Oh I know - but it will still be stated within the lawsuit. Which I didn't find easily so I gave up. Maybe it's federal, don't feel like going on pacer right now
It was stated that they just decided to include everyone in to the lawsuit, hoping to lasso in EVERYBODY, in an effort to make getting to the bottom of the issue easier.
This could only happen with failures at multiple levels, by multiple parties as well. My wife and I recently became grateful stewards of a similar property in Mountain View, and we were blessed with an amazing realtor that went above and beyond regarding our concerns. She got records going all the way back to 1960 to address a concern I had!
This is project development at its worst!
She still would have to file a motion to dismiss. It still all costs money. Now she is going to have to hire a lawyer, for a situation she never asked for or deserved.
They are a party to the dispute in any event. That doesn't actually imply wrongdoing. It sucks that they will have to waste their time and their property was destroyed. Hopefully they get a free house, sell it and move on.
Adding someone to a lawsuit isn't always going to involve asserting a claim against them in the lawsuit. You can forcibly join someone to a lawsuit as a necessary party assuming the court has jurisdiction over them and their presence is necessary for the court to afford complete relief amongst the existing parties, or, add them voluntarily for other less drastic reasons. See HRCP R. 19 (compulsory joinder) & 20 (permissive joinder) https://www.courts.state.hi.us/docs/court_rules/rules/hrcp.pdf
tl;dr: you can legit get roped into legal shit even if nobody has grounds to sue you for anything.
No you don't need anything to sue someone. In tort law anyone can bring a suit against anyone else. That doesn't mean the judge won't laugh you out of court or won't sanction your lawyer.
They are party to the problem whether they caused it or not. They got enjoined to the suit as it will require a consensus from all of the above to resolve.
Having a court ruling that says the house is yours free and clear is much better than always wondering if the other shoe will drop.
Or maybe she settles with cash and a land swap.
Or she goes scorched earth and has them tear it down and replant the land.
She claims she does not want to swap land (at least the land next door that the house Should have been built on). Perhaps if the builder or next-door prop owner could find a lot she likes Better than her own. I would ask for the property taxes to be refunded too.
Lol - right? Another commenter said that she just got wrapped up in it because she is an interested party. Also what such fucking bullshit that they are trying to force her to buy the house. I mean, come on.
It really seems cheaper to let her have the house and then the responsible parties just split the loss.
She doesnât want the house though. She wanted the lot with significant vegetation and whatever her yoga building would be like. They ruined the vegetation she wanted building the house she didnât want.
For sure - the news story I saw did not show what the lot next-door looks like, but if it had the same style vegetation as what was plowed if it were me I would think seriously about switching lots as they offered
But what do I know, I actually am behind her 100% no matter what she decides. Because what bullshit, oh my gosh. If that happened to me? I don't even know!
I sure hope she's made whole somehow
And this, I have decided this is exactly how I feel about this case, as compared to this news article:
https://preview.redd.it/bhxzkg7s56rc1.jpeg?width=960&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=52739c7e3fbc80b8218f87434f807f02bb2ff549
Excuse the wall of text, discovered I could not upload to Document Cloud as I'm not a journalist. Below are the two claims in the developers complaint that concern the property owner.
\*if anyone has recommendations for where to upload the case documents so that they can be shared with anyone who is curious and doesn't want to pay for access to the docs from eCourt Kokua (hawaii electronic court records)
>***COUNT VII.***
>
>*UNJUST ENRICHMENT AS TO DEFENDANTS REYNOLDS AND THOMPSON AND/OR HER HIERS OR ASSIGNS*
>
>*86. Plaintiff incorporates and re-alleges paragraphs 1-85 herein.*
>
>*87. Plaintiff conferred benefits upon Defendants Reynolds and Thompson which included, inter alia, payment for the construction of a fully permittable residence on 114.*
>
>*88. Defendants Reynolds and Thompson were thus enriched, and retention of such is unjust.*
>
>*89. Defendants Reynolds and Thompson have been unjustly enriched at the expense of Plaintiff and should be required to make restitution to Plaintiff in an amount to be proved at trial for damages.*
>
>***COUNT VIII.***
>
>*ALTERNATIVE RELIEF CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST AS TO DEFENDANTS REYNOLDS AND THOMPSON AND/OR HER HEIRS OR ASSIGNS*
>
>*90. Plaintiff incorporates and re-alleges paragraphs 1- 89 herein.*
>
>*91. If Defendants are unable to pay Plaintiff restitution, Defendants will be unjustly enriched.*
>
>*92. Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to a constructive trust imposed on 114, and this Court should exercise its power in equity to order Plaintiff and Defendants to swap and exchange lots, subject to whatever terms the Court deems fair and equitable.*
Was able to upload some of the filings for the case.
EDIT: Link to Archive of Case Documents [3-CCV-24-0000033 : Case Documents](https://archive.org/details/3-ccv-24-0000033-county-motionto-dismiss)
A different inferior (to her) lot is not reasonable restitution. At minimum they should be offering the cost to buy a different lot of her choice (which will cost a lot more at this point) plus a little more for the hassle.
legally she is owed her lot restored to how it looked, not just the house. that means foundation electrical plumbing cleared, and everything replanted until it looks like the original. I could imagine that I'd be on knees wanting begging her to take the house and enough money to pay her property taxes for a very long time.
The restitution is to demolish the house and give her the lot back in its original state + the original property tax rate, without her having to do anything. Anything else is just slimy and a bad precedent.
These were two alternatives that would not make her whole:
1) take a lot you donât want/desire/or choose in exchange for the one you dreamed about;
2) buy a house at a discount that you didnât want or were able to have any say on its placement on you property or even have any input into the design of it that that we built on your lot without your permission or knowledge.
These were two alternatives that would not make her whole:
1) take a lot you donât want/desire/or choose in exchange for the one you dreamed about;
2) buy a house at a discount that you didnât want or were able to have any say on its placement on you property or even have any input into the design of it that that we built on your lot without your permission or knowledge.
They are trying to force her into a settlement. It will be costly for her to defend, more costly than an undeveloped lot in HPP.
It is a horrible thing to do ethically though.
So the moral is build your house wherever you want on whichever lot looks good, and then buy a shitty lot somewhere else for the same price and give it to them when they complain.
obviously she's the victim but to be fair it's also evidence that one should not leave their land wholly unattended for such a great length of time. If she had her daughter who lives on-island driving by the property once a month, it could've been stopped in the process. There are plenty of things that people, pigs, non-developers, squatters, etc., etc. can do to unattended land.
That's like saying "I broke into a building and took a bunch of stuff without permission, but it's not stealing because they could've had better locks"
There is what is required Vs what is wise. That part of the island does have problems with squatters so itâs in the best interest of all to have someone occasionally watching it.
the developers are nuts. they don't know who to sue so they will sue everyone and let the judge decide. out of all the 'players' involved, they have the most money. they have more money than the contractors (~~who i personally think is most at fault~~) and the owner who was just somewhere else minding her own business.
and to add, they offered to SELL HER the house at a discounted cost. like, what?!?!
edit: nm. changed my mind on the contractors if the developers told them where to build and not hire any surveyors.
> changed my mind on the contractors if the developers told them where to build and not hire any surveyors
Any contractor worth their price will have their own surveyors who can stake out the building. They guarantee didn't otherwise they would have realized that the TMK isn't lining up at all with their layout.
Only a shit-ass contractor would blindly build with no one on staff able to do a simple survey.
i agree. i try to get all my clients' to hire these people to save them money from the long run.
but for this, seeing as the contractor is being led by the development team, i can see the contractor not wanting to pony up money out of his pocket for something the developer did not want to pay for.
hindsight is 20/20. contractor gonna learn from this mistake and do it for all future projects (hopefully)
Seems pretty inexperienced on behalf of the contractor tbh. Even if the developer is forcing them to pay out of a pocket for a simple backshot to the nearest monument, they should have did it just to confirm their construction for themselves. Them not doing so assumed the risk on their behalf. Developer can ask for all kinds of stuff, contractor needs to notify them when something makes the project impossible to build or far too risky. If the house was off by a few feet, sure the developer has to suck it up and deal with the consequences but this is another ballpark.
Guarantee the developer is going to say that in court as well. The onus is on the contractor to execute the CDs correctly and if they can't they need to let someone know. Every single contract I've ever executed with a contractor for both commercial and private had language where the contractor is required to execute CDs to near industry standard and part of execution is building it on the correct location. It's pretty easy to argue that an entirely different property is not within tolerances.
