Case 3:25-bk-01382-BAJ Doc 69 Filed 07/01/25 Page 1 of 14
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
In re: Case No: 3:25-bk-01382-JAB
Chapter 11, Subchapter V
VAN DER VALK CONSTRUCTION LLC,
Debtor.
/
REPORT OF THE SUBCHAPTER V TRUSTEE
I. Procedural Background
1. On April 30, 2025 (the “Petition Date”), Van Der Valk Construction LLC (“VDV
Construction” or the “Debtor”) filed a voluntary chapter 11 case in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for
the Middle District of Florida.
2. On May 5, 2025, Andrew V. Layden was appointed as the Subchapter V Trustee
(“Trustee”) in the above-captioned case (Doc. No.6).
3. On May 29, 2025, the Court entered the Agreed Order Granting Expedited
Unopposed Motion to Expand the Powers of the Subchapter V Trustee to Conduct an Investigation
(Doc. No. 34) (the “Investigation Order”). The Order expanded the Trustee’s powers and directed
him to prepare a report addressing the following issues:
(a) the causes of the Debtor’s business failure;
(b) whether the Debtor engaged in gross mismanagement by ignoring permitting
requirements or otherwise;
(c) whether the Debtor inappropriately transferred funds to insiders or affiliates;
(d) whether the Debtor continued to accept funds from consumers under circumstances
that suggested that performance of contracted work would be rendered impossible;
(e) whether there is a substantial risk that the Debtor is likely to lose any license
required for the continuation of its business; and
(f) such other matters that are relevant to this case that come to light through the
Trustee’s investigation.
(collectively, the “Investigation Topics”).
1
Case 3:25-bk-01382-BAJ Doc 69 Filed 07/01/25 Page 2 of 14
4. On May 30, 2025, the Debtor filed its Motion to Reject Executory Contracts (Doc.
No. 35), seeking to reject: (i) 26 residential home construction contracts located within the
Inverness Village 4 subdivision in Inverness, Florida (“IV4”), and (ii) 12 residential home
construction contracts in Citrus Springs, Florida (“Citrus Springs”). An order granting that motion
was entered on June 25, 2025 (Doc. No. 55). As a result, it is clear the Debtor is abandoning these
jobs. The order approving the rejection directs affected parties seeking documentation relating to
their projects (such as blueprints, plans, permits, and other documents) to contact the Debtor at
[email protected].
II. Summary of Investigation
5. The Trustee took the following actions to analyze the Investigation Topics:
(a) Reviewed information on the bankruptcy docket in the above-captioned case.
(b) Attended the Initial Debtor Interview and Section 341 meeting of creditors and
questioned the Debtor’s representative, Christiaan Matser (“Matser”).
(c) Conducted research on entities associated with the Debtor and related parties.
(d) Reviewed publicly available documents and documents produced by parties in
interest.
(e) Issued a document request to the Debtor, and reviewed the documents produced in
response to the document request, including an “accountant’s copy” of the Debtor’s
QuickBooks records.
(f) Conducted multiple telephone interviews with Matser, a principal of the Debtor.
(g) Conducted calls with homeowners, subcontractors, and other parties in interest
relating to the Debtor, including representatives of (a) Citrus County, Florida, (b)
the Southwest Florida Water Management District (“SWFWMD”), (c) the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection (“Fla DEP”) in connection with the
lawsuit titled State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection v. Van Der
Valk Construction LLC et al, Case No. 2023-CA-001206-A pending in the Circuit
Court of the Fifth Judicial Circuit in and for Citrus County, Florida (“DEP
Lawsuit”).
(h) Conducted a site visit to the Inverness Village Four development (“IV4”). Pictures
from the IV4 site are attached hereto as Exhibit A.
