This web page details our opinions of and experiences with:

Glen Scott Fenske
Scott Fenske

of Granite Falls, Washington

This May be the Dumbest, Most Dishonest
Son of a Bitch on God's Green Earth

You Decide




The letter below is our first draft to our attorney. It merely covers the points we wanted to convey to Fenske, before filing suit against him. Our attorney is editing it to suit her tastes. Fenske has ignored our attempts to settle this in a gentlemanly manner -- because, of course, to settle things like this in a gentlemanly manner requires that the opposing parties first be gentlemen. Fenske clearly isn't, and he's seen the last of our gentlemanly efforts as well, so it's off to war and so be it.

First draft of first legal demand to Fenske:

Scott Fenske
POB 725
Granite Falls, Washington

Scott Fenske
13118 Lost Lake Road
Snohomish, Washington

Mr. Fenske,

Re: Notice of Intent to File Suit

Regarding the Fiberform runabout purchased by my client, from you, in July of 2006, several concerns need to be addressed:

  1. In both Craigslist advertisements placed by you, the boat was represented to have an 80 gallon fuel tank. In subsequent conversations, you reiterated this claim both verbally, with multiple witnesses present, and via email. You stated to witness(es) that the vessel had originally had a 60 gallon tank, but that you had, personally, removed that tank and installed a tank of 80 gallons so that you could take longer trips in the boat without refueling. My client represented to you on numerous occasions that the 80 gallon tank was a major factor in his decision to purchase this particular boat. This was a specification of the vessel which was not easily verified at the point of sale, as any fuel tank(s) were permanently installed under the main cabin decking and as such not available for inspection without literally removing the vessel’s decking, a not insignificant task. My client was, therefore, forced to merely accept your word as to the size of any tanks. Since you are a homeowner, My client allowed you more credibility in your representation of the vessel than he normally might. As it turns out, some of the decking was removed subsequent to my client's purchase of the vessel, and the only visible tank was found to have a capacity of 36 gallons. We also have your signed receipt for your purchase of that same 36 gallon tank. It appears as though you simply lied about the available tankage on this vessel. There is no way to know if additional tankage exists further forward, under the decking, as this entails the removal of even more of the permanent decking, and is, as stated, a task of considerable work and expense. In any case, whether additional tankage exists is moot; the fact is that no such tankage is available for use, as any additional tankage is not plumbed into the vessel’s fuel system. It will require a professional boat repair shop to remove the permanently-installed decking to even ascertain whether any additional tankage exists. Unfortunately, as demonstrated below, we are unable to simply take your word for it, as your word appears to be sorely lacking in credibility. In this instance, the vessel appears to have been misrepresented in a manner which would make the vessel seem more valuable than it was Therefore, my client will take whatever action is necessary to recover the costs of:
  1. Removing the existing decking to ascertain whether additional tankage exists, and
  2. Inspection of said tankage (if it exists) to ascertain the useability of said tankage, and
  3. Reinstallation of said tankage (if it exists), and
  4. Plumbing of said tankage (if it exists) so that it may be utilized, and
  5. Replacement of all removed decking, carpeting, seats, etc., to return the vessel to the condition it was in when purchased by my client.


  1. You represented to witness(es) the vessel to feature a rebuilt engine which was covered by warranty. In point of fact, there is no warranty coverage on the engine because you did not file the required paperwork with the engine rebuilder within 90 days of your receipt of the engine, as required to consummate said warranty. In this instance, the vessel was misrepresented in a manner which would make the vessel seem more valuable than it was. The engine now appears to have a mechanical problem which will not under any circumstances be covered by warranty.
  2. You represented to my client and witness(es) that said warranty was “probably transferable” (to the new owner). In point of fact, no such warranty existed at that time.
  3. You represented to my client and witness(es) on several occasions that the vessel would “do 50 mph”, and my client made it clear on as many occasions that he needed every bit of that speed for his application. In point of fact, once the engine was broken in so as to allow the application of full throttle, it was discovered that the vessel would travel at barely 38 mph. Since you had owned and used this vessel for many years before this sale, it seems clear you would have been aware of this fact. In this instance, the vessel was misrepresented in a manner which would make the vessel seem more valuable than it was.
  4. You represented to My client that the vessel could not be tested at full throttle because the engine was not yet broken in and to use full throttle would void the “warranty” (which we now know didn't exist). Upon completion of the break in period by my client, and upon the first application of full throttle, it was discovered that the vessel WILL NOT TURN when full throttle is applied. This has been traced to a corrosion of the steering cable and outdrive gimbals, something which does not occur overnight, and something which must have been known to anyone who used the boat in the preceding weeks, months and years. We have no way to verify if the engine did, in fact, actually require the application of an additional 5 hours of half-throttle running, post sale, as you informed my client, to finish the break-in period. We might just as easily conclude that the engine was already through its break-in period, but that you concocted the story to make sure the vessel would not be tested at full throttle so as to not expose the dismal performance of the boat, or the steering cable fault, or the engine knock which is now manifest at half and above throttle settings.

