Prineville, Ore. — A dispute involving a Central Oregon contractor has progressed from complaints to state agencies and a mediated settlement agreement before the Oregon Construction Contractors Board (CCB) to court proceedings after a homeowner alleged the agreement was breached.
Records obtained by the Prineville Review through a public records request detail a complaint filed with the CCB against Austin Cole Fox, operating as ACF Construction. The records show the dispute centered on an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) project for which the complainant, Patty DeDominic, alleged she paid a $10,000 deposit.
According to documents provided to state agencies, DeDominic first sought to resolve the matter directly with Fox after learning that county permitting restrictions would prevent construction of the planned ADU project.
In a January demand letter later submitted as part of complaints to state agencies, DeDominic stated she had paid a $10,000 deposit in June 2025 for the project. She alleged that after zoning restrictions prevented the ADU from moving forward, no construction work was performed, no materials were supplied, and repeated requests for communication regarding alternative options went unanswered.
The letter demanded a full refund of the deposit and warned that if the matter could not be resolved, she intended to pursue complaints with state regulators and other consumer protection organizations.
Records reviewed by the Prineville Review indicate that DeDominic subsequently submitted a complaint to the Oregon Department of Justice. The DOJ later referred the matter to the Oregon Construction Contractors Board, which has primary regulatory authority over licensed contractors in Oregon.
The dispute then entered the CCB’s complaint and mediation process.
Mediation agreement through CCB between DeDominic and Fox
The CCB records show that on February 12, 2026, Fox and DeDominic participated in a telephone mediation facilitated by the agency. As part of the settlement, Fox agreed to repay $10,000 through five monthly installments of $2,000 beginning March 10, 2026. The agreement further provided that if any payment was missed, the remaining balance would become immediately due and payable.
Less than six weeks later, however, DeDominic notified the CCB that the first payment had not been received.
In correspondence submitted to the agency, DeDominic alleged that Fox failed to make the first installment payment required under the settlement agreement and had not otherwise communicated regarding the obligation. She subsequently issued a formal notice of default demanding payment of the entire remaining balance and requested that the CCB document the alleged breach.
CCB records show the agency subsequently advised DeDominic that if she wished to pursue access to the contractor’s bond through the agency’s dispute process, she would need to initiate litigation or arbitration and obtain a judgment related to the same facts and issues underlying the complaint.
DeDominic then filed a civil complaint in Crook County Circuit Court.
Documents contained within the file show DeDominic later informed the CCB that she had filed a claim in Crook County. She further alleged that repeated attempts to serve Fox had been unsuccessful and that she ultimately hired a private investigator and obtained a skip-trace report in an effort to locate a current address for service.
Following receipt of documentation showing a court action had been filed, the CCB notified both parties that its administrative complaint process would be placed on hold pending the outcome of the litigation. Agency correspondence explained that because the court possesses higher authority and jurisdiction over the dispute, the CCB could only continue processing the complaint based on the outcome of the court case.
License status and consumer protections
According to Oregon Construction Contractors Board records, Fox’s contractor license is currently lapsed. State licensing records also reflect prior issues involving required surety bond coverage.
Under Oregon law, licensed contractors are generally required to maintain both liability insurance and a surety bond. The surety bond serves as an important consumer protection mechanism and may provide a source of recovery in certain circumstances involving contractor disputes, judgments, or other covered claims.
The Oregon CCB advises consumers to verify a contractor’s license status, bond, and insurance coverage before entering into a construction contract. Active licensure helps ensure a contractor has met Oregon’s bonding and insurance requirements and provides consumers with access to protections that may not otherwise be available when working with an unlicensed contractor.
Court filing circulated online
The dispute gained broader public attention after DeDominic obtained court approval for alternative service and subsequently served portions of the legal action through email and social media platforms by listing a website with copies of the complaint.
Records obtained from the Oregon Construction Contractors Board show copies of the service-related communications were also provided to the agency and became part of the public record. The communications were among the documents released to the Prineville Review in response to a public records request this week.
Following the circulation of those filings online, a number of individuals publicly alleged having experienced their own issues involving Fox or companies associated with him. The Prineville Review has not independently verified those separate allegations, and they are not part of the underlying CCB complaint discussed in this article.
The records also include returned correspondence sent by the CCB to an address associated with Fox’s contractor license. One returned mailing was marked by postal officials as undeliverable and unable to be forwarded.
Contractor’s response
The Prineville Review contacted Fox this week and provided him an opportunity to comment regarding the allegations contained in the CCB records and related court filings.
Rather than responding to questions concerning the dispute and CCB issues, Fox repeatedly declined to address the allegations or comment generally. During the conversation, Fox instead questioned this publication regarding individuals who had been contacted during the reporting process and asserted that he intended to sue the Prineville Review and this reporter for what he described as “slander.”
Fox also claimed that the publication was not permitted to publish any story mentioning him without his consent and stated that he had retained legal counsel. He informed him that such unsupported threats would not intimidate and prevent us from potentially reporting, and that this publication intended to offer him the opportunity to address the civil complaint and other reported issues with CCB.
CCB encourages consumers to report problems
While the CCB declined to comment on the specific dispute beyond the records released, Leslie Culpepper, the agency’s Communications and Education Manager, indicated that consumers who encounter problems with contractors are encouraged to contact the Construction Contractors Board.
“I don’t know if everyone who has run into trouble with this contractor has contacted the CCB, but we always advise they communicate with us,” Culpepper said in an email accompanying the records release.
The Prineville Review has not independently determined whether other consumers have filed complaints involving Fox or ACF Construction beyond those reflected in the records released by the agency. Any additional complaints or disciplinary actions would be subject to separate review through public records and state licensing records.
As of publication, the dispute between DeDominic and Fox remains pending. No answer or other appearance has yet been filed on Fox’s behalf.
We also reached out to DeDominic for comment about her lawsuit against Fox prior to publication, but have not yet heard back.
Mr. Alderman is an investigative journalist specializing in government transparency, non-profit accountability, consumer protection, and is a subject matter expert on Oregon’s public records and meetings laws. As a former U.S. Army Military Police Officer, he brings a disciplined investigative approach to his reporting that has frequently exposed ethics violations, financial mismanagement, and transparency failures by public officials and agencies.
 to court proceedings after a homeowner alleged the agreement was breached.){kind=link}