III. Factual Background
6. The Trustee’s investigation supports the following factual conclusions.
2
4903-5303-3810.2
Case 3:25-bk-01382-BAJ Doc 69 Filed 07/01/25 Page 3 of 14
Case 3:25-bk-01382-BAJ Doc 69 Filed 07/01/25 Page 4 of 14
constructed (such as roads, drainage, or water supply), after the original
developer/owner, Continental Land Development One, Inc. (“Continental”), posted
a cash payment under a bond document and promised to build the infrastructure
within 48 months. 5 Continental never built the infrastructure and eventually filed
bankruptcy.
b. For a long period of time, the IV4 development remained largely vacant, until it
was acquired by Marpad in approximately September 2004.
c. In 2005, Marpad filed an application signed by Matser to re-plat the IV4
development. 6 That application was approved by Citrus County.
d. Marpad sought financing and began discussions about a loan with Hibernian
Executive Teoranta LLC (“Hibernian”). 7 Hibernian was managed by Antonius Van
Usen (“Van Usen”), who served as the primary point of contact and who owned
100% of the equity of Hibernian and 100% of the equity of DT Villages Eleven
LLC (“DT Villages Eleven”). 8
e. In 2005 and 2006, Hibernian made two loans to Marpad, totaling $5.16 million,
secured by a mortgage on Marpad’s real estate at IV4. 9
f. Marpad built out a small section in the northern part of IV4 with single family
homes. In connection with that construction, there were disputes about constructing
infrastructure in the northern part of IV4, including disputes involving Marpad, DT
Villages Eleven, Citrus County, and SWFTMD. For example, as early as July 2006,
SWFTMD issued a Notice of Unauthorized Construction to Marpad relating to a
failure to obtain an Environmental Resource Permit, known as a “ERP”, prior to
building at IV4.
g. Marpad eventually defaulted on the Hibernian loans, and in 2007, Hibernian filed
a foreclosure action against Marpad relating to the real property located in IV4. 10
h. In approximately June 2009, Hibernian obtained a final judgment of foreclosure
against Marpad in the Foreclosure Case and assigned that judgment to DT Villages
Eleven. 11 Shortly thereafter, DT Villages Eleven acquired title to approximately
370 lots in IV4 previously owned by Marpad. 12
5
Final Judgment at 2.
6
The Closing Argument asserts the reason for the re-plat was to increase lot sizes to comply with certain well and
septic regulations. Closing Argument at pg. 23.
7
Closing Argument pg. 21.
8
Sunbiz.org, Application for Foreign Limited Liability Company for Authorization to Transact Business in Florida.
9
Closing Argument at pg. 24.
10
Circuit Court of the Fifth Judicial Circuit in and for Citrus County, Case No 2007-CA-006213 (the “Foreclosure
Case”).
11
Closing Argument, pg. 24.
12
Final Judgment at pg. 1-2; see also Certificate of Title attached as Exhibit C.
4
4903-5303-3810.2
Case 3:25-bk-01382-BAJ Doc 69 Filed 07/01/25 Page 5 of 14
10. In 2009, Matser formed VDV Construction. 13 Between 2009 and approximately
2020, it appears that VDV Construction had very little business activity. The Debtor’s QuickBooks
records provided to the Trustee appear to contain data beginning around 2010. For the 10-year
period from 1/1/2010 to 12/31/2019, the Debtor’s QuickBooks reflect total construction revenue
of approximately $850,000 (an average annual revenue of approximately $85,000).
11. On July 26, 2011, Matser filed a voluntary Chapter 7 bankruptcy case in the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville Division (Case No. 3:11-bk-
05479-PMG). On October 31, 2012, Matser’s discharge was denied under Section 727 of the
Bankruptcy Code based on allegations that, among other things, Matser failed to disclose bank
accounts, business interests, income, real property transfers, and other relevant information in
connection with his bankruptcy proceeding. 14
12. In October 2011, DT Villages Eleven sued Citrus County, Florida, seeking a
declaration that the County was responsible for building roads throughout the remainder of IV4 at
no cost to the lot owners (the “Citrus County Litigation”). 15 The main issue in the Citrus County
Litigation was “whether the County or the property owners are responsible for the costs of
infrastructure construction.” 16 The Citrus County Litigation remained pending until late 2016.
13. In 2013, after many years of disputes over infrastructure in the northern portion of
IV4, road and stormwater infrastructure was completed at approximately Garden Street and above
after a special assessment was levied against the homeowners in the northern part of IV4 and
certain funds that had been set aside at the initial platting phase in the 1970s were applied toward
construction. 17That fully depleted the earmarked funds with little or no infrastructure in place
below approximately Garden Street (pictured above).
