By Palm Beach & Broward Mugshots.
A customer who canceled an interstate move before any belongings were transported is suing Menards Moving & Storage LLC in Palm Beach County, seeking the return of a $1,077.30 deposit.
John O’Sullivan filed the small-claims lawsuit on April 19, 2026. According to his statement of claim, he hired Menards on March 1 to arrange a move from Chicago to Austin, Texas. Menards is federally registered as a household-goods broker—not a motor carrier—and the move was to be performed by a separate carrier selected through the company.
O’Sullivan alleges that he canceled the move on March 17 and demanded his deposit back. Menards refused.
No moving services were ultimately performed, according to the complaint. The lawsuit seeks the deposit, court costs and related fees. Menards has not been found liable, and the allegations remain subject to the court’s determination.
Two different cancellation provisions
A central issue is what O’Sullivan describes as contradictory refund language.
The estimate displayed a promotional statement saying that the deposit was “fully refundable until March 15, 2026.” However, the contract’s detailed cancellation provision generally limited a customer’s right to a refund to 48 hours after signing.
O’Sullivan signed on March 1. Under the 48-hour provision, the cancellation period would have ended around March 3. Even under the more favorable March 15 date displayed on the estimate, his March 17 cancellation came two days after the stated deadline.
His lawsuit nevertheless argues that the conflicting provisions made the agreement ambiguous and that the contract should be interpreted against Menards because the company drafted it. O’Sullivan further contends that alleged violations of federal moving-broker regulations made the agreement unenforceable from the beginning.
Menards rejected that position in correspondence attached to the lawsuit. The company stated that O’Sullivan’s cancellation fell outside the contractual refund period and that it had already performed scheduling, coordination, carrier-sourcing and capacity-reservation services.
Dispute over the required household-goods survey
The case also challenges the way Menards presented a waiver of the customer’s right to a physical survey.
Federal regulations generally require an interstate household-goods broker’s estimate to be based on a physical survey performed by the authorized carrier. A customer may waive that survey in writing.
The regulation requires the broker to explain the waiver in plain English and print it on the written estimate in a type size of at least seven points using the Universe typeface.
O’Sullivan alleges that Menards embedded the waiver deep within a lengthy contract, did not use the mandated typeface and never completed a valid physical or virtual survey before preparing the estimate. He argues that these alleged deficiencies left him exposed to a price increase when a carrier eventually arrived.
Menards disputed that interpretation in its written response. The company said O’Sullivan had been offered an opportunity to complete a virtual survey and maintained that its booking and estimate procedures complied with applicable regulations.
One part of O’Sullivan’s argument deserves careful qualification: his complaint describes federal law as requiring the waiver to be a separate, standalone document. The current text of 49 C.F.R. §371.113 requires a signed written waiver and says it must be printed on the written estimate, but it does not expressly use the words “separate” or “standalone.” Whether the actual waiver and estimate complied with the regulation is a legal question for the court.
Contract threatens substantial damages for chargebacks
The exhibits also include unusually forceful provisions concerning credit-card disputes.
The Menards agreement says that initiating a chargeback contrary to its terms may expose a customer to $10,000 in liquidated damages. Another provision discusses the possibility of pursuing damages as high as $250,000 for alleged contractual violations.
O’Sullivan characterizes those clauses as unenforceable penalties designed to discourage customers from exercising chargeback rights. Menards’ written response cited the chargeback provisions and warned that an improper dispute could result in additional liability.
The court has not ruled on the validity of those provisions.
Menards is a broker with no reported trucks
The clearest undisputed fact in the public record concerns Menards’ business model.
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration identifies Menards Moving & Storage as an active broker of household goods under USDOT 4072455 and MC-1547461. Its federal company snapshot reports zero power units.
That means Menards arranges interstate moves but does not report operating the trucks that physically transport customers’ belongings under that registration. A separate carrier handles pickup, transportation and delivery.
Florida corporate records show that Menards Moving & Storage LLC was organized in April 2023 and remains active. Joseph Menard is listed as its authorized member.
More than 300 complaints with the Department Of Transportation
The Department Of Transportation categorizes Menards as a moving broker and reports 226 complaints during the preceding three years, including 146 closed during the most recent 12 months.
Published complaints repeatedly allege changing estimates, deposit disputes, delayed deliveries, damaged or missing belongings and difficulty obtaining help after a carrier was assigned.
Those complaints are consumer allegations, not findings of wrongdoing. The BBB states that it does not independently verify every third-party statement and advises readers to consider complaint patterns, company size and responses—not merely the raw total.
Menards has answered most of the BBB complaints. Its responses frequently direct customers to the carrier while offering to help establish contact. Some complainants reported satisfactory resolutions; many others did not indicate that they accepted the response.
Two other federal lawsuits located
At least two additional federal cases have named Menards Moving & Storage.
In Wilkerson and Taslim v. Menards Moving & Storage LLC, filed in South Florida in November 2025, the plaintiffs sued Menards over an interstate-moving dispute. A federal judge dismissed the original complaint without prejudice in March 2026, allowing an amended filing. Menards later requested dismissal with prejudice, which the plaintiffs opposed. The publicly available docket reviewed for this report does not establish a final finding of liability.
In Kolodge v. Menards Moving & Storage LLC and Goodview Moving & Storage LLC, the plaintiffs alleged problems involving the delayed and incomplete delivery of valuable household property. However, they voluntarily dismissed Menards and Joseph Menard from the case with prejudice in September 2025. The remaining claims against the carrier were subsequently dismissed. That case therefore did not produce a judgment against Menards.
What customers should ask before paying a deposit
The O’Sullivan lawsuit illustrates why consumers should establish, in writing, whether a business will transport their belongings or merely arrange for another company to do so.
Before paying, customers should request:
- The legal names and federal registration numbers of both the broker and carrier
- The identity of the company that will physically perform the move
- A complete written inventory
- A binding or nonbinding estimate based on a proper survey
- Every cancellation and refund deadline
- An explanation of deposit, chargeback and dispute provisions
- Written procedures for damaged, delayed or missing property
Consumers can confirm broker and carrier authority through FMCSA’s Protect Your Move and SAFER systems.
Menards Moving & Storage should be invited to provide a response addressing the O’Sullivan lawsuit, its refund provisions, its survey-waiver procedures, the chargeback clauses and its process for selecting and monitoring carriers. Any substantive response should be added to this report.
Editor’s note: A lawsuit contains allegations that may be contested. Filing a claim does not establish liability. This report reflects records available as of August 10, 2026.
Comments are moderated. Text only. No photos, videos, links, addresses, phone numbers, victim information, witness names, threats, harassment, racial slurs, or unverified accusations. All individuals are presumed innocent unless proven guilty in a court of law. Your email must be verified before your comment can be reviewed. For safety and moderation, comment submissions may include your name, email, IP address, browser/device information, and comment activity.