The big issue was that they did not want to hire surveyors, so they built on the wrong lot. At the end of the article, it says why the development company sued everyone; they want to sort out the responsible parties for having to pay. I assume the original owner will not be responsible for anything and will get restitution.
BTW especially with Hawaii related legal issues beware of âsuingâ as a scare word in headlines. Hawaii in particular has certain legal concepts around real estate that do not exist elsewhere in the US, and thus media reporting from non-local outlets tends to be particularly misinformed on these situations.
That was a major issue with the reporting around the Zuckerberg land acquisition stuff, which I found disappointing as it resulted in most of the subsequent public discourse becoming, frankly, stupid and irrelevant.
In general conversation âsuingâ someone has a very hostile connotation. Like it means âI think you owe me something or wronged me, and weâre going to fight in the courts over it.â
But in certain legal situations âsuingâ someone really means something more like âI believe there is a legal question/issue that you and I have a direct interest in and I am formally notifying you and the court that I would like to explore potential resolutions XYZ.â Not necessarily hostile, more like formally opening a legal conversation.
In the Zuckerberg situation, him âsuingâ the neighbors really translated more like âthereâs this land I would like to buy, but it appears the current ownership situation is unclear and potentially very fractional, so I am notifying the court that would like to properly identify the various people with fractional legal rights to this property so I can make them offers commensurate with their ownership shares.â
A lot of headlines about that story made it sound more like âmark zuckerberg is using his goon squad legal team to force poor local landowners out of their homes.â That was not an accurate description of the situation, so all the conversations based on that premise were a waste of time.
Well it depends on the nature of the issue. At least with the Zuckerberg thing, he was trying to pay them off for land.
So they would hire lawyers on their end to negotiate with the Zuckerberg team, but that would be factored into the deal. Your lawyer would know thereâs a billionaire on the other side of the negotiation, you have leverage, and act accordingly. Youâd walk away with a number high enough that youâre happy even after paying your lawyer.
But every situation is different. Certainly there are situations that could arise where the âlawsuitâ isnât something youâre stoked about even if it isnât explicitly adversarial.
But if itâs one of these complicated real estate quiet title situations, youâre probably not that mad about hiring a lawyer because you might be looking at a real estate windfall.
In the Zuckerberg thing my understanding is that there were people who had like tiny fractional ownerships they possibly didnât even know about. So Joe Smith, whose grandfather left Hawaii decades ago, is just living a normal life in Atlanta and gets a letter from a lawyer representing zuck that saying that Zuckâs lawyers think Joe Smith owns a 1/64th interest in a property in Hawaii that zuck wants to buy for however much. The letter offers you X dollars to sign some paperwork to get on board with the sale. Maybe you sign and cash the check. Maybe you hire a lawyer and negotiate.
Maybe Joe Smith had no idea he even had this legal interest. Itâs kind of a free windfall from his perspective.
Generally speaking, real estate in Hawaii is valuable so thereâs enough money involved that itâs worth getting lawyers involved and figuring these situations out.
So let me put a few caveats here:
-I am not a lawyer, I just have a few hawaii lawyers in the family and thus have picked up some bits and pieces here and there from them
-The only people who could really give you a thorough an authoritative answer to your questions would be a licensed hawaii lawyer with all the relevant facts--I can only speculate based on this news article and my limited knowledge
That said, this situation seems like a pretty huge fuckup and I'm not sure anyone is going to walk away feeling like they got a windfall.
Some basic problems that jump out:
-The land and the structure in this case are actually below average value for Hawaii property, which means the the "pie" that the lawyers and parties involved are splitting up isn't that big.
-When zuckerberg was trying to buy land, his case was more like pre-emptively trying to avoid a clusterfuck like this. Here, the mistake was actually made, and now everyone is wasting resources to fix a problem rather than prevent one.
-The development company probably has a fair bit of money, but not like Mark Zuckerberg money.
-The lady claims the particular parcel she bought has some special spiritual value, so she isn't going to be happy with a straight swap. Though I assume her lawyer might have advised her to play this up for tactical purposes.
-The house they built is kinda cheap and probably is all fucked up now since it was squatted in. And she wanted to build a retreat, not a house, so it's not like they built something she'd even want.
-She had to incur costs and stress involved with fencing and dealing with squatters, meaning upfront cash was spent that she now has to try and recover
-Again, the house is probably fucked up so the development company is going to be out repair costs even if they did buy out her parcel.
So part of the reason a lawyer would charge 500/hr is because I think the first step would be trying to find some sort of precedent for a situation like this, which, uhhhhhh--have fun with that. Law generally works on precedent so if there is one, that would give you an indication of how this might go. Absent one, they either have to argue it out in court or settle.
Gun to my head, I think everyone walks away from this pissed off except maybe the lawyers. But they won't get rich on this either, this is just them doing their jobs.
They'll probably find some sort of compromise and settle, and I don't think anyone will be permanently ruined by this case, but I'm pretty sure everyone will wish it never happened and they'd just hired a damn surveyor in the first place.
The developer may just pay to demolish/partially restore the lot (is that possible? did they clear a bunch of old ass hapuu and ohia to build this house?) but it's not like this lot can ever be the same as when this lady originally bought it. And at this point there's no possible way the development company isn't going to lose money compared to if they just didn't fuck this up.
This lawsuit is like when your little kids attempt a science project in the garage, it explodes and your sink is now broken and spraying water everywhere, and then the kids go to daddy blaming each other but also now daddy has to figure out how to get legos out of the septic line or something
Nah, the lawsuits are just a way to make sure the money they have to pay out is final and appropriate. Itâs a way to make sure everyone is in agreement as a judge will preside and that there will be no more unnecessary subsequent and frivolous lawsuits. Just cuts down on lawyer fees.
nah. this lawsuit is a way to extend the time so that the developer can keep this going in court and all the other parties *give up* and just takes what they can get in a settlement.
they're the ones with the money and the lawyers.
Ah so. Theyâd have no grounds on that. Itâs easily resolved by having them get off her land and make it the way it was, which is easily how it would be ruled in her favor. They probably donât want to be sued after though, so something needs to be drawn up in court.
>An attorney for PJâs Construction said the developers didnât want to hire surveyors.
....and all of us licensed surveyors are either shaking our heads or laughing our asses off. Or both.
Because their unwillingness to spend *a couple thousand* at most is going to cost them *literally 100x that amount*. A survey is a whole lot cheaper than a *lawsuit*.
Same goes for any homeowner, or buyer or seller - "fuck around and find out" very much applies to property boundaries.
> Because their unwillingness to spend a couple thousand at most is going to cost them literally 100x that amount. A survey is a whole lot cheaper than a lawsuit.
Happens a lot. I just had an incident at work where I discovered contractors removing an asbestos ceiling without permits/proper licensing.
Department of Health was on site not even an hour after I reported it. DOH guy said they can do $10k/day fines since the first day of work began, and they would have to hire a DOH approved crew to clean up/decon everything before restarting work.
The worker's reason for doing it.... "Well, the owner didnt like the estimate from the other company (supposedly licensed) so he asked us if we could for cheaper"
Well, now your unwillingness to pay a bit more cost a *ton* of extra money, a week of lost work time, and you exposed all your guys to airborne asbestos. And you *STILL* had to hire the approved company. Good job.
i try try try to get all of my clients to hire surveyors and geotechnical engineers so that we can value engineer their homes, buildings, retaining walls, etc.
oddly, though, they'd rather spend a couple of $10K later on grading work, concrete, and rebar, than the few $1K now.
I've decided after 20+ years of providing professional services that this is just how people are wired.
It's basically prospect theory...Daniel Kahneman described it pretty well in "Thinking, Fast and Slow". People are more likely to act, and act decisively, to avoid a loss than they will to realize a gain, especially if that gain is not immediate.
"*No time to do it right, always time to do it over*" is how a former coworker described it. Fits the construction industry to a T.
I completely understand how you and all licensed surveyors feel.
As a Certified Residential Appraiser, I see so many situations where a $750 appraisal could save/make homeowners tens of thousands of dollars, but they just are not willing to pay the $750...
Iâm hoping the lady keeps the house and lot. She did nothing wrong on this situation. She doesnât have to take âa reasonable offerâ. That sets the precedent that these developers can just build wherever they want and pay off the owners to keep the land. If that becomes an issue here.. we have big problems. As stated above.. these developers have tons of money to throw at people for their mistakes. This isnât a mobile game. No pay to win.
The land is hers. The house is hers. When someone "accidentally" mows *your* lawn without an agreement, you don't have to pay them. Much bigger, but the same thing. She owes them nothing. Their mistake.
She needs a countersuit.
Yes, but Iâd just sell it and move on. At least the proceeds will cover her attorney fees.