14. After a trial in the Citrus County Litigation in August 2016, the presiding court
issued the Final Judgment in favor of Citrus County, concluding that (i) “…it is the County’s
discretion when and if to provide roads and how to pay for it…”’ and (ii) a bonding document that
DT Villages argued obligated Citrus County to build the infrastructure free of charge “does not
establish the existing of a right to have the infrastructure constructed at the County’s sole
expense[,]” and the County could establish a municipal service benefits unit (a “MSBU” or
“Special Assessment”) to pay for the necessary infrastructure improvements. The court concluded
that:
It is the County’s discretion as to when to construct roads and how they will be paid
for, and it has lawfully chosen to do so via Special Assessment. The circumstances
are unfortunate, but are no fault of the County. 18
13
Sunbiz.org, reflecting that VDV Construction was formed on November 25, 2009.
14
See Adv. Pro. No. 3:12-ap-00568-PMG, order dated October 31, 2012.
15
Circuit Court for the Fifth Judicial Circuit in and for Citrus County, Florida, Case No. 2011-CA-4009.
16
Final Judgment at pg. 2
17
Final Judgment at 3.
18
Id.
5
4903-5303-3810.2
Case 3:25-bk-01382-BAJ Doc 69 Filed 07/01/25 Page 6 of 14
As a result of the court’s ruling, it became clear that completing the remaining infrastructure at the
IV4 development would be the responsibility of the lot owners (approximately 370 of which were
controlled by DT Villages Eleven).
15. DT Villages Eleven divided its lots in IV4 between a number of entities, including
(i) DT Villages Eleven, (ii) DT Villages Investment, LLC, (iii) DT Terra Vista, LLC, (iv) Puffin
4, LLC, (v) Foxrun 4 LLC, and (vi) Deer Trust Management Investment LLC. It appears that those
entities are controlled by Mr. Van Husen or family members. Some records appear to reflect that
VDV Construction owned some lots. 19 Similarly, a few lots appeared to have been owned by KVG
Development LLC or Moon Lake Investments, Inc.
16. Around 2020, VDV Construction began building homes at IV4. According to
Matser, VDV Construction became involved after he walked into the model home as if he were a
potentially interested buyer and had a conversation with the real estate agent about becoming a
builder in IV4. There is evidence that a builder named Adkinson Construction was building at
IV4 at some point, but once VDV Construction began building, it was responsible for all or a vast
majority of the construction at IV4.
17. From 2020- 2023, the Debtor’s income dramatically spiked from historical levels: 20
18. After the Debtor’s construction at IV4 began in 2020 or 2021, the problems at IV4
began to mount.
a. In September 2021, SWFWMD issued a Notice of Violation to various entities
associated with the IV4 Development, including VDV Construction, for failure to
19
For example, Parcel ID 19E19S130040 00050 0030. In 2010, the parcel was transferred from DT Villages
Investment LLC to Van Der Valk Construction, LLC. On August 17, 2022 it was transferred from Van Der Valk
Construction LLC back to DT Villages Investment LLC. A few weeks later, on August 30, 2022, it was transferred
from DT Villages Investment LLC to two individuals.
20
Figures are in thousands. These figures are generally consistent with the Debtor’s federal tax returns, which reflect
the following income figures: (i) 2020: $2,115; (ii) 2021: $7,390; (iii) 2022: $16,059; (iv) 2023: $17,017.