This transaction, it would appear, was subjected to a number of other misrepresentations; however the preceding appear to be the most egregious and most documentable in court. It seems clear that you have blatantly and purposefully misrepresented this vessel in a number of ways, so as to obtain a higher price for it than was justified, and to secure a sale for your boat even to those who thought they were buying a very different product. This may be construed as fraud; it is actionable in civil court, and possibly even criminal court. A criminal complaint is being prepared at this time and will be submitted to your local Sheriff’s office in Granite Falls. My client reserves the right to re-file the complaint under due process laws if the county fails to prosecute on his behalf.

We place the monetary injury at the following values:

  1. Fuel tank discrepancy: $621.00 to remove decking, remove existing forward tank (if it exists), inspect, plumb the tank, and replace decking, carpeting and seats as per original pre-sale condition. If the forward tank (if it exists) is not serviceable, the sum of $312 will be added for the purchase of a serviceable tank.
  2. Lack of engine warranty: $500.00.
  3. Misrepresented top speed: To obtain the speed you stated the vessel would attain will require the installation of a larger engine. A suitable engine, in the same represented condition as the engine now installed in the vessel, will cost $1141.00. The engine that’s now installed in the vessel will command a sale price of as much as $875.00, and that’s assuming the knock can be repaired at low cost. The difference is: $266. The swap-out of the engine will cost $465.00 in labor. New cost to you: $731.

In summary, you represented the vessel as being worth more than it was by any standards. My client offered you a “settle now” deal in which you were to pay $712 if paid by 9-25-06. You refused to abide by that offer – in fact refused to respond in any way. We are now willing to settle for $1500.00 cash, payment to be made within ten days of your receipt of this letter. If you ignore this second offer, this amount will no longer be acceptable, and we will move forward with a formal lawsuit against you which will include other damages, attorney’s fees, and court costs.

Careful thought is advised before making your (second) decision in this matter. You may follow the progress of this case, if desired, online.




We believe an edited version of this letter has been sent out by our attorney to Mr. Fenske (we'll post it here as soon as we have a copy), but that he is proving "difficult" to serve. Fortunately that's easily overcome -- we will simply equip the tenants of Fenske's trailer court with copies of all processes that must be served on Mr. Fenske, and we trust they will be in a position to serve Mr. Fenske when he comes to collect rents (as we concluded our boat deal, Fenske was laughing about how he gave his tenants NO SLACK).

There is a new twist in this disgusting case, in that the mysterious "knocking" in the engine has turned out to be a rod bearing. In other words, for all intents and purposes, the engine is shot. We can probably save the heads, and maybe the block, no more. Bearing debris will have circulated throughout the engine and damaged or ruined every bearing surface therein. It is being worked on by a local shop at this time to see what can be salvaged. This will grossly affect the amount we're willing to settle with Mr. Fenske for, since his representation of the engine being under warranty was absolutely not valid and may be proven to be actually fraudulent in a court of law.

Once we've corrected all the problems this boat has, including the engine, steering, battery, wiring, fuel tank, fuel lines (filler and vent), it will turn out that we merely bought a bare hull from Fenske-- value: about $500. Fenske's "rebuilt" outdrive has not yet failed, but given his track record with everything else, we've already ordered a NEW unit, and will sh*tcan the old one, simply because Fenske touched it. We are proceeding with our suit against Scott Fenske. Had he told the truth about the warranty being void a year or more previous to this sale, we might not have bought the boat -- certainly not at the price we paid.

The engine remanufacturer in this fiasco was:

S&S Engine Remanufacturing Inc.
North 1023 Monroe St.
Spokane, WA., 99201
Fax: 509-326-8245

10-11-06 -- Always Under Construction......