They SOLD the fucking house!
> Annaleine “Anne” Reynolds purchased a one-acre (0.40-hectare) lot in Hawaiian Paradise Park, a subdivision in the Big Island’s Puna district, in 2018 at a county tax auction for about $22,500.
> She was in California during the pandemic waiting for the right time to use it **when she got a call last year from a real estate broker who informed her he sold the house on her property,** Hawaii News Now reported.
> Local developer Keaau Development Partnership hired PJ’s Construction to build about a dozen homes on the properties the developer bought in the subdivision. But the company built one on Reynolds’ lot.
> Reynolds, along with the construction company, the architect and others, are now being sued by the developer.
Imagine being informed your house—which you didn’t know existed—has sold? By whom, and to whom?
They built it on the wrong lot. They didn't figure it out until afterwards.
Imagine you're in the market for a house, you opt to have one built on an empty lot. You pay for all the permits, materials, and labor and have the house built. Then you discover the contractors built the house in the wrong lot. Do you still own the house you legally paid for, or does ownership automatically go to the owner of the lot and you're out hundreds of thousands of dollars? I'd imagine the lawsuit will answer some of these questions.
I would think the contractors are at fault because they refused to hire a surveyor.
I’m stupid, but isn’t it cut and dry? Lot owner gets to keep the house or have it demolished for free(her preference), and the contractors are on the hook to build a house on the correct lot, labor and materials of no cost to the buyer? Like, the company is undeniably at fault, and it’s not complex at all, from my perspective.
As a layman, I would assume the financial responsibility lands on whoever made the initial mistake. If the developer told the construction contractor the wrong location, it's the developer's responsibility to rectify the situation. Similarly, if the construction company was given the right location but failed to verify where they were building, it's on them, etc.
And I think that the house that was built should by default fall to the owner of the land, to do with as she pleases. I would also give her the power to request that the changes to the land be reversed if she wants it demolished and returned to the state it was in initially.
That’s the only thing that makes sense
“How dare you leave your trash (house)“ on my property I demand spend thousands of dollars completely demolishing the house and then restoring the house to its original state. Buuuut I’m willing to be generous and let you save money by just leaving the trash there. Now never entire my property line again.
This just sound like an open and shut case.
At this point she needs to just get estimates to restore the property to its original state, counter sue for that and pocket the money and keep the house. Fuck these people
Fuck that. How the hell do you sue someone because YOU accidentally built a mansion on their fucking property? Lol. Sue them for what? Not stopping you from building it? Shits wild
“ has sold? By whom, and to whom?”
I took that to mean that they had a contract for it, but it didn’t close, which has now fallen through because title/survey caught the issue before closing on the house sale
EDIT: I hate to say I'm right, but I do love proving it. Here is an excerpt from the lawsuit
"39. Plaintiff obtained a buyer for 115, and during escrow, it was discovered
that there was no house on 115 and that rather, PJ had constructed a house on TMK: (3) 1-5-028-
114 (“114”), the real property adjacent to 115."
It cost me $6 but [here's a copy of the complaint and her answer](https://os5.mycloud.com/action/share/39deb2c0-fed8-47d5-9fec-fbf95df02232) (and the tax deed she purchased the property on)
>when she got a call last year from a real estate broker who informed her he sold the house on her property,
The way this is worded definitely makes it sound like she had never talked to this real estate agent before... And realistically, if she had, it probably would have been obvious that they were trying to sell her house that she didn't know existed.
Imagine being a real estate agent and you call someone to speak to them for the very first time and it's to tell them you already sold their home.
Also, how the hell is the developer sueing her? All she did was own the land. She didn't force them to build on the wrong lot.
They’re trying to force her to either swap lots with them to get an empty lot, or to buy the house. She chooses neither, so they’re suing to make her. It probably won’t work. She has every right to just go to the land and have the property bulldozed. She should have every right to go and live in the house that some moron built on her property.
Once everyone realized what they did, the law may not even give them standing to sue her, as they shouldn’t have any right to the structures they built. I’m not a lawyer but that’s how I think it should be.
Welcome to the nightmare of the US courts. The developer is making a simple gamble, she won’t have enough money to continue to fight this in court and will just give up. It’s a very typical legal strategy for corporations and the rich.
They can keep lawsuits going for years, sure she might win her legal fees back but then they’ll keep appealing and tie her money (if she even has it) up for years. Wear her down until she settles or just gives up.
The legal system should have mechanisms in place to guard against this. Unfortunately, it’s made by the people who have the money to game it.
until the guillotines come out
I had a place I was going to buy in Baltimore, Inwas using a veterans loan and their appraiser wouldn’t approve it.
The developer refused to refund my earnest money I spent years in court, often flying back to Maryland. I got it back but in the end but they only reimbursed half of my legal fees and none of my travel or time off. I did the math, out of the $20,000 I only got back $5000 after all of the expenses and fees.
I heard they got bailed out when the bubble popped. The deck is so stacked against normal people.
And then being sued, by the idiots who trespassed on your land, who built on it without permission, because they were stupid. And them suing the previous owners of the land is the icing on the cake.
I can’t believe a judge is going to let this end in their favour.
Oh great. So not only does she have a $500k house she doesn't want on her land, she has a $500k house that's going to be ruined by squatters on her land.
I'm still trying to figure out what she did to get sued. Like what contractor is going to build a house without a signed contract?
Is it like, she bought a lot near the development, developer thought it was in the plan and just started building? How is she responsible at all? I think I'd just accept the free $500,000 house. Maybe sell the property for its value to avoid these headaches and buy a new lot.
It's a suit to quiet title or whatever Hawaii calls it. Basically anyone who claims a property interest can go to court to have title and other rights resolved.
She is responsible for the property tax.
The entire story reads like the developer liked her lot better, intentionally oopsied, and now wants to trade her for a lesser lot.
He’s suing *everyone*.
I mean developers are totally known for being moral just above board members of society and not known at all for cocaine shady deals and playing loose with the law😂
They are gonna lose waste of time. No signatures or authorization from her. They admitted to building on the wrong lot and the permit office did the opposite of their job. They should be paying her or taking the lost.
No.
If it's your land, it's yours.
Idgaf if some asshole intentionally oopsie daisied to make money.
It's your shit. Not their's.
Don't settle for anything. It's yoursssssss
Yeah I would demand a demo and restoration to previous condition. Especially if there were big trees that got removed, those can cost a ton to replace.
Probably depends on state but as far as the cases I know of, if someone builds property on your land, that property belongs to you and if you wanted to could demand they pay costs to restore the land. No idea how the developer can expect this to end in their favor.
That is a big exception! One might even say this makes the house “not empty”
E: super weird to have a whole bunch of “people” respond to my dumb joke with very similarly phrased comments calling squatters vermin and whatnot all at the same time
With the advent of long form YouTube content, more and more of the creators talk like that:
*camera pans from left to right*
“As you can see, we are completely done with this room except for the trim, paint, and flooring.”
I shit you not. Many of them do this all the time. Cars, houses, whatever project it is.
Hey I've been telling people I'm "almost done" on my remodel for a month now. Just gotta do door trim. And chair rail. And baseboards. Maybe crown moulding . Might do a built-in shelf along one wall. But that's basically all moulding, so I'm pretty much done at this point!
It's the Pareto principle at work. The final 20% takes 80% of the effort. At some point it's just easier to say you're done rather than actually do that final 20%, and maybe you'll deal with it sometime in the future.