6
4903-5303-3810.2
Case 3:25-bk-01382-BAJ Doc 69 Filed 07/01/25 Page 7 of 14
obtain appropriate permits from SWFWMD relating to stormwater management
systems.
b. In 2022, the Citrus County Board of County Commissioners voted to fund an
engineering study on the costs of building infrastructure at the remaining portion of
IV4. Burrell Engineering Inc. issued a report and presented it to the Citrus County
BOCC in November 2023. The engineering report estimated the cost of
constructing roads and stormwater infrastructure in IV4 at a per lot assessment of
approximately $109,000 per lot, and if offered on an installment basis over 20 years
at 6% interest, at a total cost of approximately 200,000 per lot.
c. On April 25, 2023, Citrus County BOCC passed a resolution stating that it would
stop issuing permits for IV4 due to the ongoing issues. 21 That bar was extended on
July 11, 2023, October 10, 2023, and January 9, 2024. The Citrus County bar on
new building permits expired on or about April 4, 2024. 22
d. In November 2023, the Florida DEP filed a lawsuit against the Debtor and other
defendants 23 alleging the Debtor failed to obtain a necessary permit to conduct
construction at IV4. 24 The Complaint alleges that DEP personnel had performed a
site visit on September 22, 2022, and issued a warning letter to Mr. Matser on
December 29, 2022 indicating the need for a permit. DEP conducted a follow-up
site visit on April 5, July 21, and July 22. 2023, and concluded that the Debtor was
conducting construction activities on 96 lots within IV4 without a required permit.
The DEP sought, among other things, (i) an injunction ordering defendants to
obtain all required permits prior to resuming construction, and (ii) a judgment
awarding DEP civil penalties in an amount not exceeding $15,000 per day.
19. In January 2024, the Board of County Commissions of Citrus County, Florida,
wrote a letter to Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody, outlining what it alleged was an
organized scheme to defraud consumers involving Matser, VDV Construction, and certain others.
20. As of the Petition Date, VDV Construction was in the business of building
residential homes in two areas: (1) the IV4 development, and (2) the Citrus Springs area. For all
of its business, VDV Construction subcontracted out substantially all of its work, and VDV
Construction owned no equipment except for one Kubota tractor. 25
21. As of the Petition Date, Matser held the following licenses in the State of Florida:
(i) Real Estate Broker or Sales (B3230710), (ii) Certified Building Contractor (CBC1256780), (iii)
Certified Pool/Spa Contractor (CBC1256780), and (iv) Home Inspector (HI5620).
21
Citrus County Agenda Memo dated April 9, 2024.
22
In August 2023, Matser and his son-in-law Matthew Musto were criminally charged by the Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission for destroying or disturbing active gopher tortoise burrows at IV4 during construction of
homes
23
The other defendants are (i) Deer Trust Management Investment LLC, (ii) Puffin 4 LLC, (iii) Foxrun 4 LLC, and
(iv) DT Terra Vista LLC.
24
A copy of the Fla DEP Complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit E.
25
See Schedules of Assets and Liabilities filed in the bankruptcy case.
7
4903-5303-3810.2
Case 3:25-bk-01382-BAJ Doc 69 Filed 07/01/25 Page 8 of 14
22. As of the Petition Date, VDV Construction held one insurance policy, a
Commercial General Liability policy issued by Richmond National Insurance Company with
limits of insurance of $1,000,000 per occurrence and $2,000,000 General Aggregate. VDV
Construction had no surety bonds.
23. VDV Construction operates out of a building located at 1601 N. Florida Avenue,
Hernando, Florida 34442 that is owned by Matser and his wife, Ingrid Matser. 26
IV. Legal Analysis and Conclusions
24. Based on the investigation, the Trustee responds to the Investigation Topics as set
forth below.
(a) The causes of the Debtor’s business failure.
25. The Debtor’s business failure appears to have been caused by a variety of factors.
First, there is evidence that (i) the Debtor underpriced its homes for some periods of time and took
on significantly more construction projects than it had historically handled or could realistically
complete, (ii) the Debtor encountered delays and cost overruns, some of which may have been the
result of rising construction costs and difficultly obtaining construction materials, and (iii) these
issues lead to a situation where the Debtor was entering into new contracts and using the funds
from new contracts to stay operational and complete other projects that had significant delays.
When the issues at IV4 reduced or stopped the Debtor’s ability to continue selling construction
contracts, the Debtor was past due with many subcontractors, had many unfinished projects, faced
mounting regulatory problems due to its operations at IV4, and was unable to continue funding
operations on many projects.
26
Per Citrus County Property Appraiser website.