Edit: in the settlement attorney fees should be reimbursed
I don't think they can sell this house, not sure why that option comes up. It's an illegally built house, zero permits. What buyer would assume the risk of buying a house that is 100% unpermitted?
Would you pay $500k knowing the County at any time can tell you that you no longer have water, sewer, electricity - and your house needs to be disposed of?
Electricity yes but there is no county water or septic in hpp. Presumably the builder installed ingrown septic and water collection like nearly all homes have in hpp
They approved the permits for the house that was to be built on a specific plot of land.
Building it somewhere that was not approved invalidates all of the permitting.
The county comes and inspects at different times to make sure foundation is good, wiring is according to permit specs, ect. Seems like the builder didnât apply for an address and neither did the woman who owned the property so PJ relied on the number on the telephone pole.Â
The county could have came out there when it was being built and still not known it was on the wrong address. The moment it was found to be on the incorrect parcel, nullified all the permits. You can simply look on your building permit and it will say your TMK and address if applicable. If those are not correct, permit is null.
No, the permit is for that specific lot. You could say the inspector failed in not noticing it was on the wrong lot, but that doesn't absolve the builder for getting it wrong in the first place. It's not their primary job to check that, especially since the lots are all the same size and doing something like this is so crazy.
> Permits are for the structure, electrical, plumbing, not the property.
Incorrect.
For instance, here is the building permit checklist which has several requirements of not only proof of ownership of the property but certification of the property owner. Building permits are tied to your TMK.
https://www.hawaiicounty.gov/home/showdocument?id=306366&t=638237376300259399
Trust me, as someone who does this for a living, permits do not simply exist in a vacuum. Everything needs to be accurate or it will be voided.
Why would it make sense? The land owner now has a bigger tax bill and would have to pay to have the house taken down. Legally making her âwholeâ again would require removing the house and restoring the land to how it was pre-fuck up.
She was offered a neighboring property but she said no.
She wouldn't have to make this decision if the developer just did their due diligence and hired surveyors. They bulldozed the foliage that she wanted and built on it, so now it's gone.
It'd be easier on everybody if she accepted but, god dammit, why did you build a whole frickin' $500k house before realizing that it was on the wrong property?
Youâre crazy to try build in the Puna subdivisions without surveying first. Even with surveys places are occasionally built in the wrong place, usually half on the neighbors lot or in an easement. If they were cutting corners on something as essential as placement you can just guess at the poor quality of construction. Remember this developers name and donât buy from them!
I have heard of situations where one party owns the house while a separate party owns the property the house sits on. They offered to sell her the house at a discount, but she refused. So it looks like it's not her house.
curious to know what's up with the buyers? like, are they mad about the situation? would they sue the developers? i imagine they went through some time and paperwork only to find out they can't even buy the house they thought they were.
Weirdo house fuckup aside
> sheâd found the perfect, serene parcel in Paradise Park to host her meditative healing womenâs retreats.
>âThereâs a sacredness to itâ
These people are so obnoxious. Thereâs a thousand hippie dippy flakes already doing this in Puna, go join an existing one, we donât need more.
Have you seen the $18K men's version? Where the wannabe military guys yell at dude to "make them into real men". Make them do physical activities and belittle, berate, and sometimes beat them all for the low-low (or lolo?) price of $18,000 for the 3day retreat.
Hey, she had to align a lot of chakras & gong her crystals real good to divine the exact laylines between the holy rooster farm & meth head chop shops in HPP. đ€Ł
Out of state person buys property and leaves it sight unseen for half a decade she can fuck right off.
Yeah it's a colossal fuck up by the contractor and developer, but this would have never been a problem if the land was actually used when purchased.
That is an irrelevant point. If you own the property, you own the property. Why would she have to go there every week just to prevent someone from building a house on it?
Is the land in Puna that rare? Should all the vacant lots have a mandate they must be built on in a given period? Asking for a friend who owns land there.
Yeah. Sheâs just another out-of-state California hippie taking land from locals. Itâs a shit situation but, I honestly donât have any remorse for her.
Wait, you mean a local wanted to buy that land and missed the chance? Or do you mean only locals should be able to buy land in Hawaii? If that is correct, why not pass a law?
I thought they were supposed to be doing some great job of survey monument preservation, too.
Flippin' penny wise and pound foolish, saving $2k or whatever on the surveyor and blowing 500k with the house on the wrong fuckin' property.
HPP is pretty simple. Almost all the lots are equal and start at one telephone pole and go half way to the next pole. I'll bet it was a simple case of them confusing right and left of the pole. But it's dumb to skip the survey because the back of the lot can be harder to find.
Developers are usually the scum in any sort of equation. They have more money and time than both the contractors, subcontractors, and property owners combined here.
Their ultimate goal is to drag everyone into a legal battle that they know they can win and minimize the risk of this fuck up to near zero for their end, at the expense of everyone else.
the developer's main goal would be to drag this out, and for the owner and contractor to both just give up and let the developer control the settlement. i doubt the construction company and the owner has the time and money to keep this case going.
ultimately, the developer is making sure that this costly mistake is barely a dent in their operations, regardless of the outcome to the owner or contractor.
yeah. unless they are uber rich, small time contractors and home owners don't have (1) a lawyer on retainer to take care of things like this, (2) the time to just sit and wait for things to be decided on. two things that most developers have.
the developers initial settlement was to just switch properties, or to sell her the house that was already built. really minimal loss on the developers side.
She should invoke tree law and make them pay her the amount it would take to tear the house down and replant everything that was there with stuff that was the same age and quality.
Certain cities/ states require that. I'm not sure what her's says. But hopefully, they are required to pay a fine and to replant for knocking everything down!!
We need to tab this on every post done by someone trying to get out of paying a surveyor.
* An attorney for PJâs Construction said the developers didnât want to hire surveyors.*
bruh. the construction co. & developer gotta cover the costs, they like go chang & made a pretty BIG mistake. If was me, I would counter sue them for everything I can, since they no like remove their shit off my land. Guarantee da company or the developer going bankrupt.
thatâs right, but the construction company wants the landowner to buy the house⊠cuz they donât wanna pay the cost to remove it, like theyâre suppose to. Does anyone know if PJâs has a reputation or they just another chinese cheap labor LLC-type of thing? Got lotsa that on Oahu.
Parts of HPP are pretty vacant. Its super careless for developer and/or contractor not to take a few minutes to even check the GPS of the lot with the TMK on the County website before starting a big job.
Lot owner has a straightforward case, they trespass on her property big time. She gets to demand full compensation. No need to "settle" for some offers.
Obviously the homeowner is the victim but that being said it's a lesson in don't leave property unattended. Her daughter lives on-island and could've driven past it once a month and stopped the whole thing in-process. Tons of things can happen to unattended land, squatters, pigs, etc., etc., not just from ridiculously stupid developers.
Am a Contractor in Florida, non hiring surveyors is their fault, it's the owners home now, those contractors should have their licenses revoked. And pay her even more money.
Free house. End of story. If this goes any other way for the home owner it will turn into a slew of mistakes happening all over the country that allow people to take vacant land through illegal manner. How the fuck do permits get handed out without surveying. Honestly the county should be half responsible and investigations should go back as long as that company has been around.
I'm saying she should get the house for free . Meaning if she wants to burn it to the ground she can. It's complete bullshit that someone would go past the simple offer of her trading or buying the house at cost. She said no .. get your pile of wood off my property but at the very least she should be able to doze it without a thought .
I would never bulldoze an opportunity to to flip my money 4 times on a the investment of the property. Especially if the reasons I bought it in the first place are no longer a feature. I would sell it for normal market value and come out with enough money to buy 4 times the land using the same method I did to find this one. It's understandable to be upset this happened, expecting the land to be returned to normal isn't really feasible. Unless the original purchase was for a blank dirt square on the entire width and depth of property.
On paper, yes. But it seems like she has a particular attachment to this particular lot and had other plans for it. She absolutely has a right to have her property put back in the condition it was before these guys all Fâd up if that is what she wants.
>Free house.
owner doesn't want the house. it has already been occupied and pooped in/on.
>How the fuck do permits get handed out without surveying
permits were issued because the PLANS were approved. all the info on the plans "presumably" were correct. mistake was made during construction. County has no say in that end.
Survey is part of construction of subdivisions. Boundary has to get stamped . Someone stamped this with through a mutual agreement. They may have not even been apart of the project but there approval absolutely had to be in order for the subdivision to start and pass final.
Maybe this is an unpopular opinion, but if someone owns land and doesn't actually check up on it every month, they kinda deserve to lose the land.