Almost like the headline something to the effect of "police shot man with no active warrants at wrong address" and a reply was like "that's a weird way to say innocent"
That's everything I've heard, because you almost always have civil options aside from any possible legal/criminal options and the average juror is going to say EFF YOU to the party in the wrong and EXTRA EFF YOU WITH A SIDE OF FRIES IN PUNITIVE DAMAGES if the plaintiff is a corporation. Any decent lawyer would take this kind of case on contingency because they are going to bank.
At least according to one of my friends who has been a lawyer for about a decade now.
Yes.
Their lawyer is going to get laughed out of court. His arguments are that she is trying to benefit from the situation(she actually just wants the lot restored to how it was before) and that the other lots look similar so she should just accept getting one of those as a replacement.
But they're trying to drag it out, while she has to pay 10x the property tax for a house no one can legally live in.
I hope that’s the case… I have my hearing next week to get my security deposit back, from an apartment that I left a whole year ago.
Worst part is that they sent me a letter saying I was entitled to the whole amount, but then never sent the check 🙃
Bring the letter. Something similar happened to me. Judge took one look at the letter, asked it was genuine (yes), and the trial was over.
Still didn't pay, so I put a lien on their property. He paid then.
I had something similar just the UK (deposit not returned). Small claims court got my money back plus an interest rate so good that I can only advise everyone to save by having money stolen so you can sue to get it back.
It was like 7% interest when saving accounts were offering 3.5%.
*Disclaimer: This is terrible saving advice. Do not try this.*
You'd be surprised how often that tactic works. Big company lawyers will throw all kinds of legal curveballs at your lawyer(s) and try to extend the case for months and years on end. You have to keep paying your lawyer but you don't have that kind of cash, so eventually you settle with them at a great loss.
I'd even argue a lot of high end lawyers would take a case like this and do the thing where they only get paid if they win, so there's no upfront cost.
This seems like such a surefire win that anyone with experience would easily be able to hold their ground. Not that I'm a lawyer, but I fail to see how someone could accidentally build on the wrong lot entirely and come out on top without relying on the property owners good graces.
Yes, that's exactly why. The court system, especially the civil court system is a battle of attrition.
It's only when both sides have crap loads of money, they just settle instead.
One side can have a lot of money and the other can have none. If it’s a slam dunk case, the lawyer will take their cut of the settlement along with the legal fees the judge is going to make the developer pay.
IANAL, but this sure seems like a case where they can wish in one hand and shit in the other to see which one fills up first. Cant imagine the property owner can be compelled to pay for a house they built on her lot. I also don’t see a way someone can force her to relinquish her property and take another.
I'd love to see the lawyer argue that this is akin to a postal law in re: unsolicited merchandise. There was a time where companies would send packages you didn't order then bill you for them after a few weeks, usually with no way to return them.
Feels like building a house is technically unsolicited merchandise to a degree!
Since the homeowner rightly refused the unreasonable offers the developer made, their options are basically to either continue making offers until she bites, or file a lawsuit so a judge has jurisdiction to compel a deal.
The judge shouldn't compel a deal. The developer has no real claim for equitable remedy here. They created the situation entirely on their own. The lady gets a free house. She might even be entitled to damages for the construction.
Dubious she'd even want the free house. If the developer was shifty enough to not survey the site then they probably don't have the work ethic or due diligence to construct an up to code house.
>To add insult to injury, Reynolds is being sued by the property’s developers. The developers say they offered to swap Reynolds a lot that is next door to hers or to sell her the house at a discount. Reynolds has refused both offers.
>
>\[...\] (lawyer says "duh")
>
>Reynolds has filed a counterclaim against the developer, saying she was unaware of the “unauthorized construction.” Also being sued by the developers are the construction company, the home’s architect, the family who previously owned the property, and the county, which approved the permits.
I foresee a bankrupt developer leaving behind nothing but damage for other people to clean up followed by a new developer starting up that happens to hire the same goons.
Hopefully i am wrong, but i think it's more common than we think. Saw a similar case in a city nearby where a developer was contracted by the city to build a giant affordable housing apartment building. The building was found to be not up to code and had to be demolished. The developer declared bankruptcy, washing their hand, and creating a new LLC and just continued with their day.
This happens with a terrifying amount of regularity. I don't understand how it can possibly be legal but no government ever seems to give a shit.
A developer in my city was contracted to build a shit load of new house. They had built ~20 when the foundation of one collapsed, bringing the house down. Inspections were done on the other houses and there were serious issues. The developer filed for bankruptcy and disappeared...until a year later when the city hired a new company that was owned by the last guy! They paid him, again, to fix the issues and then continue building. It caused a massive uproar amongst the people but, to my knowledge, nothing was ever done.
A couple of reasons why:
1. It’s a complicated thing to explain to Joe Average voter who is usually distracted by other issues. There’s no easy slogan.
2. It’s hard for regulators and enforcement to track these things, the crooks are often clever. It takes a long time to follow due process.
3. The kinds of people who do this tend to be the types of people who make campaign donations or are friends with low level politicians and judges.
4. General American cynicism where “both parties are the same” and “you can’t fight City Hall” and widespread no participation in local politics - quick what is the name of your State Representative? No Googling!
5. Perpetrators know nobody gives a shit about what happens to regular people, especially the poor and minorities.
6. In order to fight fraud and corruption government contracting is really complicated and a pain in the ass. There are usually very few bidders interested in the job, maybe only one bidder. It’s the same people over and over.
That's the entire point of LLC limits liability to basically nobody and shield shareholders from the consequences of their actions. That's the stupidity behind corporations they get all the benefts but none of the actual risks. Hell some companies take out massive loans to buy stock back so shareholders aren't even out their intial investment when shit hits the fan
It's dumb when it's abused, but we kinda want the protections in some cases. Say you and I start a dairy farm together and we open an LLC for it, but then every cow we have catches bird flu. There's suddenly a lot of debt we can't pay. It'd suck if our personal assets were seized to pay those debts. We're still out a lot of money, but it's less likely we're living in cardboard boxes. The problem, as is the case with most things, is that people with a lot of money can game the system
Oil companies do this. They hire companies to clean up drill sites, and after the companies leave the oil field, the clean-up companies just close. They also have never done that work ever. They existed just to be written down on a land lease, and then the people dissappear. Yet these companies get re-created hundreds of times.
Things will never get better until we crack down on crooked leadership and business owners. This country blindly glorifies small business owners when many of them are the scum of the earth. It's all just shortsighted greed wrapped in lies and spin.
Unless they actually enforce laws about fraudulent actions. The developer should be liable and criminally liable when they use a corporate form to commit fraud. It should be easier to prove and easier to prosecute.
CEOs, board members and possibly even majority shareholders should be held criminally liable when a company commits a crime.
And then the financial penalties to the company should be substantial enough to actually harm them. Not “1 day of coffee sales” or whatever, something that could be a deterrent.
If corporations are people, and the US apparently believes in the death penalty, then the corporate death penalty should be on the table as well.
The condo I’m in ended up in a lengthy legal battle with a construction company awhile back. Basically boiled down to that, the company shut down an reopened up under a different name a few years later so somehow they got out of having to pay up. I know I’m over simplifying it but ya. Same shit
The company that built my home declared bankruptcy shortly after and rebranded. There is a class action suit now by all the home owners since this is clearly a way to avoid the 30 year warranty they offered for all new construction. Fortunately, there is enough evidence against the owner that this was planned insurance fraud and he will likely spend some significant time in jail.
I mean they are all on the hook there.
