr. ******'s attention, as soon as we saw the issue's. He continued to tell us he would fix the issues, then when it came time for the "last payment", he felt his work was fine, and it didn't need any work done. His contract started with us 10/27/14, and we immediately noticed things were not right with his workmanship. We provided Mr ****** all concerns through conversation, as well text messages. He continued to push off fixing the issues. We had to hire another company to fix what he did to our roof on top of the house. We are now needing to hire 2 different contractors to fix other things he has done, like the chimney roof, as well our entire hardwood floor, and underlayment. None of the issue's we provided to Mr ****** have been addressed, and he continued to tell me, that my "husband just doesn't like the way he did the work, and there are no issue's". We have freezing cold air coming through our fireplace into the house, due to it being built improperly. Again Mr. ****** is well aware of these issue's, and has had over a month to try and correct them, but has failed to do so. If you need additional information, than what I have provided, please let me know, and I will be more than happy to provide more.Desired SettlementWe would like him to return the monies paid for labor, and materials, for our roofing, and entire amount for hardwood flooring, underlayment, and the cost of removing, and installation of new hardwood flooring. The totals exceed $6,000.


Business Response

I started work for Mr. and Mrs. ***** on 10/27/2014. At first everything was good. My roofer and I had bought materials and we're going to begin work on the roof when Mr. ***** brought it to my attention that he wasn't happy with my roofer due to appearance. Told me he was not allowed on the job. At that time I complied with there request and continued with the job on my own. It was brought to my attention the next day that the roof was under warranty and the original company was coming out to repair it. I made appropriate adjustments to the contract per their request. I continued with the work on other parts I was hired for. I on many occasions had late night text conversations with Mr. ***** and made myself available on weekends to address any concerns or to go over any changes they wanted to make. I was informed on many occasions how happy they were with the work preformed. I took pictures of all my work for validation. The only issue that was brought to my attention was the wood flooring not being flush with the fire place, the fact that they wanted sofit installed on the chimney cap and A piece of sofit that needs to be trimmed. I agreed ed to address the issues but was not successful due to Mr. and Mrs. *****s attitude towards me and their untrue accusations. They asked to see a copy of my insurance which I showed them. I had gotten a call from my insurance agent stating that Mrs. ***** had called and tried to file a claim against my insurance. When that did not work and she was denied she said to me, "this would be so much easier if he was a *******." This confused me because I have done nothing but provide quality craftsmenship, gone out of my way staying up late talking with Mr. *****, gone over on weekends and done every thing that was asked of me. I pushed back payment dates per their request, lowered the original price ect. The work that was left would have been done on schedule if Mr. and Mrs. ***** hadn't of delayed my ability to work. I was willing and able to work. I had agreed to address any and all concerns even after they went behind my back and tried to falsely fail a claim under my liability insurance. They have not allowed me back on their home to complete the work and have asked me not to contact them. They are in breech of contract due to delaying the original completion date and none payment of services rendered or in other words theft of services. As far as their demands go the roof and other jobs were claimed under their homeowners insurance. We took the total labor cost for the roof off their remaining balance. They got to keep all roofing materials that were purchased for the roof. The flooring they have not paid for yet. They bought the materials and I have not received the final payment. The flooring wad not laid imporperly. I have pictures of all work. At this point payment is due for services rendered. -


See more at:


Reason Two and Three of the continued pursuit for justice is:


2.)  Wayne Lorenz is a documented register sex offender. He does not tell potential clients this when he enters their home and works around children. Given the amount of lies and distortions we have heard from this man, I have no doubt that there is far more to his explanation of over age/under age dating incident that resulted in a felony sex offender charge and time served in jail. I recently had that suspicion confirmed. Because of his felony status, Wayne Lorenz should not be allowed around underage girls with a parent's knowledge.  Additionally, Mr. Lorenz can be regularly found at the in-laws address, an address not listed in his reference sheet. We also want this frequency addressed by law engorcement agencies for the safety of our children and grandchildren in our neighborhood. 

3.) Judge Matt Thornhill, the initial judge that first heard the case and set the negative tone for the appeal case did not afford my husband or I the opportunity to see evidence admitted to court "against us". Had we been able to view the evidence, we feel such evidence would have been perjury, and we feel strongly the outcome would have been different. We contacted Judge Matt Thornhill's Office by phone three times and by a written letter and never received a response. Thus, we have filed a complaint on this issue through the Missouri Attorney General's Office. They read the file and forwarded the file to The Office of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel of the Supreme Court of Missouri and The Commission on Retirement, Removal and Discipline for the State of Missouri. We are awaiting further contact from these groups.