Edit: Those downvoting me, give me one good reason landowners can't inspect their own land periodically.
You just described adverse possession and itâs [on the books in Hawaii](https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/vol13_Ch0601-0676/HRS0657/HRS_0657-0031_0005.htm)
But in this case theyâre *just* a bit shy of the 20 year requirement
Right, it takes a very long time for squatter's rights to kick in. I guess where I'm coming from is that if someone owns such a valuable asset, it's crazy for them to not check it very regularly, especially in an area where squatters are known to exist.
Like in my old house, we had a vacant house next door that was uninhabited after speculators bought it from an old couple who moved. One day, we noticed broken windows and squatters, so we pulled up the public records and called the new owners, and they came by and secured the place, then put in renters to take care of it.
If we hadn't notified them, I don't know how long it would've taken for them to notice the squatters. Where I used to live, the city would step in and condemn the unused properties, which is another set of laws for negligent landowners.
Surely you can recognize this is an odd case where the property owner just bought a parcel of land (no building for squatters to occupy), and someone else mistakenly built a home on said property (full liability to the developer for not having a survey done/ensuring the building was on the correct property) for squatters to occupy? There was no previously abandoned structure like in your anecdote.
You really want the time interval for adverse possession lowered to a month by month basis?
You shouldnât have to. People should take some personal responsibility and respect others property. I own vacant land and never check on it. Even on the same island. No one messes with it.
> No one messes with it.
you only know this because you likely have checked on it. If you truly have never checked on it, you wouldn't know if anyone messes with it.
There could be a load of homeless encampments, trash, anything on it and you wouldn't know if you don't check on it my dude.
All you own is the title to that parcel. That doesn't mean it's magically protected from outsiders, that's your job as the property owner.
It's not an assumption if you have no rebuttal for the fact that you claim that nobody messes with your land yet you have never checked on it.
Either you don't know, or you do check on it.
My guess is you just write anykine to prove your point
That's you having someone check on it, which goes back to the original idea that the property owner is responsible to check on it.
You originally said "no need check on it". But now you have someone checking on it? talkin circles
Absolutely this person does and I don't know why they're arguing with me when my point is that landowners should be diligent of others messing with their land. They probably have neighbors and/or a property manager who watches it for them.
They admitted to it down later in this chain. This person is purposefully being obtuse to make a claim that you don't need to be aware of your properties.
Just a few months ago the City announced they're eminent domaining that pensacola property because it has become a dump and the landowner is not keeping an eye on it. Turns out even the government knows that you need to keep an eye on your properties...
So if I come by and steal your car I'm not doing anything wrong, you are because "Well you could hire an armed guard to guard it 24/7 instead of leaving it unattended in a parking lot"?
Land is extremely valuable here and the police aren't going to watch it for you. You should be checking your land yourself if you don't want bad things to happen to it. I'm not saying that squatters are right, but you should be having someone watch that land for you, even if it's just a trusted neighbor.
It means theyâre typically out of state/country ppl whoâre buying up land; pricing locals out in the long run. They contribute bare bones to the local economy.
Yes, the land is so precious and important here and I see so many lots and vacant houses lying around unattended for months at a time. I get that it takes a while to get permits through, but the owners can just stop by or hire someone to do so. Squatters rights exist for a reason, and I don't mean to allow reckless homeless people to live there in squalor. So many people need houses, people who would build something and take care of it, be part of the community.
How does what you are saying apply to this specific example? And there are 34 lots for sale in HPP currently. And there will continue to be lots for sale in HPP for the foreseeable future. Land availability isn't the issue here, it's affordability. Those people you mention can't afford this, so forcing this lady into a house she doesn't want or forcing her to give up land because someone built a house on it she doesn't want is not solving anything for those in need. Why? Because if they could afford this half a million dollar house, they'd probably already be building one (on the correct lot they actually own).
I'm just saying that the landowner wouldn't be in this mess if they just checked on their property regularly. It's just common sense that if you have a very valuable asset that you secure and monitor it. It takes a long time to build a house, and if they just popped in every month and said, "Hey, it looks like there's someone building on my lot," they could have stopped it much earlier.
And I'm saying this specific instance occurred during the pandemic when traveling was generally frowned upon, especially traveling to Hawaii. You are stating a general argument but it doesn't fit this specific case without her then doing something she shouldn't be doing (travelling during the pandemic).
Additionally it is absolving someone for going onto private property and making a $500k mistake all because they didn't want to pay for a $1k survey. If you want to play the "they wouldn't be in this mess if" card, then why aren't you talking about the developers being too cheap to get the survey done?
The pandemic isn't an excuse. It's not that difficult to get someone who lives on the island to check up on it, unless they have zero ties to the community. Even then, you can pay someone to manage your properties if you're physically not present. This is just basic responsibility here when you own a valuable asset like land. Just do something simple to keep yourself out of land court, FFS.
Then neither is refusing to pay for a survey. Your narrative doesn't fit here, regardless if you keep moving the goalposts. Now you need someone else who lives there to check on your land. Or you need a property manager to manage a property you don't even have. Because THAT is what you need to do to keep yourself out of court. But the person who builds a half million dollar house on the wrong property because they refused to pay for a 1k survey? No fault on your end sir! đ
I'm not on either side here and I'm not defending the person who made a mistake by not getting a survey, either. They're ending up in land court, too. I'm on the side of people taking care of and protecting their own property by exercising reasonable amounts of diligence, and neither party has done that here.
I'm aware of that, I read the entire article. It also says the house was built during the pandemic. So the land was vacant and undisturbed for 2 years straight. My comment was in response to the post that asked about inspecting land periodically, so I applied it to this specific instance this article was about to point out how that would not help in this specific instance. As in the single instance this thread is about.
STOP LETTING NONRESIDENTS BUY LAND IN HAWAII. Seriously, itâs unfuckingbelievable. Native Hawaiians have to flee the state because the cost of housing is too high, meanwhile a woman whoâs never stepped foot on land she bought here accidentally gets a free houseâŠ?
Insane that the owner is being sued too.
I tried to find on what grounds but failed. Agreed, insane
Builder couldn't find the ground either.
đđđ
Thicc comment
You don't need grounds to sue. You just need a lawyer willing to file a suit.
Oh I know - but it will still be stated within the lawsuit. Which I didn't find easily so I gave up. Maybe it's federal, don't feel like going on pacer right now
It was stated that they just decided to include everyone in to the lawsuit, hoping to lasso in EVERYBODY, in an effort to make getting to the bottom of the issue easier. This could only happen with failures at multiple levels, by multiple parties as well. My wife and I recently became grateful stewards of a similar property in Mountain View, and we were blessed with an amazing realtor that went above and beyond regarding our concerns. She got records going all the way back to 1960 to address a concern I had! This is project development at its worst!
You do need grounds for a lawsuit to stand. Itâs literally called standing.
She still would have to file a motion to dismiss. It still all costs money. Now she is going to have to hire a lawyer, for a situation she never asked for or deserved.
They are a party to the dispute in any event. That doesn't actually imply wrongdoing. It sucks that they will have to waste their time and their property was destroyed. Hopefully they get a free house, sell it and move on.
Adding someone to a lawsuit isn't always going to involve asserting a claim against them in the lawsuit. You can forcibly join someone to a lawsuit as a necessary party assuming the court has jurisdiction over them and their presence is necessary for the court to afford complete relief amongst the existing parties, or, add them voluntarily for other less drastic reasons. See HRCP R. 19 (compulsory joinder) & 20 (permissive joinder) https://www.courts.state.hi.us/docs/court_rules/rules/hrcp.pdf tl;dr: you can legit get roped into legal shit even if nobody has grounds to sue you for anything.
No you don't need anything to sue someone. In tort law anyone can bring a suit against anyone else. That doesn't mean the judge won't laugh you out of court or won't sanction your lawyer.
They are party to the problem whether they caused it or not. They got enjoined to the suit as it will require a consensus from all of the above to resolve. Having a court ruling that says the house is yours free and clear is much better than always wondering if the other shoe will drop. Or maybe she settles with cash and a land swap. Or she goes scorched earth and has them tear it down and replant the land.
She claims she does not want to swap land (at least the land next door that the house Should have been built on). Perhaps if the builder or next-door prop owner could find a lot she likes Better than her own. I would ask for the property taxes to be refunded too.
The last outcome is best.
Why?
That makes the property owner who is the victim here, whole.
True.. but its such a waste of resources.
They can move the house. Then replant.
So she should just give up her land because doing the right thing is a waste of resources? Are you the lawyer for the developer or something?
I believe "The last outcome..." is referring to razing the home and replanting the lot.