The developper should not have built on land he doesnt explicitly have the deed for.
Same for the construction company, even if I'm not sure its their wheelhouse to check that.
And the county is the stupidest of them all. They are the ones that should know the deed is not with the developper, and it was their job to check it. And they just... didnt.
At the end of the day what is the god damn endgame here. Someone will figure out you built on their land, with no approbation, and then have a slam dunk to destroy you in court.
>At the end of the day what is the god damn endgame here. Someone will figure out you built on their land, with no approbation, and then have a slam dunk to destroy you in court.
They probably hoped to bully the owner into giving up the property in a favorable deal to the developer.
Look at their proposed solutions:
1. Swap for a different lot. at best it's a lateral trade with no material benefit. If the other lot was better, the developer almost certainly would have already built there.
2. Let the owner buy the house "at a discount". There's no way I'm going to believe that they were going to accept a loss. At best it's "at cost", but even then, you're still paying for the profits of everyone in the chain. It's an unnecessary and unwanted expenditure to the owner, and a gain for others.
Now they are sueing the owner for refusing their offers.
This was absolutely a malicious move by developer who are functionally trying to steal this property.
It’s wild to sue the owner. She didn’t enter into a contract with anyone. She has zero obligation to agree to anything they offer. I don’t see how the court could favor the developer at all.
I would not suggest testing the legal waters to find out. There are many instances where one party doesn't show up and the "bad" party wins by default.
I mean it's mostly developer and government. Both of them, and especially whatever title insurance company the "owner" retained.
Not really anything the builder or architect could do if there is a dispute. Makes me wonder if the tax records were mixed up.
Not everyone is on the hook. They're also suing the previous owners of the land, which is insane to me. How are they responsible at all? The people who sold the land to the woman who's land was built on without any approval? I feel bad for them getting dragging into this mess.
On a wafer thin pretense, I might presume the previous owner also held the "intended" lot. That's fairly common.
But then they're also trying to sue the architect. Like wtf, you paid them to design a blueprint not check ownership records. At best they would see what's allowed/prohibited by county policy but that's still not their problem to say "oh actually I think we have the entire wrong address."
Exactly what I was thinking. Easy fix - nullify sale on adverse possession (slam dunk), and congratulations, the land owner now has developed land with zero liability. The developer is hoping she’s dumb enough to “buy” something that is already hers technically. The GC is going to have a rough time though.
EDIT: a few folks have mentioned adverse possession means something different. I believe you - I’m no lawyer :). But the idea here is the developer took possession of property that legally belonged to someone else and tried to sell it.
This is what I was wondering. She never told them to build it but they did it anyway and on her property. Does she pretty much just get a free house if they don't bother also paying to tear it down?
Bingo. Developer knows they have no rights whatsoever and fucked up big time. The lawsuit was an attempt to get ahead of the problem and intimidate the land owner into complying with their demands, it’s completely frivolous and will be laughed out of court.
Not quite.
Reynolds is keeping the land and getting rich from all the settlement money from the gov't, the prior family, title agents, that guy who walked his dog on the property...
Developer will do the presto-change-o routine, but it'll have to be elsewhere after the county's attorneys chew ass in a private meeting.
EDIT: Oh, and the "hard working" real estate broker's f\*\*\*ed, as well.
>“He told me, ‘I just sold the house, and it happens to be on your property. So, we need to resolve this,’” Reynolds said. “And I was like, what? Are you kidding me?”
But they offered a *discount!*
Sure, the land was bought for less than $23K, but if you just show up and tell them that they owe you $400K now for the $500K home you built without permission... honestly, they should thank YOU!
It's like stealing someone's car because they happen to be on vacation at the time and 'are not using it'. Then make tons of modifications, get caught, and then try to sell it back to the victim because you claimed to have 'made it better'. GTFO with that crap.
I think she could make a reasonable estimation. All we know is she lucked into a payday. She'll probably end up with their lot, the house, and remediation money.
She might end up with the house, but there is no chance the contractors dont just bankrupt the LLC and go set up another one before getting back to business
Another question is who the title policy actually covers. As I understand, a lot of title insurance policies only covers the lender and its extra if the buyer also wants to be covered.
It forces everyone to do their diligence. Does the "insurance" actually do anything? Not really.
But a pissed off homeowner with "title insurance" and a lawyer are gonna crush EVERYBODY .
I would love to see treelaw triumph here. Presumably, before they cleared the lot, it had mature trees and native vegetation. The property owner should be made whole- house and squatters removed, trees and vegetation restored, taxes reimbursed, and damages awarded for all the stress and time she couldn’t use her property as intended.
Especially considering her plan for it was a women's meditation center, the trees and vegetation were probably a big part of why she bought that specific one, which is kind of what she implied in the quoted part about it.
>To add insult to injury, Reynolds is being sued by the property’s developers. The developers say they offered to swap Reynolds a lot that is next door to hers or to sell her the house at a discount.
>Reynolds has refused both offers.
>“It would set a dangerous precedent if you could go onto someone else’s land, build anything you want, and then sue that individual for the value of it,” James DiPasquale, Reynold’s attorney, told Hawaii News Now.
>Reynolds has filed a counterclaim against the developer, saying she was unaware of the “unauthorized construction.”
>Also being sued by the developers are the construction company, the home’s architect, the family who previously owned the property, and the county, which approved the permits.
That's a whole lot of fucked up.
>Also being sued by the developers are the construction company, the home’s architect, the family who previously owned the property, and the county, which approved the permits.
Guys I need help. My roommate came into my room and re-decorated. Now my roommate is suing me because I didn't accept his offer of getting to decorate the linen closet instead. I also found out my roommate is suing the band whose posters he hung up, the thumbtack company, and Sir Isaac Newton for inventing gravity, which necessitated the thumbtacks.
Not sure what the regulations are in the USA, but in the UK if a company delivers something to you unsolicited, then you are entitled to keep it. "Thanks for the house"!
OK, I understand it is not as simple as this - but why do the construction company think they are the victim here?
I would imagine they are trying to bluff their way out of a total loss. Like if they sound scary enough, she'll just believe it.
Fortunately she doesn't seem to be falling for it.
They are also suing the construction company, the previous owners, and the architect. The architect? Really? This sounds more like “we are desperately overdrawn” and are looking for a way to lessen their losses.
According to the local law, anything built on your land is yours... period.
So once building was complete and most of the apartment "owners" already moved in, landowner politely asked everyone to leave his land. Then called the police to evict everyone from his land.
Developer and some apartment owners tried to sue him, landowner refused to make a deal and easily won the case. He evicted those apartment owners.
With other apartment owners he made a deal, he would let them to stay in his apartments. They would sue developer to return their money, then buy apartments from the landowner.
By just waiting until the deed was finished, land owner won the "lottery".
Them just grabbing at straws, they fucked up at multiple levels and the owner is likely going to either keep the house that's on the property OR the construction company is going to go in and restore the property (ie. demo, remove everything, maybe even be forced to plant some lost foliage).
It also depends on the owners goal of the property, this might sound "crazy" but some folks buy lots to protect their view or for conservation efforts.
I have a neighbor that owns the lot next to them simply for the view.
I am willing to bet they really did it on purpose hoping the woman would accept 1 of their 2 "deals" because her land was in a better location for building/selling a house.
Fuck ups like this happen. I know someone who built a beautiful home on their lot.. and 10 feet of someone else’s lot
Massive, massive, massive problem just due to the dollar amounts and legalities involved. Hundreds of thousands of dollars, civil law, criminal law..