8
4903-5303-3810.2
Case 3:25-bk-01382-BAJ Doc 69 Filed 07/01/25 Page 9 of 14
26. Second, the IV4 development second phase was plagued with known problems and
had a significant risk of failure from the beginning. There were no earmarked funds for
infrastructure, the Citrus County litigation had determined that the infrastructure costs would be
paid by the lot owners, and it was foreseeable that SWFTMD would take the position that an ERP
permit was required. There is evidence that some delays at IV4 were caused by permitting issues,
including Citrus County stopping new construction permits at IV4. However, these issues were
largely foreseeable and predictable consequences of the Debtor’s construction activity, especially
considering the Debtor and its principal’s long-term involvement in the development of IV4.
27. Third, the Debtor appears to have engaged in related party transactions and
significant transactions with the land-owning entities, most of which were the successors to
Marpad. The Trustee did not fully investigate these transactions, but the level of these types of
transactions in light of the circumstances of this case raises significant red flags.
(b) Whether the Debtor engaged in gross mismanagement by ignoring permitting
requirements or otherwise.
28. Section 1185(a) of the Bankruptcy Code provides for certain remedies, such as
removal of a debtor in possession, if cause is shown, which includes “fraud, dishonesty,
incompetence, or gross mismanagement of the affairs of the debtor…” either before or after the
filing a bankruptcy case. 11 U.S.C. § 1185(a). Similarly, Section 1112(b) of the Bankruptcy Code
contemplates dismissal or conversion of a Chapter 11 case for cause, unless the Court makes
certain other determinations. “Cause” for purposes of Section 1112(b)(4) is defined to include
“gross mismanagement of the estate.”
29. In determining whether sufficient cause exists under a similar provision of the
Bankruptcy Code, bankruptcy courts have considered a variety of factors, including (i) materiality
of the misconduct, (ii) evenhandedness or lack of same in dealings with insiders or affiliated
entities vis-à-vis other creditors or customers, (iii) the existence of pre-petition voidable
preferences or fraudulent transfers, (iv) unwillingness or inability of management to pursue estate
causes of action, (v) conflicts of interest on the part of management interfering with its ability to
fulfill fiduciary duties to the debtor, and (iv) self-dealings by management or waste or squandering
of corporate assets. See In re Sundale, Ltd., 400 B.R. 890, 900 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 2009)(addressing
“cause” under Section 1104(a)(1)); In re Legacy Pools LLC, 2024 WL 4209577 (Bankr. M.D. Fla.
2024).
30. In this case, there is substantial evidence that VDV Construction (i) ignored or was
willfully blind to permitting requirements (ii) engaged in some level of related party transactions,
and (iii) built houses for consumers who were misled about the IV4 development.
31. With respect to permitting requirements, the Debtor should have anticipated the
inevitable issues with Citrus County and SWFTMD because they had already occurred once when
Marpad built out a small northern part of IV4. The Trustee understands the Debtor’s position to be
that it was building homes for many individual lot owners (who had simultaneously purchased the
lot at IV4, usually from a successor to Marpad), and that Debtor was not acting as a developer and
thus was not required to obtain certain permits or address issues such as supplying electricity,
9
4903-5303-3810.2
Case 3:25-bk-01382-BAJ Doc 69 Filed 07/01/25 Page 10 of 14
water, roads, or stormwater drainage to the homes. Whatever the merit of that position, it seems
clear that VDV Construction and Matser knew about the history of problems at IV4 and that
whoever bought the land would face significant liability for the necessary buildout of streets,
stormwater infrastructure, water, and power.
32. Many consumers advised the Trustee that they didn’t know these things. There is
evidence that customers were told roads would be constructed after the build out and that the reason
the roads weren’t built was so that construction equipment didn’t damage the roads. Similarly,
there is evidence that consumers were told the infrastructure would cost around $6,000 or $6,500
per lot. However, according to the report commissioned by Citrus County, that cost could be as
high as $109,000 per lot. There is also evidence that obtaining power to the homes has been
challenging for some consumers, with the power company advising some customers it could be as
much as $25-40,000 to connect power. Consumers largely told a similar story with respect to
buying a home at IV4:
a. The consumer visited a model home located at IV4 and spoke with a real estate
salesperson. It appears the primarily real estate agencies involved were Gibraltar
Real Estate Group and Casulta Realty Group.
b. Working with the real estate salesperson, the consumer selected a lot and a home
plan. It was unclear if customers were presented options to buy non-VDV
Construction models, or if just VDV models were offered. But almost all chose a
VDV Construction home.
c. The consumer viewed the lot/home purchase as part of one transaction – handled
by the same real estate agent and title company.
d. Many of the homes had significant delays, culminating in many never being
completed, and now being abandoned.