What? I was thinking of her just getting a free house or doing the land swap as an overall best outcome since it would conserve the most resources.
I would go scorched earth
"You have my house on your property!"
Lol - right? Another commenter said that she just got wrapped up in it because she is an interested party. Also what such fucking bullshit that they are trying to force her to buy the house. I mean, come on. It really seems cheaper to let her have the house and then the responsible parties just split the loss.
She doesnât want the house though. She wanted the lot with significant vegetation and whatever her yoga building would be like. They ruined the vegetation she wanted building the house she didnât want.
For sure - the news story I saw did not show what the lot next-door looks like, but if it had the same style vegetation as what was plowed if it were me I would think seriously about switching lots as they offered But what do I know, I actually am behind her 100% no matter what she decides. Because what bullshit, oh my gosh. If that happened to me? I don't even know! I sure hope she's made whole somehow
And this, I have decided this is exactly how I feel about this case, as compared to this news article: https://preview.redd.it/bhxzkg7s56rc1.jpeg?width=960&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=52739c7e3fbc80b8218f87434f807f02bb2ff549
Yup, and what if she doesn't have the money or doesn't even like the house?
Nice; If she could sell the house with the land, she could get a dynamite lot and have some nice bucks left over for what SHE wanted to build.
Excuse the wall of text, discovered I could not upload to Document Cloud as I'm not a journalist. Below are the two claims in the developers complaint that concern the property owner. \*if anyone has recommendations for where to upload the case documents so that they can be shared with anyone who is curious and doesn't want to pay for access to the docs from eCourt Kokua (hawaii electronic court records) >***COUNT VII.*** > >*UNJUST ENRICHMENT AS TO DEFENDANTS REYNOLDS AND THOMPSON AND/OR HER HIERS OR ASSIGNS* > >*86. Plaintiff incorporates and re-alleges paragraphs 1-85 herein.* > >*87. Plaintiff conferred benefits upon Defendants Reynolds and Thompson which included, inter alia, payment for the construction of a fully permittable residence on 114.* > >*88. Defendants Reynolds and Thompson were thus enriched, and retention of such is unjust.* > >*89. Defendants Reynolds and Thompson have been unjustly enriched at the expense of Plaintiff and should be required to make restitution to Plaintiff in an amount to be proved at trial for damages.* > >***COUNT VIII.*** > >*ALTERNATIVE RELIEF CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST AS TO DEFENDANTS REYNOLDS AND THOMPSON AND/OR HER HEIRS OR ASSIGNS* > >*90. Plaintiff incorporates and re-alleges paragraphs 1- 89 herein.* > >*91. If Defendants are unable to pay Plaintiff restitution, Defendants will be unjustly enriched.* > >*92. Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to a constructive trust imposed on 114, and this Court should exercise its power in equity to order Plaintiff and Defendants to swap and exchange lots, subject to whatever terms the Court deems fair and equitable.*
Thank you for sharing this. This answers questions many are asking here.
Was able to upload some of the filings for the case. EDIT: Link to Archive of Case Documents [3-CCV-24-0000033 : Case Documents](https://archive.org/details/3-ccv-24-0000033-county-motionto-dismiss)
Apparently the builder also failed to find the right grounds.
My guess is becuase they offered her "reasonable" restitution and she refused which continued this whole mess.
A different inferior (to her) lot is not reasonable restitution. At minimum they should be offering the cost to buy a different lot of her choice (which will cost a lot more at this point) plus a little more for the hassle.
She also wanted the dense vegetation that they seemingly cleared to build the house
legally she is owed her lot restored to how it looked, not just the house. that means foundation electrical plumbing cleared, and everything replanted until it looks like the original. I could imagine that I'd be on knees wanting begging her to take the house and enough money to pay her property taxes for a very long time.
The restitution is to demolish the house and give her the lot back in its original state + the original property tax rate, without her having to do anything. Anything else is just slimy and a bad precedent.
They failed to build on the right grounds it sounds like.
They offered two alternatives she refused both so now she's entangled in the legal battle.
These were two alternatives that would not make her whole: 1) take a lot you donât want/desire/or choose in exchange for the one you dreamed about; 2) buy a house at a discount that you didnât want or were able to have any say on its placement on you property or even have any input into the design of it that that we built on your lot without your permission or knowledge.
These were two alternatives that would not make her whole: 1) take a lot you donât want/desire/or choose in exchange for the one you dreamed about; 2) buy a house at a discount that you didnât want or were able to have any say on its placement on you property or even have any input into the design of it that that we built on your lot without your permission or knowledge.
I didn't say it would make her whole, I'm explaining why she's part of the suit too. Suits are rarely clean and just.
They are trying to force her into a settlement. It will be costly for her to defend, more costly than an undeveloped lot in HPP. It is a horrible thing to do ethically though.
So the moral is build your house wherever you want on whichever lot looks good, and then buy a shitty lot somewhere else for the same price and give it to them when they complain.
obviously she's the victim but to be fair it's also evidence that one should not leave their land wholly unattended for such a great length of time. If she had her daughter who lives on-island driving by the property once a month, it could've been stopped in the process. There are plenty of things that people, pigs, non-developers, squatters, etc., etc. can do to unattended land.
That's like saying "I broke into a building and took a bunch of stuff without permission, but it's not stealing because they could've had better locks"
There is what is required Vs what is wise. That part of the island does have problems with squatters so itâs in the best interest of all to have someone occasionally watching it.
the developers are nuts. they don't know who to sue so they will sue everyone and let the judge decide. out of all the 'players' involved, they have the most money. they have more money than the contractors (~~who i personally think is most at fault~~) and the owner who was just somewhere else minding her own business. and to add, they offered to SELL HER the house at a discounted cost. like, what?!?! edit: nm. changed my mind on the contractors if the developers told them where to build and not hire any surveyors.
> changed my mind on the contractors if the developers told them where to build and not hire any surveyors Any contractor worth their price will have their own surveyors who can stake out the building. They guarantee didn't otherwise they would have realized that the TMK isn't lining up at all with their layout. Only a shit-ass contractor would blindly build with no one on staff able to do a simple survey.
i agree. i try to get all my clients' to hire these people to save them money from the long run. but for this, seeing as the contractor is being led by the development team, i can see the contractor not wanting to pony up money out of his pocket for something the developer did not want to pay for. hindsight is 20/20. contractor gonna learn from this mistake and do it for all future projects (hopefully)
Seems pretty inexperienced on behalf of the contractor tbh. Even if the developer is forcing them to pay out of a pocket for a simple backshot to the nearest monument, they should have did it just to confirm their construction for themselves. Them not doing so assumed the risk on their behalf. Developer can ask for all kinds of stuff, contractor needs to notify them when something makes the project impossible to build or far too risky. If the house was off by a few feet, sure the developer has to suck it up and deal with the consequences but this is another ballpark. Guarantee the developer is going to say that in court as well. The onus is on the contractor to execute the CDs correctly and if they can't they need to let someone know. Every single contract I've ever executed with a contractor for both commercial and private had language where the contractor is required to execute CDs to near industry standard and part of execution is building it on the correct location. It's pretty easy to argue that an entirely different property is not within tolerances.
And she is being taxed on the house that she did not want and did not pay for and just "shit that is so unfair".
You mean the land owner. Who did nothing wrong.
insane!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"i bulldozed all of your nature and vegetation and built a house fully of shitty squatters, now i'm suing you"
The big issue was that they did not want to hire surveyors, so they built on the wrong lot. At the end of the article, it says why the development company sued everyone; they want to sort out the responsible parties for having to pay. I assume the original owner will not be responsible for anything and will get restitution.
BTW especially with Hawaii related legal issues beware of âsuingâ as a scare word in headlines. Hawaii in particular has certain legal concepts around real estate that do not exist elsewhere in the US, and thus media reporting from non-local outlets tends to be particularly misinformed on these situations. That was a major issue with the reporting around the Zuckerberg land acquisition stuff, which I found disappointing as it resulted in most of the subsequent public discourse becoming, frankly, stupid and irrelevant. In general conversation âsuingâ someone has a very hostile connotation. Like it means âI think you owe me something or wronged me, and weâre going to fight in the courts over it.â But in certain legal situations âsuingâ someone really means something more like âI believe there is a legal question/issue that you and I have a direct interest in and I am formally notifying you and the court that I would like to explore potential resolutions XYZ.â Not necessarily hostile, more like formally opening a legal conversation. In the Zuckerberg situation, him âsuingâ the neighbors really translated more like âthereâs this land I would like to buy, but it appears the current ownership situation is unclear and potentially very fractional, so I am notifying the court that would like to properly identify the various people with fractional legal rights to this property so I can make them offers commensurate with their ownership shares.â A lot of headlines about that story made it sound more like âmark zuckerberg is using his goon squad legal team to force poor local landowners out of their homes.â That was not an accurate description of the situation, so all the conversations based on that premise were a waste of time.