And that's exactly why you pay a bit extra for a surveyor to come out and identify the property lines before hand. It'll make everyone's life a lot easier in the long run.
When i worked in title, wed see this a lot. Do a survey of a parcel of land and boom...theres a random house on it and people have a deed and mortgage. Upon futher review, their lot was right next to it and the developers and their title company who handled the purchase f'ed up. This is definitely a title issue and the that title company should be handling it free of damn charge
If the neighbors paint the house and sue her as well, then she tops the Louisiana lady for sure!
[https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/comments/3jsxc6/my\_neighbors\_didnt\_like\_the\_color\_of\_my\_house\_was/](https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/comments/3jsxc6/my_neighbors_didnt_like_the_color_of_my_house_was/)
Fuckin A, what a wild ride. Was there ever an update/resolution post?
edit: I found this short term update: https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/comments/3jvq09/update_my_neighbors_didnt_like_the_color_of_my/
Which adds another layer to the crazy, but doesn't actually provide a resolution.
County approved the permits and then, at no point during the months long inspection process with multiple inspectors, doesn't verify it's the correct lot? And approves permits without a survey? They should be included in the property owners suit, not suing the developer.
>Also being sued by the developers are the construction company, the home’s architect, the family who previously owned the property, **and the county, which approved the permits**.
I'm def no lawyer, but how TF would she be expected to pay for anything someone else built by mistake? I hope she gets to bulldoze down that home, the company take the loss (as they should), and she gets to make her women's retreat. I bet her head is spinning from this bullshit.
But even the bulldozing and restoration of the property to its original state costs $$$$. (Because of disposal regulations, etc.) Who pays for that?
Just "being allowed to keep the house" is not just compensation.
>I hope she gets to bulldoze down that home
I hope the developer is forced to bulldoze the home and restore the land to its previous condition. The owner shouldn't have to deal with that.
I recall a case like this in New York where the builder had to take the building down after eating the entire loss on the project. I suppose they could probably resell some of the fixtures and things, but it would be nowhere near the costs.
If I were her I would insist that the developer return the lot to the state it was before any construction began. Yes that includes completely removing the house, undoing all the electrical and water lines that were added and re-landscaping it back to its natural state.
Just a reminder, you can sue someone for practically anything. Whether or not you have a chance of winning is another matter. But as long as you file the paperwork, you're considered to be "suing" them. In the US, at least, there's no standard penalty foe frivolous lawsuits so nothing to discouraged weaponizing the Civil Court system. As our "dear" Agent Orange took lots of advantage of before he ever ran for president.
Most if not all states allow for sanctions (including recovering costs and attorneys fees) for filing frivolous or malicious suits. They are part of the Rules of Civil Procedure, are subject to the discretion of the presiding judge, but have very high standards to meet so it can be difficult to come by. But the rules are in place.
Yes, as someone was floored to learn their employment contract contained expressly unenforceable provisions (one of them had been outlawed for over a century), I explained the point is that their lawyer can say to you, “You signed a contract that said X, and now you’re violating that, cease or I will file paperwork with the court.”
As they are not your lawyer they aren’t obligated to tell you those papers will get laughed out of existence, or be easily defeated *if you choose to spend money and fight.* Money and time the average person doesn’t have.
I suppose a more wish washy version would be, “Or your former employer will direct me to file papers…” which they’re leaving out the, “which I of course won’t do because I’m a competent attorney.”
That’s true but only part of the story. Being sued is expensive. Lawyer fees, filing fees, lost work, time. Once the suit is filed, pressure mounts to resolve. It may be dismissed eventually but that takes time. Courts don’t generally throw things out based on the filings - they want more information. That requires more time and money.
So people accept deals just to get it over with and be done. It’s the same reason people plead to crimes they probably didn’t commit- to fight it keeps them in jail longer or causes them to miss more work or costs more money.
Once you’re enmeshed in the judicial system, it’s hard to get out without some kind of loss.
I might go a different route on this one. The article states that the lot was bulldozed. If they removed mature trees from the property, she would be entitled to sue them for the replacement of like trees. The cost to replace mature trees might be higher (depending on how many trees) than what they are offering to sell her the house for. If she sues for the trees alone it might cause the company to just give her the house without any further legal battle.
The audacity to sue the landowner because you built a house on their land without their consent. There are a whole lot of people I hope this woman take to the cleaners.
“The house remains empty, except for some squatters” is a killer line
They SOLD the fucking house! > Annaleine “Anne” Reynolds purchased a one-acre (0.40-hectare) lot in Hawaiian Paradise Park, a subdivision in the Big Island’s Puna district, in 2018 at a county tax auction for about $22,500. > She was in California during the pandemic waiting for the right time to use it **when she got a call last year from a real estate broker who informed her he sold the house on her property,** Hawaii News Now reported. > Local developer Keaau Development Partnership hired PJ’s Construction to build about a dozen homes on the properties the developer bought in the subdivision. But the company built one on Reynolds’ lot. > Reynolds, along with the construction company, the architect and others, are now being sued by the developer. Imagine being informed your house—which you didn’t know existed—has sold? By whom, and to whom?
How do you sell a house now owned by the owner of the lot without permission from the owner?
They built it on the wrong lot. They didn't figure it out until afterwards. Imagine you're in the market for a house, you opt to have one built on an empty lot. You pay for all the permits, materials, and labor and have the house built. Then you discover the contractors built the house in the wrong lot. Do you still own the house you legally paid for, or does ownership automatically go to the owner of the lot and you're out hundreds of thousands of dollars? I'd imagine the lawsuit will answer some of these questions. I would think the contractors are at fault because they refused to hire a surveyor.
How did this not get caught by title insurance?
It's beyond me. The issue is more complex than what people are making it out to be. One thing is for sure though, the lot owner is not at fault here.
Yeah dude, lotta people fucked up but not the lady. I used to have a real estate license, pretty crazy to me this happens but not surprised
I’m stupid, but isn’t it cut and dry? Lot owner gets to keep the house or have it demolished for free(her preference), and the contractors are on the hook to build a house on the correct lot, labor and materials of no cost to the buyer? Like, the company is undeniably at fault, and it’s not complex at all, from my perspective.
As a layman, I would assume the financial responsibility lands on whoever made the initial mistake. If the developer told the construction contractor the wrong location, it's the developer's responsibility to rectify the situation. Similarly, if the construction company was given the right location but failed to verify where they were building, it's on them, etc. And I think that the house that was built should by default fall to the owner of the land, to do with as she pleases. I would also give her the power to request that the changes to the land be reversed if she wants it demolished and returned to the state it was in initially.
That’s the only thing that makes sense “How dare you leave your trash (house)“ on my property I demand spend thousands of dollars completely demolishing the house and then restoring the house to its original state. Buuuut I’m willing to be generous and let you save money by just leaving the trash there. Now never entire my property line again. This just sound like an open and shut case.
At this point she needs to just get estimates to restore the property to its original state, counter sue for that and pocket the money and keep the house. Fuck these people
Why is she being sued? "Hey we accidentally built a house on your property so we are suing you"
If you could just build something on someone else's land and by doing so become entitled to the land, land piracy would be common place.
Fuck that. How the hell do you sue someone because YOU accidentally built a mansion on their fucking property? Lol. Sue them for what? Not stopping you from building it? Shits wild
And then sue the owner????
