TRUTH: The allegation that S.C. made accusing Dave Reilly of being a “tool thief” is demonstrably false. Between 2018 and 2025, Dave spent nearly $100,000 on verifiable tool purchases from the Littleton, NH Home Depot and eBay sellers alone. Documentation of these purchases have been made publicly available on this website (CLICK HERE). Dave additionally made tool purchases at Harbor Freight and Lowe’s during the same period totaling several thousands of dollars more. Because those receipts are hard copies rather than in digital format, they are not yet available online, but exist as proof nonehtless.

In addition to public posts, S.C. sent a direct Facebook message to Dave’s wife accusing her of selling stolen tools on Facebook Marketplace and threatening to report her to law enforcement as an accomplice. These actions further demonstrate a pattern of harassment and unfounded accusations circulating on the Bethlehem, NH, USA Local Chat Facebook page.

TRUTH: N.K. and C.H. posted that Dave Reilly eledgedly took financial advantage of a widow who attends church with his mother. Going by this alone, the referenced individual is easy to identify, and the story these two people posted about him taking advantage of this woman is absolutely absurd.

The woman referenced required emergency demolition of a large deteriorating section of her old farm home. Multiple contractors advised her that the entire structure should be demolished and declined the work. Dave accepted the project to assist her when no one else could or would as she was a friend of his parents and he felt bad about her situation.

The scope involved demolishing a large portion of the house while supporting the roof structure and preserving the front fieldstone foundation wall. The demolished section of the home was then rebuilt from foundation up, and the roof saved. This portion of completed work amounted to 75% of the contracted project scope (or more), yet Dave was only paid for half. At this point, one of Dave's MCA lenders contacted the homeowner and caused her significant distress (tortious interference). As a result, Dave did not request further payment for work completed to that point. He instead told the woman to keep what was owed to him, as well as the final contract balance amount, which left her plenty of money to finish the 25% (or less) of work remaining. (In other words, Dave walked away from receiving 50% of the contract dollars including money that was due, and she had several adult sons skilled in construction to finish the 25% of the remaining work for her with that money.) She expressed relief that Dave was willing to walk away at this point and let her sons finish it since the bulk of the project (including the most difficult heavy work) was done. The only work remaining to be done on the contract at that point involved indoor framing and sheetrocking, which, again, her adult sons were skilled and experienced at doing. Plumbing and electrical work were not part of Dave’s contract with her.

In total, Dave absorbed approximately $30,000 in completed unpaid work, in addition to the remaining $20,000 contract balance and work he lost as a result.

Dave also, despite not taking any more money from her, returned to the project with his equipment and spent a week putting drainage around the home because she had a water problem. This was $15,000 worth of additional work (value) for labor, materials, equipment, operator and fuel that she was not charged for.

In summary, Dave did about $95,000 worth of work for only $50,000. Whoever is characterizing that as taking advantage of a widow does not understand construction or the circumstances around what actually happened.

Finally, based on his own interactions with her, Dave feels it is unlikely that this woman is the source of this story being spread about him on social media. In fact, she has since relayed to Dave's parents that she remains greatful he had taken on her project, and felt she would still be looking for someone to do it had he not.

TRUTH: Three prior customers who had their complaint against Dave dismissed by the BBB have taken to the Bethlehem, NH, USA Local Chat public Facebook page (as a GROUP) in order to smear him while painting themselves as victims when they are indeed NOT. Dave has responded formally and respectfully to the powers that be regarding any complaint made against him and his company. Please read the BBB section of this website for a summary of his responses concerning these three individuals.

In all instances of these individuals, the complaints involved a customer who either decided they did not want Dave to proceed with the work or changed the scope of the work to avoid completion, or drove him and his subcontractors off of a project that was well underway or nearly completed. The three mentioned in this "Truth vs Myth" response (J.M., L.P. and PB's sister M.B.) wanted refunds after they chose to stop the work themselves in one of the described manners. Additionally, all three of these customers wanted money refunded for work that was already performed and/or did not want to be in a position of owing Dave a substantial final payment for completing the small amount of work that remained. In other words, they halted the project after most of the work was completed (or the most difficult parts of it) to prevent him from finishing, and then kept the unpaid contract balances. Other contractors out there may find this to be a familiar scenario as well when it comes to some customers who have involved and/or costly projects and figure out ways to short the contractor as they do not want to pay for what it actually costs the contractor to do the work (let alone make any profit). Although such instances are what mechanic leans are about, sadly Dave never had the time nor money to exercise his legal options in this area.

To add to the financial and reputation injuries these individuals have caused, P.B.'s sister (whose initials are M.B.) has STALKED Dave relentlessly.  L.P. and her husband have not been completely innocent in this area either, as per Dave's response to the BBB regarding their complaint against him, and J.M. has been the ringleader of the Bethlehem Facebook smear campaign against him without disclosing her and her husband's own roles in everything. The other side of the story concerning these three individuals and Dave's experiences with each can be accessed on the BBB page of this website (CLICK HERE).

Regarding P.B.'s sister, Dave considered putting a restraining order on her, but the Bethlehem police officer he spoke with about the matter advised him it would require a court process to accomplish. Coincidentally, the next day P.B.'s sister put a "No Trespass" order on Dave even though he is NOT the one doing the stalking and harassing.