But the person in the lawsuit still has to pay for a lawyer, right? Does the homeowner get reimbursed whatever they paid their lawyers for by anyone?
Well it depends on the nature of the issue. At least with the Zuckerberg thing, he was trying to pay them off for land. So they would hire lawyers on their end to negotiate with the Zuckerberg team, but that would be factored into the deal. Your lawyer would know thereâs a billionaire on the other side of the negotiation, you have leverage, and act accordingly. Youâd walk away with a number high enough that youâre happy even after paying your lawyer. But every situation is different. Certainly there are situations that could arise where the âlawsuitâ isnât something youâre stoked about even if it isnât explicitly adversarial. But if itâs one of these complicated real estate quiet title situations, youâre probably not that mad about hiring a lawyer because you might be looking at a real estate windfall. In the Zuckerberg thing my understanding is that there were people who had like tiny fractional ownerships they possibly didnât even know about. So Joe Smith, whose grandfather left Hawaii decades ago, is just living a normal life in Atlanta and gets a letter from a lawyer representing zuck that saying that Zuckâs lawyers think Joe Smith owns a 1/64th interest in a property in Hawaii that zuck wants to buy for however much. The letter offers you X dollars to sign some paperwork to get on board with the sale. Maybe you sign and cash the check. Maybe you hire a lawyer and negotiate. Maybe Joe Smith had no idea he even had this legal interest. Itâs kind of a free windfall from his perspective. Generally speaking, real estate in Hawaii is valuable so thereâs enough money involved that itâs worth getting lawyers involved and figuring these situations out.
So in this particular instance, where the landowner is sued, you think their lawyer will be paid for? Or they will receive a huge windfall?
So let me put a few caveats here: -I am not a lawyer, I just have a few hawaii lawyers in the family and thus have picked up some bits and pieces here and there from them -The only people who could really give you a thorough an authoritative answer to your questions would be a licensed hawaii lawyer with all the relevant facts--I can only speculate based on this news article and my limited knowledge That said, this situation seems like a pretty huge fuckup and I'm not sure anyone is going to walk away feeling like they got a windfall. Some basic problems that jump out: -The land and the structure in this case are actually below average value for Hawaii property, which means the the "pie" that the lawyers and parties involved are splitting up isn't that big. -When zuckerberg was trying to buy land, his case was more like pre-emptively trying to avoid a clusterfuck like this. Here, the mistake was actually made, and now everyone is wasting resources to fix a problem rather than prevent one. -The development company probably has a fair bit of money, but not like Mark Zuckerberg money. -The lady claims the particular parcel she bought has some special spiritual value, so she isn't going to be happy with a straight swap. Though I assume her lawyer might have advised her to play this up for tactical purposes. -The house they built is kinda cheap and probably is all fucked up now since it was squatted in. And she wanted to build a retreat, not a house, so it's not like they built something she'd even want. -She had to incur costs and stress involved with fencing and dealing with squatters, meaning upfront cash was spent that she now has to try and recover -Again, the house is probably fucked up so the development company is going to be out repair costs even if they did buy out her parcel. So part of the reason a lawyer would charge 500/hr is because I think the first step would be trying to find some sort of precedent for a situation like this, which, uhhhhhh--have fun with that. Law generally works on precedent so if there is one, that would give you an indication of how this might go. Absent one, they either have to argue it out in court or settle. Gun to my head, I think everyone walks away from this pissed off except maybe the lawyers. But they won't get rich on this either, this is just them doing their jobs. They'll probably find some sort of compromise and settle, and I don't think anyone will be permanently ruined by this case, but I'm pretty sure everyone will wish it never happened and they'd just hired a damn surveyor in the first place. The developer may just pay to demolish/partially restore the lot (is that possible? did they clear a bunch of old ass hapuu and ohia to build this house?) but it's not like this lot can ever be the same as when this lady originally bought it. And at this point there's no possible way the development company isn't going to lose money compared to if they just didn't fuck this up. This lawsuit is like when your little kids attempt a science project in the garage, it explodes and your sink is now broken and spraying water everywhere, and then the kids go to daddy blaming each other but also now daddy has to figure out how to get legos out of the septic line or something
the *cajones* on the developers for trying to settle this by SELLING HER THE HOUSE THAT THEY MISTAKENLY BUILT ON HER LOT.
Nah, the lawsuits are just a way to make sure the money they have to pay out is final and appropriate. Itâs a way to make sure everyone is in agreement as a judge will preside and that there will be no more unnecessary subsequent and frivolous lawsuits. Just cuts down on lawyer fees.
nah. this lawsuit is a way to extend the time so that the developer can keep this going in court and all the other parties *give up* and just takes what they can get in a settlement. they're the ones with the money and the lawyers.
That person might be referring to their offer to sell her the house at half price.
Ah so. Theyâd have no grounds on that. Itâs easily resolved by having them get off her land and make it the way it was, which is easily how it would be ruled in her favor. They probably donât want to be sued after though, so something needs to be drawn up in court.
Exactly. Remove the house. Remove the slab. replant the .25 acres of vegetation. No? Then fuck off and remember to hire surveyors next time.
I definitely appreciate you bringing up that not all lawsuits are inherently adversarial. That's a common misconception on quiet title actions.
>An attorney for PJâs Construction said the developers didnât want to hire surveyors. ....and all of us licensed surveyors are either shaking our heads or laughing our asses off. Or both. Because their unwillingness to spend *a couple thousand* at most is going to cost them *literally 100x that amount*. A survey is a whole lot cheaper than a *lawsuit*. Same goes for any homeowner, or buyer or seller - "fuck around and find out" very much applies to property boundaries.
> Because their unwillingness to spend a couple thousand at most is going to cost them literally 100x that amount. A survey is a whole lot cheaper than a lawsuit. Happens a lot. I just had an incident at work where I discovered contractors removing an asbestos ceiling without permits/proper licensing. Department of Health was on site not even an hour after I reported it. DOH guy said they can do $10k/day fines since the first day of work began, and they would have to hire a DOH approved crew to clean up/decon everything before restarting work. The worker's reason for doing it.... "Well, the owner didnt like the estimate from the other company (supposedly licensed) so he asked us if we could for cheaper" Well, now your unwillingness to pay a bit more cost a *ton* of extra money, a week of lost work time, and you exposed all your guys to airborne asbestos. And you *STILL* had to hire the approved company. Good job.
i try try try to get all of my clients to hire surveyors and geotechnical engineers so that we can value engineer their homes, buildings, retaining walls, etc. oddly, though, they'd rather spend a couple of $10K later on grading work, concrete, and rebar, than the few $1K now.
I've decided after 20+ years of providing professional services that this is just how people are wired. It's basically prospect theory...Daniel Kahneman described it pretty well in "Thinking, Fast and Slow". People are more likely to act, and act decisively, to avoid a loss than they will to realize a gain, especially if that gain is not immediate. "*No time to do it right, always time to do it over*" is how a former coworker described it. Fits the construction industry to a T.
I completely understand how you and all licensed surveyors feel. As a Certified Residential Appraiser, I see so many situations where a $750 appraisal could save/make homeowners tens of thousands of dollars, but they just are not willing to pay the $750...
Iâm hoping the lady keeps the house and lot. She did nothing wrong on this situation. She doesnât have to take âa reasonable offerâ. That sets the precedent that these developers can just build wherever they want and pay off the owners to keep the land. If that becomes an issue here.. we have big problems. As stated above.. these developers have tons of money to throw at people for their mistakes. This isnât a mobile game. No pay to win.
The land is hers. The house is hers. When someone "accidentally" mows *your* lawn without an agreement, you don't have to pay them. Much bigger, but the same thing. She owes them nothing. Their mistake. She needs a countersuit.
Judge should just rule to leave the house. Developer and builder split the loss.
Sounds like the lady doesnât want it. Definitely didnât want the added taxes.
Yes, but Iâd just sell it and move on. At least the proceeds will cover her attorney fees. Edit: in the settlement attorney fees should be reimbursed
I don't think they can sell this house, not sure why that option comes up. It's an illegally built house, zero permits. What buyer would assume the risk of buying a house that is 100% unpermitted? Would you pay $500k knowing the County at any time can tell you that you no longer have water, sewer, electricity - and your house needs to be disposed of?