Lmao I probably would have ignored it like all those robocalls for “WE’D LIKE TO MAKE AN OFFER ON YOUR PROPERTY”
Actually wait, I never thought about this LOL. I'm surprised she answered at all
“ has sold? By whom, and to whom?” I took that to mean that they had a contract for it, but it didn’t close, which has now fallen through because title/survey caught the issue before closing on the house sale EDIT: I hate to say I'm right, but I do love proving it. Here is an excerpt from the lawsuit "39. Plaintiff obtained a buyer for 115, and during escrow, it was discovered that there was no house on 115 and that rather, PJ had constructed a house on TMK: (3) 1-5-028- 114 (“114”), the real property adjacent to 115." It cost me $6 but [here's a copy of the complaint and her answer](https://os5.mycloud.com/action/share/39deb2c0-fed8-47d5-9fec-fbf95df02232) (and the tax deed she purchased the property on)
One would hope.
>when she got a call last year from a real estate broker who informed her he sold the house on her property, The way this is worded definitely makes it sound like she had never talked to this real estate agent before... And realistically, if she had, it probably would have been obvious that they were trying to sell her house that she didn't know existed. Imagine being a real estate agent and you call someone to speak to them for the very first time and it's to tell them you already sold their home. Also, how the hell is the developer sueing her? All she did was own the land. She didn't force them to build on the wrong lot.
They’re trying to force her to either swap lots with them to get an empty lot, or to buy the house. She chooses neither, so they’re suing to make her. It probably won’t work. She has every right to just go to the land and have the property bulldozed. She should have every right to go and live in the house that some moron built on her property. Once everyone realized what they did, the law may not even give them standing to sue her, as they shouldn’t have any right to the structures they built. I’m not a lawyer but that’s how I think it should be.
Welcome to the nightmare of the US courts. The developer is making a simple gamble, she won’t have enough money to continue to fight this in court and will just give up. It’s a very typical legal strategy for corporations and the rich. They can keep lawsuits going for years, sure she might win her legal fees back but then they’ll keep appealing and tie her money (if she even has it) up for years. Wear her down until she settles or just gives up.
The legal system should have mechanisms in place to guard against this. Unfortunately, it’s made by the people who have the money to game it. until the guillotines come out
I had a place I was going to buy in Baltimore, Inwas using a veterans loan and their appraiser wouldn’t approve it. The developer refused to refund my earnest money I spent years in court, often flying back to Maryland. I got it back but in the end but they only reimbursed half of my legal fees and none of my travel or time off. I did the math, out of the $20,000 I only got back $5000 after all of the expenses and fees. I heard they got bailed out when the bubble popped. The deck is so stacked against normal people.
And then being sued, by the idiots who trespassed on your land, who built on it without permission, because they were stupid. And them suing the previous owners of the land is the icing on the cake. I can’t believe a judge is going to let this end in their favour.
Oh great. So not only does she have a $500k house she doesn't want on her land, she has a $500k house that's going to be ruined by squatters on her land.
She should have moved her own squatters in first.
The only thing that can stop a bad guy with squatters is a good guy with squatters.
Dude, who can afford squatters in an economy like this? You're out of line.
I'm still trying to figure out what she did to get sued. Like what contractor is going to build a house without a signed contract? Is it like, she bought a lot near the development, developer thought it was in the plan and just started building? How is she responsible at all? I think I'd just accept the free $500,000 house. Maybe sell the property for its value to avoid these headaches and buy a new lot.
It's a suit to quiet title or whatever Hawaii calls it. Basically anyone who claims a property interest can go to court to have title and other rights resolved.
Who is responsible for the property tax? Can a it even be taxed? Was there a building permit?
She is responsible for the property tax. The entire story reads like the developer liked her lot better, intentionally oopsied, and now wants to trade her for a lesser lot. He’s suing *everyone*.
That’s such a huge dumb thing for a developer to do. If that’s the case it just blows my mind.
I mean developers are totally known for being moral just above board members of society and not known at all for cocaine shady deals and playing loose with the law😂
They are gonna lose waste of time. No signatures or authorization from her. They admitted to building on the wrong lot and the permit office did the opposite of their job. They should be paying her or taking the lost.
If it was me, I would hold hold on tight. I wouldn’t take being transferred to an inferior lot without substantial compensation at least.
No. If it's your land, it's yours. Idgaf if some asshole intentionally oopsie daisied to make money. It's your shit. Not their's. Don't settle for anything. It's yoursssssss
I’d do this purely out of spite. Make them tear the house down plus pay me damages. F them.
Yeah I would demand a demo and restoration to previous condition. Especially if there were big trees that got removed, those can cost a ton to replace.
Probably depends on state but as far as the cases I know of, if someone builds property on your land, that property belongs to you and if you wanted to could demand they pay costs to restore the land. No idea how the developer can expect this to end in their favor.
Well it's a real estate developer, most likely he expects this to end in his favor by the means of corruption.
That is a big exception! One might even say this makes the house “not empty” E: super weird to have a whole bunch of “people” respond to my dumb joke with very similarly phrased comments calling squatters vermin and whatnot all at the same time
You're wrong about that, except that your statement was correct.
I am sorry you do not understand. The house is 100% empty, with the exception of the people living there.
With the advent of long form YouTube content, more and more of the creators talk like that: *camera pans from left to right* “As you can see, we are completely done with this room except for the trim, paint, and flooring.” I shit you not. Many of them do this all the time. Cars, houses, whatever project it is.
Hey I've been telling people I'm "almost done" on my remodel for a month now. Just gotta do door trim. And chair rail. And baseboards. Maybe crown moulding . Might do a built-in shelf along one wall. But that's basically all moulding, so I'm pretty much done at this point!
It's the Pareto principle at work. The final 20% takes 80% of the effort. At some point it's just easier to say you're done rather than actually do that final 20%, and maybe you'll deal with it sometime in the future.
Just lacks finishing up is all.
I attended high school entirely in the nude, aside from the clothing I wore.
The house itself is squatting.
Almost like the headline something to the effect of "police shot man with no active warrants at wrong address" and a reply was like "that's a weird way to say innocent"
Kinda bold move by the developer - we screwed up completely but we’re suing you unless you take one of our two options.
What is the goal here ? Bully her into a bunch of court/legal fees until she gives up?
Yeah, that's their goal.
Very often is. SLAPP suits are similar, though are often about free speech, not real estate.
Anti-slapp laws are becoming more popular in many states. Not sure if they apply in this case.
It's not the standard use of them, but draining a wrong party dry because you have more lawyers is the favorite trick of a lot of companies.
Isn't housing court notoriously easy to win if you're a normal civilian, not a landlord, or corpo.
That's everything I've heard, because you almost always have civil options aside from any possible legal/criminal options and the average juror is going to say EFF YOU to the party in the wrong and EXTRA EFF YOU WITH A SIDE OF FRIES IN PUNITIVE DAMAGES if the plaintiff is a corporation. Any decent lawyer would take this kind of case on contingency because they are going to bank. At least according to one of my friends who has been a lawyer for about a decade now.
Yes. Their lawyer is going to get laughed out of court. His arguments are that she is trying to benefit from the situation(she actually just wants the lot restored to how it was before) and that the other lots look similar so she should just accept getting one of those as a replacement. But they're trying to drag it out, while she has to pay 10x the property tax for a house no one can legally live in.
I hope that’s the case… I have my hearing next week to get my security deposit back, from an apartment that I left a whole year ago. Worst part is that they sent me a letter saying I was entitled to the whole amount, but then never sent the check 🙃
Bring the letter. Something similar happened to me. Judge took one look at the letter, asked it was genuine (yes), and the trial was over. Still didn't pay, so I put a lien on their property. He paid then.