There is one BBB comment people may also have read in which a lady remarked about how bad her roof crickets looked (her initials are L.S.). This same individual was advised by Dave that installing the crickets would be a terrible idea (cosmetically speaking), but she insisted on having them nonetheless. After being installed, she went on to comment on the BBB website about how bad they looked. No kidding. Dave ultimately sent a subcontractor over to remove them at NO cost to this customer, yet she persisted in making further derogatory remarks about him on the BBB website. Once again, an old saying rings true: "You can't make unhappy people happy."

TRUTH: Dave has never been accused of poor quality workmanship regarding anything he has PERSONALLY put his OWN HANDS to working on over the past 40 (plus) years of his construction career. Any project that Dave has PERSONALLY done the work on would not fit this derogatory description of him or level of mistrust in his abilities. This statement made by P.M. and/or his wife is actually referring to the work of a regrettable subcontractor whom Dave no longer is associated with. In any event, the following five points provide the FACTUAL circumstances behind this couple's deragatroy online remarks about Dave, yet are not part of their narrative:

1) SUBCONTRACTOR RELIANCE: During the timeframe P.M. and his wife's home was under construction, Dave was managing multiple roofing projects concurrently. Consequently, after completing initial site work to the point of when footings could be constructed, he had to begin depending extensively on subcontractors to do the work. This reliance was necessary to maintain project continuity amidst overlapping commitments.

2) DAVE'S INJURY: In November 2024, Dave sustained a significant foot injury which rendered him unable to walk or physically visit the construction site for over six weeks. This unfortunate incident necessitated continued reliance on subcontractors for P.M. and his wife's home construction project. Additionally, it was hard to control the schedules as Dave cannot legally direct the day-to-day activities of subcontractors or micromanage their work. They are, indeed, their own boss and are supposed to know what they are doing. That is how this one subcontractor in particular marketed himself to Dave.

3) EXTERNAL INFLUENCE and COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN: Just prior to P.M and his wife's decision to restrict Dave's access to the project, he was on his way to the site when he spotted a Bethlehem woman walking around P.M.'s property (this woman was M.B. who also goes by the initials P.B and was mentioned in the previous TRUTH section as the person following Dave around and harassing him). This woman more than likely went on to negatively influence P.M. and his wife's perception of Dave and his company (an action legally referred to as tortious interference). In any event, she had no business being on the project site. Soon following this incident, P.M.'s attitude shifted from respectful to confrontational. Notably, P.M. expressed skepticism regarding the ordering and delivery of windows that had indeed been purchased and delivered to the local Home Depot in Littleton. Despite Dave's efforts to provide proof, including verification from the store's management, P.M. and his wife persisted in their disbelief, leading to further accusations that were unfounded and damaging to Dave's professional reputation. An example of this is when P.M. accused Dave of throwing one of his company signs into a trash heap on their property. To this allegation Dave did not respond as the couple was berating him with rhetorical emails and texts assigning behaviors and intent that are not in keeping with his character. When it gets to the point where you are belittled because it is impossible to prove a negative, communications inevitably break down. At any rate, it was clear at this point the couple had either spoken with the Bethlehem stalker personally or was influenced by the false narratives being spun online by her, her sister, J.M., L.P. and others on the Bethlehem Facebook gossip page (moderated by an individual biased against Dave for reasons yet unknown).

4) FAILURE to ALLOW a RIGHT to CURE: P.M. and his wife failed to provide Dave with the opportunity to remedy any alleged issues as per their contractual agreement with him and his company. The SAME day the couple submitted an itemized list of purported problems—supposedly sourced from a structural engineer—they simultaneously issued a Cease-and-Desist order, eliminating Dave's access to the property thus any opportunity for him to inspect structural issues himself, and/or remedy the work of his subcontractors. This action directly contravenes the contract's stipulated "Right to Resolve Construction Defects" clauses (stated on page 15 of the contract and also known as "Right to Cure"). Prior discussions with P.M.'s wife confirmed Dave's willingness to address any substantive issues identified by the structural engineer. As a contractor with over 40 years of experience, Dave is fully equipped to handle reinforcement and restoration of foundational structures, should any legitimate concerns arise. In other words, restorative work of weak structures is well within Dave's wheelhouse -- and newer unfinished structures are not as difficult to remedy as old ones such as the farmhouse referred to in the second TRUTH vs MYTH response on this page.

The following are the specific areas of the contract that were completely disregarded by this customer in their restrictive actions against Dave:

13.3. Right to Resolve Construction Defects
In accordance with New Hampshire law, RSA 359-G, the Contractor reserves the right to resolve alleged construction defects before the Buyer may commence litigation against the Contractor. The Buyer must serve on the Contractor a written notice of any construction conditions alleged to be defective at least sixty (60) days before filing a lawsuit or other action. The Contractor then has the opportunity to make an offer to repair and/or pay for the defects. (Recall that Dave was served a Cease and Desist letter without being provided the contract's stipulated period of time for him to inspect or resolve any issues.)

13.5. Failure to Comply
Failure by the Buyer to comply with the requirements of this clause and New Hampshire law, RSA 359-G, may affect the Buyer's ability to file a lawsuit or other action against the Contractor.

5) THREATS of ARREST: After the Cease-and-Desist letter came -- and Dave indeed obeyed the order -- the couple (or someone else) spotted a pickup truck in the vicinity of their project. P.M. and his wife immediately contacted Dave to let him know that if he visited their site, he would be arrested for criminal trespassing. The truck that was spotted was NOT Dave's, nor has he stepped foot on their property since he received their Cease-and-Desist order, but harassment of Dave continued nonetheless, including the couple's online derogatory comments about him and his company.