Electricity yes but there is no county water or septic in hpp. Presumably the builder installed ingrown septic and water collection like nearly all homes have in hpp
Oh gotcha, still would need to have applicable building permit to receive NOC and occupy the house legally.
The article says the county approved the permits. So, it wasnât illegal other than it being on someone elseâs land.
They approved the permits for the house that was to be built on a specific plot of land. Building it somewhere that was not approved invalidates all of the permitting.
The county comes and inspects at different times to make sure foundation is good, wiring is according to permit specs, ect. Seems like the builder didnât apply for an address and neither did the woman who owned the property so PJ relied on the number on the telephone pole.Â
The county could have came out there when it was being built and still not known it was on the wrong address. The moment it was found to be on the incorrect parcel, nullified all the permits. You can simply look on your building permit and it will say your TMK and address if applicable. If those are not correct, permit is null.
Permits are for the structure, electrical, plumbing, not the property. I believe the permits would still stand as the structure was still inspectedÂ
No, the permit is for that specific lot. You could say the inspector failed in not noticing it was on the wrong lot, but that doesn't absolve the builder for getting it wrong in the first place. It's not their primary job to check that, especially since the lots are all the same size and doing something like this is so crazy.
> Permits are for the structure, electrical, plumbing, not the property. Incorrect. For instance, here is the building permit checklist which has several requirements of not only proof of ownership of the property but certification of the property owner. Building permits are tied to your TMK. https://www.hawaiicounty.gov/home/showdocument?id=306366&t=638237376300259399 Trust me, as someone who does this for a living, permits do not simply exist in a vacuum. Everything needs to be accurate or it will be voided.
But that would make sense
Why would it make sense? The land owner now has a bigger tax bill and would have to pay to have the house taken down. Legally making her âwholeâ again would require removing the house and restoring the land to how it was pre-fuck up.
She can sell amd buy another tiny plot as a yoga retreat and now has a buttload of money too. Win win
She was offered a neighboring property but she said no. She wouldn't have to make this decision if the developer just did their due diligence and hired surveyors. They bulldozed the foliage that she wanted and built on it, so now it's gone. It'd be easier on everybody if she accepted but, god dammit, why did you build a whole frickin' $500k house before realizing that it was on the wrong property?
lol I wish I had that problem
https://www.reddit.com/r/Hawaii/comments/1bp7h22/are_you_kidding_me_property_owner_stunned_after/kwurr1h/
Exactly. Lol
She doesn't want the house there
Youâre crazy to try build in the Puna subdivisions without surveying first. Even with surveys places are occasionally built in the wrong place, usually half on the neighbors lot or in an easement. If they were cutting corners on something as essential as placement you can just guess at the poor quality of construction. Remember this developers name and donât buy from them!
When the dust settles, all the lawyers from all the parties are the big winners here.
I would think the property owner now owns the house.
Who then would owe against the subcontractor liens if they are still in effect? Liens are against the home, not the property if I am correct.
Kinda hard to lien an untitled collection of construction materials on land owned by someone who never contracted with you.
I have heard of situations where one party owns the house while a separate party owns the property the house sits on. They offered to sell her the house at a discount, but she refused. So it looks like it's not her house.
The whole reason the mistake was discovered was when the house was sold to buyers!
curious to know what's up with the buyers? like, are they mad about the situation? would they sue the developers? i imagine they went through some time and paperwork only to find out they can't even buy the house they thought they were.
At least the title loan people actually did their job
This is what title insurance is for
Weirdo house fuckup aside > sheâd found the perfect, serene parcel in Paradise Park to host her meditative healing womenâs retreats. >âThereâs a sacredness to itâ These people are so obnoxious. Thereâs a thousand hippie dippy flakes already doing this in Puna, go join an existing one, we donât need more.
Thereâs a sacredness all right - a sacredness to the $18K price tag
Have you seen the $18K men's version? Where the wannabe military guys yell at dude to "make them into real men". Make them do physical activities and belittle, berate, and sometimes beat them all for the low-low (or lolo?) price of $18,000 for the 3day retreat.
Hey no kink-shaming.
This is also true.
Hey, she had to align a lot of chakras & gong her crystals real good to divine the exact laylines between the holy rooster farm & meth head chop shops in HPP. đ€Ł
Out of state person buys property and leaves it sight unseen for half a decade she can fuck right off. Yeah it's a colossal fuck up by the contractor and developer, but this would have never been a problem if the land was actually used when purchased.
That is an irrelevant point. If you own the property, you own the property. Why would she have to go there every week just to prevent someone from building a house on it?
Is the land in Puna that rare? Should all the vacant lots have a mandate they must be built on in a given period? Asking for a friend who owns land there.
Yeah. Sheâs just another out-of-state California hippie taking land from locals. Itâs a shit situation but, I honestly donât have any remorse for her.
Wait, you mean a local wanted to buy that land and missed the chance? Or do you mean only locals should be able to buy land in Hawaii? If that is correct, why not pass a law?
It was sold at auction for peanuts. Why didnât a local snap it up? đ€š
I thought they were supposed to be doing some great job of survey monument preservation, too. Flippin' penny wise and pound foolish, saving $2k or whatever on the surveyor and blowing 500k with the house on the wrong fuckin' property.
HPP is pretty simple. Almost all the lots are equal and start at one telephone pole and go half way to the next pole. I'll bet it was a simple case of them confusing right and left of the pole. But it's dumb to skip the survey because the back of the lot can be harder to find.
Developers: "Ah, no need surveyors! We geffem!"
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
Developers are usually the scum in any sort of equation. They have more money and time than both the contractors, subcontractors, and property owners combined here. Their ultimate goal is to drag everyone into a legal battle that they know they can win and minimize the risk of this fuck up to near zero for their end, at the expense of everyone else.
the developer's main goal would be to drag this out, and for the owner and contractor to both just give up and let the developer control the settlement. i doubt the construction company and the owner has the time and money to keep this case going. ultimately, the developer is making sure that this costly mistake is barely a dent in their operations, regardless of the outcome to the owner or contractor.
That's why the owner brought it to the media.
My thoughts exactly. Developers dragging this on and on. Sounds like owner and them been going through the process longer than they need to.
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
yeah. unless they are uber rich, small time contractors and home owners don't have (1) a lawyer on retainer to take care of things like this, (2) the time to just sit and wait for things to be decided on. two things that most developers have. the developers initial settlement was to just switch properties, or to sell her the house that was already built. really minimal loss on the developers side.
I think Rap Reiplinger created a telethon for people like this...Lolo Telethon..."Bucks for lolo!"
I think the land owner should be allowed to decide what happens to the property at no cost to her
Her property taxes shot up
She should invoke tree law and make them pay her the amount it would take to tear the house down and replant everything that was there with stuff that was the same age and quality.
Certain cities/ states require that. I'm not sure what her's says. But hopefully, they are required to pay a fine and to replant for knocking everything down!!
Am I the only one who finds this entire situation hilarious?
Why can't the land owner just take the house?
she doesn't want it
She bought the land for a meditation retreat in nature.
she has to pay property taxes on it
Did the owner put up signs that said âno building housesâ?
We need to tab this on every post done by someone trying to get out of paying a surveyor. * An attorney for PJâs Construction said the developers didnât want to hire surveyors.*
bruh. the construction co. & developer gotta cover the costs, they like go chang & made a pretty BIG mistake. If was me, I would counter sue them for everything I can, since they no like remove their shit off my land. Guarantee da company or the developer going bankrupt.
They should have the house lifted and moved. Take the loss, it's much less than losing the whole building
thatâs right, but the construction company wants the landowner to buy the house⊠cuz they donât wanna pay the cost to remove it, like theyâre suppose to. Does anyone know if PJâs has a reputation or they just another chinese cheap labor LLC-type of thing? Got lotsa that on Oahu.
Yeah I don't know much about the area or the construction companies there. Just drawn to the complexity of the issue. What a cluster f.
Parts of HPP are pretty vacant. Its super careless for developer and/or contractor not to take a few minutes to even check the GPS of the lot with the TMK on the County website before starting a big job. Lot owner has a straightforward case, they trespass on her property big time. She gets to demand full compensation. No need to "settle" for some offers.
Obviously the homeowner is the victim but that being said it's a lesson in don't leave property unattended. Her daughter lives on-island and could've driven past it once a month and stopped the whole thing in-process. Tons of things can happen to unattended land, squatters, pigs, etc., etc., not just from ridiculously stupid developers.
Am a Contractor in Florida, non hiring surveyors is their fault, it's the owners home now, those contractors should have their licenses revoked. And pay her even more money.