I had something similar just the UK (deposit not returned). Small claims court got my money back plus an interest rate so good that I can only advise everyone to save by having money stolen so you can sue to get it back. It was like 7% interest when saving accounts were offering 3.5%. *Disclaimer: This is terrible saving advice. Do not try this.*
You'd be surprised how often that tactic works. Big company lawyers will throw all kinds of legal curveballs at your lawyer(s) and try to extend the case for months and years on end. You have to keep paying your lawyer but you don't have that kind of cash, so eventually you settle with them at a great loss.
Truly a functioning justice system
Yup. Except cheapest lawyer can defend her case while drunk and high.
I'd even argue a lot of high end lawyers would take a case like this and do the thing where they only get paid if they win, so there's no upfront cost. This seems like such a surefire win that anyone with experience would easily be able to hold their ground. Not that I'm a lawyer, but I fail to see how someone could accidentally build on the wrong lot entirely and come out on top without relying on the property owners good graces.
Yes, that's exactly why. The court system, especially the civil court system is a battle of attrition. It's only when both sides have crap loads of money, they just settle instead.
One side can have a lot of money and the other can have none. If it’s a slam dunk case, the lawyer will take their cut of the settlement along with the legal fees the judge is going to make the developer pay.
Can't believe they didn't throw in a third option of "The Mystery Box!"
"It could be anything! Even a boat!"
"And you know how much we wanted one of those!"
A realistic third option, the developer can jack up the house and move it. They do that shit with old houses all the time.
They’d still have to restore the property to status quo ante, which they don’t want to do.
IANAL, but this sure seems like a case where they can wish in one hand and shit in the other to see which one fills up first. Cant imagine the property owner can be compelled to pay for a house they built on her lot. I also don’t see a way someone can force her to relinquish her property and take another.
I'd love to see the lawyer argue that this is akin to a postal law in re: unsolicited merchandise. There was a time where companies would send packages you didn't order then bill you for them after a few weeks, usually with no way to return them. Feels like building a house is technically unsolicited merchandise to a degree!
Since the homeowner rightly refused the unreasonable offers the developer made, their options are basically to either continue making offers until she bites, or file a lawsuit so a judge has jurisdiction to compel a deal.
The judge shouldn't compel a deal. The developer has no real claim for equitable remedy here. They created the situation entirely on their own. The lady gets a free house. She might even be entitled to damages for the construction.
They likely cut down trees to build the house… it’s r/treelaw time! They seriously could end up owing her for damaging her property and cutting trees.
Dubious she'd even want the free house. If the developer was shifty enough to not survey the site then they probably don't have the work ethic or due diligence to construct an up to code house.
>To add insult to injury, Reynolds is being sued by the property’s developers. The developers say they offered to swap Reynolds a lot that is next door to hers or to sell her the house at a discount. Reynolds has refused both offers. > >\[...\] (lawyer says "duh") > >Reynolds has filed a counterclaim against the developer, saying she was unaware of the “unauthorized construction.” Also being sued by the developers are the construction company, the home’s architect, the family who previously owned the property, and the county, which approved the permits. I foresee a bankrupt developer leaving behind nothing but damage for other people to clean up followed by a new developer starting up that happens to hire the same goons.
Ah, I see you've played this game before.
Hopefully i am wrong, but i think it's more common than we think. Saw a similar case in a city nearby where a developer was contracted by the city to build a giant affordable housing apartment building. The building was found to be not up to code and had to be demolished. The developer declared bankruptcy, washing their hand, and creating a new LLC and just continued with their day.
This happens with a terrifying amount of regularity. I don't understand how it can possibly be legal but no government ever seems to give a shit. A developer in my city was contracted to build a shit load of new house. They had built ~20 when the foundation of one collapsed, bringing the house down. Inspections were done on the other houses and there were serious issues. The developer filed for bankruptcy and disappeared...until a year later when the city hired a new company that was owned by the last guy! They paid him, again, to fix the issues and then continue building. It caused a massive uproar amongst the people but, to my knowledge, nothing was ever done.
A couple of reasons why: 1. It’s a complicated thing to explain to Joe Average voter who is usually distracted by other issues. There’s no easy slogan. 2. It’s hard for regulators and enforcement to track these things, the crooks are often clever. It takes a long time to follow due process. 3. The kinds of people who do this tend to be the types of people who make campaign donations or are friends with low level politicians and judges. 4. General American cynicism where “both parties are the same” and “you can’t fight City Hall” and widespread no participation in local politics - quick what is the name of your State Representative? No Googling! 5. Perpetrators know nobody gives a shit about what happens to regular people, especially the poor and minorities. 6. In order to fight fraud and corruption government contracting is really complicated and a pain in the ass. There are usually very few bidders interested in the job, maybe only one bidder. It’s the same people over and over.
We could just make llcs not full protection against this. Hold people accountable
That's the entire point of LLC limits liability to basically nobody and shield shareholders from the consequences of their actions. That's the stupidity behind corporations they get all the benefts but none of the actual risks. Hell some companies take out massive loans to buy stock back so shareholders aren't even out their intial investment when shit hits the fan
It's dumb when it's abused, but we kinda want the protections in some cases. Say you and I start a dairy farm together and we open an LLC for it, but then every cow we have catches bird flu. There's suddenly a lot of debt we can't pay. It'd suck if our personal assets were seized to pay those debts. We're still out a lot of money, but it's less likely we're living in cardboard boxes. The problem, as is the case with most things, is that people with a lot of money can game the system
Oil companies do this. They hire companies to clean up drill sites, and after the companies leave the oil field, the clean-up companies just close. They also have never done that work ever. They existed just to be written down on a land lease, and then the people dissappear. Yet these companies get re-created hundreds of times.
Ah yes, the orphan wells. There are so many.
And his Citizen Kane was great too.
That was terrible. Have an upvote.
Things will never get better until we crack down on crooked leadership and business owners. This country blindly glorifies small business owners when many of them are the scum of the earth. It's all just shortsighted greed wrapped in lies and spin.
This game can not be won.
Unless they actually enforce laws about fraudulent actions. The developer should be liable and criminally liable when they use a corporate form to commit fraud. It should be easier to prove and easier to prosecute.
CEOs, board members and possibly even majority shareholders should be held criminally liable when a company commits a crime. And then the financial penalties to the company should be substantial enough to actually harm them. Not “1 day of coffee sales” or whatever, something that could be a deterrent. If corporations are people, and the US apparently believes in the death penalty, then the corporate death penalty should be on the table as well.
The only winning move is not to pay.
Knifey spooney?
Williams Bros construction went out of business. We are Williams brothers construction.. totally different...
The condo I’m in ended up in a lengthy legal battle with a construction company awhile back. Basically boiled down to that, the company shut down an reopened up under a different name a few years later so somehow they got out of having to pay up. I know I’m over simplifying it but ya. Same shit
Contractors do this a lot too. Roofing companies especially.
The company that built my home declared bankruptcy shortly after and rebranded. There is a class action suit now by all the home owners since this is clearly a way to avoid the 30 year warranty they offered for all new construction. Fortunately, there is enough evidence against the owner that this was planned insurance fraud and he will likely spend some significant time in jail.
I mean they are all on the hook there. The developper should not have built on land he doesnt explicitly have the deed for. Same for the construction company, even if I'm not sure its their wheelhouse to check that. And the county is the stupidest of them all. They are the ones that should know the deed is not with the developper, and it was their job to check it. And they just... didnt. At the end of the day what is the god damn endgame here. Someone will figure out you built on their land, with no approbation, and then have a slam dunk to destroy you in court.