(c) Whether the Debtor inappropriately transferred funds to insiders or affiliates.
33. The investigation uncovered multiple related parties and certain related party
transactions. These raise significant red flags, but as of the date of this report, the Trustee cannot
conclude that they were necessarily inappropriate.
34. An initial item to note is the extensive number of entities that the Debtor’s
principals created, operated, or owned. A list of entities believed to be affiliated with the Debtor
or insiders of the Debtor is attached hereto as Exhibit D. The Trustee did not fully analyze the
business operations (or lack thereof) of many of these entities. This includes, for example, an entity
formed in January 2025 named MB1725, LLC where Matser serves as manager.
10
4903-5303-3810.2
Case 3:25-bk-01382-BAJ Doc 69 Filed 07/01/25 Page 11 of 14
35. As to related-party transactions, the Trustee compared the known related parties to
the Debtor’s account records, which reflect the following transactions to persons or entities
believed to be related to the Debtor between 2020-2025: 27
36. Matser advised the Trustee that M to the Third LLC (managed by Melissa Musto),
NM Organized LLC (managed by Natalia Rigatuso), and Van Der Valk Tours (president Mr.
Matser) provided services to VDV Construction. The Trustee is unable to reach a conclusion on
these transfers.
37. The Debtor paid significant real estate commissions to the salespeople selling
Debtor-built houses to consumers and had some level of transfers with a lot-owning entity named
DT Villages Investment:
[Remainder of this page intentionally left blank]
27
Mr. Matser advised that he personally controlled the Debtor’s Quickbooks entries and ensured they were accurate.
11
4903-5303-3810.2
Case 3:25-bk-01382-BAJ Doc 69 Filed 07/01/25 Page 12 of 14
38. Separate from payments, VDV Construction also built several homes in IV4 for
parties that appear to be related to the Debtor or parties related to the lot-owning entities. For
example, it appears VDV Construction has constructed homes in IV4 for: (i) Matser 28, (ii) DT
Villages Investment LLC, (iii) DT Terra Vista LLC, (iv) Puffin 4, LLC, (v) Raven 14 Development
LLC, (vi) Foxrun 4 LLC, (vii) Deer Trust Management Investment LLC, (viii) Rosehill 4 LLC,
(iv) Garden Estates of Inverness LLC, and (x) Miranda Springs LLC. Additional investigation
would be necessary to determine, among other things, whether those transactions occurred at
market rates and whether those homes received preferential treatment to other consumers.
39. Finally, the Debtor’s Schedules appear to be inaccurate with respect to insider
transfers. The Statement of Financial Affairs reflect that (i) the Debtor made no transfers within
90 days of the Petition Date, and (ii) the Debtor made no transfers for the benefit of insiders within
one year of the Petition Date. 29
(d) Whether the Debtor continued to accept funds from consumers under circumstances that
suggested that performance of contracted work would be rendered impossible.
40. The Trustee is unable to reach a definitive conclusion on this issue. As set forth
herein, the Debtor was aware of disputes with SWFWMD and Citrus County during much of its
construction of the southern portion of IV4, because Marpad was involved in similar disputes when
building the northern portion of IV4. Throughout many of the delays on existing contracts and
regulatory issues, it appears VDV Construction continued entering into new contracts. And the
end result is that VDV Construction didn’t complete many homes and didn’t pay many
subcontractors. The Trustee has substantial concern that VDV Construction was accepting funds
from customers that were used to keep VDV Construction operational and completing earlier jobs
but reaches no conclusion at this time.
(e) Whether there is a substantial risk that the Debtor is likely to lose any license required
for the continuation of its business.