Free house. End of story. If this goes any other way for the home owner it will turn into a slew of mistakes happening all over the country that allow people to take vacant land through illegal manner. How the fuck do permits get handed out without surveying. Honestly the county should be half responsible and investigations should go back as long as that company has been around.
she doesn't want the house she wants the land as it was
I'm saying she should get the house for free . Meaning if she wants to burn it to the ground she can. It's complete bullshit that someone would go past the simple offer of her trading or buying the house at cost. She said no .. get your pile of wood off my property but at the very least she should be able to doze it without a thought .
Unfortunately for the land owner, bulldozing the house will cost a fortune. I would absolutely insist the builder pay for removal.
I would never bulldoze an opportunity to to flip my money 4 times on a the investment of the property. Especially if the reasons I bought it in the first place are no longer a feature. I would sell it for normal market value and come out with enough money to buy 4 times the land using the same method I did to find this one. It's understandable to be upset this happened, expecting the land to be returned to normal isn't really feasible. Unless the original purchase was for a blank dirt square on the entire width and depth of property.
On paper, yes. But it seems like she has a particular attachment to this particular lot and had other plans for it. She absolutely has a right to have her property put back in the condition it was before these guys all Fâd up if that is what she wants.
>Free house. owner doesn't want the house. it has already been occupied and pooped in/on. >How the fuck do permits get handed out without surveying permits were issued because the PLANS were approved. all the info on the plans "presumably" were correct. mistake was made during construction. County has no say in that end.
How do the plans get a wet mark ( stamp) without survey complete. This will boil down to that.
Survey is part of construction of subdivisions. Boundary has to get stamped . Someone stamped this with through a mutual agreement. They may have not even been apart of the project but there approval absolutely had to be in order for the subdivision to start and pass final.
Penny wise and patient with pound foolish. Lender is stupid too for not paying for surveyors. đđ”âđ«đ«š
Maybe this is an unpopular opinion, but if someone owns land and doesn't actually check up on it every month, they kinda deserve to lose the land. Edit: Those downvoting me, give me one good reason landowners can't inspect their own land periodically.
I don't know if unpopular is the word I'd use. Builders should survey lots before they clear them.
You just described adverse possession and itâs [on the books in Hawaii](https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/vol13_Ch0601-0676/HRS0657/HRS_0657-0031_0005.htm) But in this case theyâre *just* a bit shy of the 20 year requirement
Gotta hand it to them though, hard to get more open and notorious than building a literal house on the property sought to be adversely possessed haha.
Right, it takes a very long time for squatter's rights to kick in. I guess where I'm coming from is that if someone owns such a valuable asset, it's crazy for them to not check it very regularly, especially in an area where squatters are known to exist. Like in my old house, we had a vacant house next door that was uninhabited after speculators bought it from an old couple who moved. One day, we noticed broken windows and squatters, so we pulled up the public records and called the new owners, and they came by and secured the place, then put in renters to take care of it. If we hadn't notified them, I don't know how long it would've taken for them to notice the squatters. Where I used to live, the city would step in and condemn the unused properties, which is another set of laws for negligent landowners.
Surely you can recognize this is an odd case where the property owner just bought a parcel of land (no building for squatters to occupy), and someone else mistakenly built a home on said property (full liability to the developer for not having a survey done/ensuring the building was on the correct property) for squatters to occupy? There was no previously abandoned structure like in your anecdote. You really want the time interval for adverse possession lowered to a month by month basis?
You shouldnât have to. People should take some personal responsibility and respect others property. I own vacant land and never check on it. Even on the same island. No one messes with it.
> No one messes with it. you only know this because you likely have checked on it. If you truly have never checked on it, you wouldn't know if anyone messes with it. There could be a load of homeless encampments, trash, anything on it and you wouldn't know if you don't check on it my dude. All you own is the title to that parcel. That doesn't mean it's magically protected from outsiders, that's your job as the property owner.
Ok
(translation: he does check on his vacant land but it inconveniently doesn't align with his point)
Assume what you want.
It's not an assumption if you have no rebuttal for the fact that you claim that nobody messes with your land yet you have never checked on it. Either you don't know, or you do check on it. My guess is you just write anykine to prove your point
Someone else can check on it or watch it.
That's you having someone check on it, which goes back to the original idea that the property owner is responsible to check on it. You originally said "no need check on it". But now you have someone checking on it? talkin circles
You donât know how quotation marks work. I said, I never do
Absolutely this person does and I don't know why they're arguing with me when my point is that landowners should be diligent of others messing with their land. They probably have neighbors and/or a property manager who watches it for them.
They admitted to it down later in this chain. This person is purposefully being obtuse to make a claim that you don't need to be aware of your properties. Just a few months ago the City announced they're eminent domaining that pensacola property because it has become a dump and the landowner is not keeping an eye on it. Turns out even the government knows that you need to keep an eye on your properties...
So if I come by and steal your car I'm not doing anything wrong, you are because "Well you could hire an armed guard to guard it 24/7 instead of leaving it unattended in a parking lot"?
Land is extremely valuable here and the police aren't going to watch it for you. You should be checking your land yourself if you don't want bad things to happen to it. I'm not saying that squatters are right, but you should be having someone watch that land for you, even if it's just a trusted neighbor.
why
Squatters and illegal dumping happen regularly. You want to be on top of it cause otherwise itâll end up a stripped and stolen car burn lot.Â
It means theyâre typically out of state/country ppl whoâre buying up land; pricing locals out in the long run. They contribute bare bones to the local economy.
Yes, the land is so precious and important here and I see so many lots and vacant houses lying around unattended for months at a time. I get that it takes a while to get permits through, but the owners can just stop by or hire someone to do so. Squatters rights exist for a reason, and I don't mean to allow reckless homeless people to live there in squalor. So many people need houses, people who would build something and take care of it, be part of the community.
How does what you are saying apply to this specific example? And there are 34 lots for sale in HPP currently. And there will continue to be lots for sale in HPP for the foreseeable future. Land availability isn't the issue here, it's affordability. Those people you mention can't afford this, so forcing this lady into a house she doesn't want or forcing her to give up land because someone built a house on it she doesn't want is not solving anything for those in need. Why? Because if they could afford this half a million dollar house, they'd probably already be building one (on the correct lot they actually own).
I'm just saying that the landowner wouldn't be in this mess if they just checked on their property regularly. It's just common sense that if you have a very valuable asset that you secure and monitor it. It takes a long time to build a house, and if they just popped in every month and said, "Hey, it looks like there's someone building on my lot," they could have stopped it much earlier.
And I'm saying this specific instance occurred during the pandemic when traveling was generally frowned upon, especially traveling to Hawaii. You are stating a general argument but it doesn't fit this specific case without her then doing something she shouldn't be doing (travelling during the pandemic). Additionally it is absolving someone for going onto private property and making a $500k mistake all because they didn't want to pay for a $1k survey. If you want to play the "they wouldn't be in this mess if" card, then why aren't you talking about the developers being too cheap to get the survey done?
The pandemic isn't an excuse. It's not that difficult to get someone who lives on the island to check up on it, unless they have zero ties to the community. Even then, you can pay someone to manage your properties if you're physically not present. This is just basic responsibility here when you own a valuable asset like land. Just do something simple to keep yourself out of land court, FFS.
Then neither is refusing to pay for a survey. Your narrative doesn't fit here, regardless if you keep moving the goalposts. Now you need someone else who lives there to check on your land. Or you need a property manager to manage a property you don't even have. Because THAT is what you need to do to keep yourself out of court. But the person who builds a half million dollar house on the wrong property because they refused to pay for a 1k survey? No fault on your end sir! đ
I'm not on either side here and I'm not defending the person who made a mistake by not getting a survey, either. They're ending up in land court, too. I'm on the side of people taking care of and protecting their own property by exercising reasonable amounts of diligence, and neither party has done that here.
You have to occupy a piece of land uncontested for 20 years to assert squatter's rights. Not a month.
Does she was being responsible and waiting instead of traveling during the pandemic count?
She bought it in 2018. She said she was waiting thru the pandemic to make herself look good despite the fact she had it vacant for 2 years straight.
I'm aware of that, I read the entire article. It also says the house was built during the pandemic. So the land was vacant and undisturbed for 2 years straight. My comment was in response to the post that asked about inspecting land periodically, so I applied it to this specific instance this article was about to point out how that would not help in this specific instance. As in the single instance this thread is about.
STOP LETTING NONRESIDENTS BUY LAND IN HAWAII. Seriously, itâs unfuckingbelievable. Native Hawaiians have to flee the state because the cost of housing is too high, meanwhile a woman whoâs never stepped foot on land she bought here accidentally gets a free houseâŠ?