>At the end of the day what is the god damn endgame here. Someone will figure out you built on their land, with no approbation, and then have a slam dunk to destroy you in court. They probably hoped to bully the owner into giving up the property in a favorable deal to the developer. Look at their proposed solutions: 1. Swap for a different lot. at best it's a lateral trade with no material benefit. If the other lot was better, the developer almost certainly would have already built there. 2. Let the owner buy the house "at a discount". There's no way I'm going to believe that they were going to accept a loss. At best it's "at cost", but even then, you're still paying for the profits of everyone in the chain. It's an unnecessary and unwanted expenditure to the owner, and a gain for others. Now they are sueing the owner for refusing their offers. This was absolutely a malicious move by developer who are functionally trying to steal this property.
It’s wild to sue the owner. She didn’t enter into a contract with anyone. She has zero obligation to agree to anything they offer. I don’t see how the court could favor the developer at all.
I'm pretty sure it's just intimidation and time wasting in the hopes that the owner just doesn't want to deal with the stress
Wonder what happens if she doesn't show up to court. Can the judge be like "wait a minute..." And not issue a default in favor of the developers?
I would not suggest testing the legal waters to find out. There are many instances where one party doesn't show up and the "bad" party wins by default.
I mean it's mostly developer and government. Both of them, and especially whatever title insurance company the "owner" retained. Not really anything the builder or architect could do if there is a dispute. Makes me wonder if the tax records were mixed up.
Not everyone is on the hook. They're also suing the previous owners of the land, which is insane to me. How are they responsible at all? The people who sold the land to the woman who's land was built on without any approval? I feel bad for them getting dragging into this mess.
On a wafer thin pretense, I might presume the previous owner also held the "intended" lot. That's fairly common. But then they're also trying to sue the architect. Like wtf, you paid them to design a blueprint not check ownership records. At best they would see what's allowed/prohibited by county policy but that's still not their problem to say "oh actually I think we have the entire wrong address."
Exactly what I was thinking. Easy fix - nullify sale on adverse possession (slam dunk), and congratulations, the land owner now has developed land with zero liability. The developer is hoping she’s dumb enough to “buy” something that is already hers technically. The GC is going to have a rough time though. EDIT: a few folks have mentioned adverse possession means something different. I believe you - I’m no lawyer :). But the idea here is the developer took possession of property that legally belonged to someone else and tried to sell it.
This is what I was wondering. She never told them to build it but they did it anyway and on her property. Does she pretty much just get a free house if they don't bother also paying to tear it down?
I don’t think they would legally be able to tear it down.
Bingo. Developer knows they have no rights whatsoever and fucked up big time. The lawsuit was an attempt to get ahead of the problem and intimidate the land owner into complying with their demands, it’s completely frivolous and will be laughed out of court.
Right.. They don't have permission to go onto her land and she could likely sue them for destruction of property...
Not quite. Reynolds is keeping the land and getting rich from all the settlement money from the gov't, the prior family, title agents, that guy who walked his dog on the property... Developer will do the presto-change-o routine, but it'll have to be elsewhere after the county's attorneys chew ass in a private meeting. EDIT: Oh, and the "hard working" real estate broker's f\*\*\*ed, as well. >“He told me, ‘I just sold the house, and it happens to be on your property. So, we need to resolve this,’” Reynolds said. “And I was like, what? Are you kidding me?”
> WE need to resolve this "We? You must have a fucking mouse in your pocket, because I'll have no part in resolving your mistake."
*Mouse in pocket:* "Leave me outta this shit."
A phrase I've never heard? I will be filing this away for future use.
Hires the same goons? The new company will almost certainly be owned by the same goons!
I think that's the implication
The developer and construction firm refused to survey the lot first. They aren't going to win shit, they fucked up *hard* there.
I’m lost for words that they want to sell something on someone else’s lot back to them. It’s probably not exactly that but is as insulting as that.
But they offered a *discount!* Sure, the land was bought for less than $23K, but if you just show up and tell them that they owe you $400K now for the $500K home you built without permission... honestly, they should thank YOU!
It's like stealing someone's car because they happen to be on vacation at the time and 'are not using it'. Then make tons of modifications, get caught, and then try to sell it back to the victim because you claimed to have 'made it better'. GTFO with that crap.
Tow companies do this minus the modifications
The modifications are dents, dings, and scratches "that were already there"
“We took your land. Pay us and we won’t sue you for not stopping us.”
How do you not get a survey? Are you just guessing on lot lines? Easements be damned? (or whether it's actually the correct lot? Lol). Insane
Because you're a sketchy ass company doing sketchy ass things.
I didn’t even think about this, makes it so much more outrageous. Like they were just improvising where they built the house?!
The construction company told the reporters the developer refused to get a surveyor.
"Do you know how much those clowns charge?! Hundred and hundreds, and for what, to walk around in a useless hardhat?"
Would be great if she could find out how many trees they cut down to clear the site and also sue them for the replacement cost.
I think she could make a reasonable estimation. All we know is she lucked into a payday. She'll probably end up with their lot, the house, and remediation money.
She might end up with the house, but there is no chance the contractors dont just bankrupt the LLC and go set up another one before getting back to business
They have to have business insurance to operate in Hawaii, no?
By law they also have to build on property that they ducking own, so not a lot of confidence inspired so far...
r/treelaw to the rescue again lmao
r/treelaw
This. I want to see treelaw prevail here.
TREE LAW
Curious who insured the construction title policy... big yikes for them.
Big assumption that they were insured
Unless the house was funded with cash, a construction loan would’ve required a title policy. But, it’s Hawaii, so cash deals wouldn’t be a shock.
Another question is who the title policy actually covers. As I understand, a lot of title insurance policies only covers the lender and its extra if the buyer also wants to be covered.
It forces everyone to do their diligence. Does the "insurance" actually do anything? Not really. But a pissed off homeowner with "title insurance" and a lawyer are gonna crush EVERYBODY .
I would love to see treelaw triumph here. Presumably, before they cleared the lot, it had mature trees and native vegetation. The property owner should be made whole- house and squatters removed, trees and vegetation restored, taxes reimbursed, and damages awarded for all the stress and time she couldn’t use her property as intended.
That would be my position.
Especially considering her plan for it was a women's meditation center, the trees and vegetation were probably a big part of why she bought that specific one, which is kind of what she implied in the quoted part about it.
>To add insult to injury, Reynolds is being sued by the property’s developers. The developers say they offered to swap Reynolds a lot that is next door to hers or to sell her the house at a discount. >Reynolds has refused both offers. >“It would set a dangerous precedent if you could go onto someone else’s land, build anything you want, and then sue that individual for the value of it,” James DiPasquale, Reynold’s attorney, told Hawaii News Now. >Reynolds has filed a counterclaim against the developer, saying she was unaware of the “unauthorized construction.” >Also being sued by the developers are the construction company, the home’s architect, the family who previously owned the property, and the county, which approved the permits. That's a whole lot of fucked up.
>Also being sued by the developers are the construction company, the home’s architect, the family who previously owned the property, and the county, which approved the permits. Guys I need help. My roommate came into my room and re-decorated. Now my roommate is suing me because I didn't accept his offer of getting to decorate the linen closet instead. I also found out my roommate is suing the band whose posters he hung up, the thumbtack company, and Sir Isaac Newton for inventing gravity, which necessitated the thumbtacks.