41. Florida Statutes § 489.129 governs disciplinary proceedings against Florida
licensed contractors and allows the Construction Industry Licensing Board to impose a variety of
actions against contractors, including (i) license revocation, (ii) license suspension, (iii) requiring
28
See 4346 E. Ravenna Street.
29
See Doc. No. 1, p. 44-45, 50.
12
4903-5303-3810.2
Case 3:25-bk-01382-BAJ Doc 69 Filed 07/01/25 Page 13 of 14
financial restitution to consumers, (iv) the imposition of fines. These remedies may be imposed
in a number of circumstances, including “committing mismanagement or misconduct in the
practice of contracting that causes financial harm to a customer,” which includes when (a) “The
contractor has abandoned a customer’s job and the percentage of completion is less than the
percentage of the total contract price paid to the contractor as of the time of abandonment…”, (b)
“Abandoning a construction project in which the contractor is engaged or under contract as a
contractor,” (c) “Committing fraud or deceit in the practice of contracting,” or (d) “Committing
incompetency or misconduct in the practice of contracting.” 30
42. Additionally, Florida has established The Florida Homeowners’ Construction
Recovery Fund (the “Fund”). 31 The Fund was established to compensate individual Florida
homeowners who suffer monetary damages from certain types of violations by a Florida licensed
contractor, and allows qualifying claimants to recover up to $50,000 per claim, typically after a
civil judgment is entered and the claimant exhausts collection efforts, although there are
exceptions. 32 33
43. The Trustee does not express an opinion on whether there is a “substantial
likelihood” that Debtor will lose its contractor’s license. However, the Trustee finds there is
substantial likelihood (i) that homeowners have or will file complaints against Matser’s general
contractor license with the Florida Department of Professional Regulation, and (ii) that
homeowners may bring claims against VDV Construction and/or Matser as an avenue to seek
recovery from the Fund for their damages. In short, the Trustee expects significant going forward
disputes between the Debtor and homeowners.
(f) Such other matters that are relevant to this case and come to light thorough the Trustee’s
investigation.
44. Not applicable.
V. Conclusion
45. The Trustee spoke with many consumers affected by this unfortunate situation. –
like Ms. Dyandria Darel. Ms. Darel advised that she is nearly 80 years old and used her life savings
to pay cash for a home in IV4 that she says was marketed to her as “the cheapest house in all of
Florida.” In the end, it was simply too good to be true.
46. Ms. Darel is left with an unfinished house in a neighborhood with no paved roads,
no stormwater infrastructure, and no power. Her proof of claim attaches correspondence with the
power company, reflecting an estimated cost of $40,000 to connect power to the home. Ms. Darel
also provided the Trustee with a quote from another contractor for more than $100,000 to complete
30
Fla. Stat. § 489.129(g).
31
Fla. Stat. § 489.1402; § 489.140
32
Id.
33
Finally, affected parties could pursue claims against the Debtor under Section 523 of the Bankruptcy Code given
the uncertainty about whether such claims apply in a Subchapter V bankruptcy case. See e.g. In re GFS Industries
LLC, 99 F.4h 223 (5th Cir. 2024).
13
4903-5303-3810.2
Case 3:25-bk-01382-BAJ Doc 69 Filed 07/01/25 Page 14 of 14
her home. This is in addition to whatever her lot will be assessed to construct roads and stormwater
drainage.
47. Whether by outright fraud, collusion, or clever contract structuring by parties with
a unique knowledge of the IV4’s development bizarre history, it appears consumers were duped.
At a minimum, further investigation is necessary.
###
DATED: July 1, 2025
/s/ Andrew V. Layden
ANDREW V. LAYDEN, ESQ.
Florida Bar No. 86070
[email protected] 200 S. Orange Avenue, Suite 2300
Orlando, Florida 32801
Telephone (407) 649-4000
Facsimile (407) 841-0168
Subchapter V Trustee
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on July 1, 2025, I electronically filed the foregoing with the
Clerk of the Court by using the CM/ECF system which will provide a Notice of Electronic Filing
and copy to all parties requesting such notice.
/s/ Andrew V. Layden
ANDREW V. LAYDEN, ESQ.
14
4903-5303-3810.2