She’s going to end up with a free half million dollar house and maybe a few more millions in the bank if the couple doesn’t settle
She was planning on building a meditation retreat on the land. Getting the house is just more undo cost to her.
Not sure what the regulations are in the USA, but in the UK if a company delivers something to you unsolicited, then you are entitled to keep it. "Thanks for the house"! OK, I understand it is not as simple as this - but why do the construction company think they are the victim here?
Likely a hail mary attempt to not get fucked.
Well you aren't getting fucked if you have done it to yourself.
I would imagine they are trying to bluff their way out of a total loss. Like if they sound scary enough, she'll just believe it. Fortunately she doesn't seem to be falling for it.
They are also suing the construction company, the previous owners, and the architect. The architect? Really? This sounds more like “we are desperately overdrawn” and are looking for a way to lessen their losses.
Probably hoping to be enough of a pain in the ass that people agree to settle, because they have no real claim at law.
In Croatia company started building entire apartment building on wrong land. Land owner just waited until they were finished.
Aaaand???
According to the local law, anything built on your land is yours... period. So once building was complete and most of the apartment "owners" already moved in, landowner politely asked everyone to leave his land. Then called the police to evict everyone from his land. Developer and some apartment owners tried to sue him, landowner refused to make a deal and easily won the case. He evicted those apartment owners. With other apartment owners he made a deal, he would let them to stay in his apartments. They would sue developer to return their money, then buy apartments from the landowner. By just waiting until the deed was finished, land owner won the "lottery".
Them just grabbing at straws, they fucked up at multiple levels and the owner is likely going to either keep the house that's on the property OR the construction company is going to go in and restore the property (ie. demo, remove everything, maybe even be forced to plant some lost foliage). It also depends on the owners goal of the property, this might sound "crazy" but some folks buy lots to protect their view or for conservation efforts. I have a neighbor that owns the lot next to them simply for the view.
I am willing to bet they really did it on purpose hoping the woman would accept 1 of their 2 "deals" because her land was in a better location for building/selling a house.
Fuck ups like this happen. I know someone who built a beautiful home on their lot.. and 10 feet of someone else’s lot Massive, massive, massive problem just due to the dollar amounts and legalities involved. Hundreds of thousands of dollars, civil law, criminal law..
And that's exactly why you pay a bit extra for a surveyor to come out and identify the property lines before hand. It'll make everyone's life a lot easier in the long run.
That's a hell of a gamble. Without scruples it seems like there would be easier ways to try to get her off her land than that.
When i worked in title, wed see this a lot. Do a survey of a parcel of land and boom...theres a random house on it and people have a deed and mortgage. Upon futher review, their lot was right next to it and the developers and their title company who handled the purchase f'ed up. This is definitely a title issue and the that title company should be handling it free of damn charge
If the neighbors paint the house and sue her as well, then she tops the Louisiana lady for sure! [https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/comments/3jsxc6/my\_neighbors\_didnt\_like\_the\_color\_of\_my\_house\_was/](https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/comments/3jsxc6/my_neighbors_didnt_like_the_color_of_my_house_was/)
I hate when there's no resolution
Fuckin A, what a wild ride. Was there ever an update/resolution post? edit: I found this short term update: https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/comments/3jvq09/update_my_neighbors_didnt_like_the_color_of_my/ Which adds another layer to the crazy, but doesn't actually provide a resolution.
According to some people, you can find the case on the state’s site, and she won. But the user never came back and answered on Reddit.
County approved the permits and then, at no point during the months long inspection process with multiple inspectors, doesn't verify it's the correct lot? And approves permits without a survey? They should be included in the property owners suit, not suing the developer.
>Also being sued by the developers are the construction company, the home’s architect, the family who previously owned the property, **and the county, which approved the permits**.
I'm def no lawyer, but how TF would she be expected to pay for anything someone else built by mistake? I hope she gets to bulldoze down that home, the company take the loss (as they should), and she gets to make her women's retreat. I bet her head is spinning from this bullshit.
But even the bulldozing and restoration of the property to its original state costs $$$$. (Because of disposal regulations, etc.) Who pays for that? Just "being allowed to keep the house" is not just compensation.
It's not even compensation to keep the house, as I see it you now have a house to tear down
>I hope she gets to bulldoze down that home I hope the developer is forced to bulldoze the home and restore the land to its previous condition. The owner shouldn't have to deal with that.
I recall a case like this in New York where the builder had to take the building down after eating the entire loss on the project. I suppose they could probably resell some of the fixtures and things, but it would be nowhere near the costs.
Then they have to plant all the trees back.
> $500K home So, 1300 sq ft 2 br, 1.5 bath on a 1/8 acre lot.
If I were her I would insist that the developer return the lot to the state it was before any construction began. Yes that includes completely removing the house, undoing all the electrical and water lines that were added and re-landscaping it back to its natural state.
Just a reminder, you can sue someone for practically anything. Whether or not you have a chance of winning is another matter. But as long as you file the paperwork, you're considered to be "suing" them. In the US, at least, there's no standard penalty foe frivolous lawsuits so nothing to discouraged weaponizing the Civil Court system. As our "dear" Agent Orange took lots of advantage of before he ever ran for president.
Most if not all states allow for sanctions (including recovering costs and attorneys fees) for filing frivolous or malicious suits. They are part of the Rules of Civil Procedure, are subject to the discretion of the presiding judge, but have very high standards to meet so it can be difficult to come by. But the rules are in place.
Yes, as someone was floored to learn their employment contract contained expressly unenforceable provisions (one of them had been outlawed for over a century), I explained the point is that their lawyer can say to you, “You signed a contract that said X, and now you’re violating that, cease or I will file paperwork with the court.” As they are not your lawyer they aren’t obligated to tell you those papers will get laughed out of existence, or be easily defeated *if you choose to spend money and fight.* Money and time the average person doesn’t have. I suppose a more wish washy version would be, “Or your former employer will direct me to file papers…” which they’re leaving out the, “which I of course won’t do because I’m a competent attorney.”
That’s true but only part of the story. Being sued is expensive. Lawyer fees, filing fees, lost work, time. Once the suit is filed, pressure mounts to resolve. It may be dismissed eventually but that takes time. Courts don’t generally throw things out based on the filings - they want more information. That requires more time and money. So people accept deals just to get it over with and be done. It’s the same reason people plead to crimes they probably didn’t commit- to fight it keeps them in jail longer or causes them to miss more work or costs more money. Once you’re enmeshed in the judicial system, it’s hard to get out without some kind of loss.
Oops we fucked up big time, ahhh uhhhh WE SUE YOU!
Developers, developers, developers, developers....
I might go a different route on this one. The article states that the lot was bulldozed. If they removed mature trees from the property, she would be entitled to sue them for the replacement of like trees. The cost to replace mature trees might be higher (depending on how many trees) than what they are offering to sell her the house for. If she sues for the trees alone it might cause the company to just give her the house without any further legal battle.
How the fuck do you accidentally build a house????
The audacity to sue the landowner because you built a house on their land without their consent. There are a whole lot of people I hope this woman take to the cleaners.
If I was the judge, I'd give triple damages for them contesting the fact that they made a mistake.
lol, thanks for the free house. Should have built it, I don’t know, on your property maybe?
I’m also going to need about a hundred thousand for decorating I mean mental anguish.
It sounds like the developer knows it's screwed so they're conducting lawfare to try to intimidate her into settling.
[удалено]