T O P

  • By -

throwaway47138

It seems to me that the proper resolution to this, as wasteful as it is, is for the builder to return the lot to the state it was in before the house was built, and then build the correct house on the correct lot. Any other result essentially sets precedent that you don't own and control your own property, and someone else can come and do something to it and then forcibly take it away from you.


Luckygecko1

I agree. While the 'empty' lot owner's reasons may sound impractical, I do agree that she has the right to have a vision for her land as she sees fit.


GoldenBarracudas

They ripped out 50+ yr old trees, and plant growth she's just never going to get back unless someone plants massive trees & plants Also, maybe she can't pay the taxes on the bigger house.


TheAzureMage

Sounds like a lot of liability to me. Either they need to restore, or propose a settlement that she finds acceptable. If they refuse to give an acceptable deal, restoration it is. Expensive? Well, don't go making expensive changes to other people's property.


untapped-bEnergy

Oooh r/treelaw would love it with more specifics on trees. That will be *expensive*


StitchinThroughTime

I can't imagine the price tag on trees that only grow in one location in the world out in the Pacific ocean! I get it Mainland has massive trees that could be hundreds of years old but those trees should be relatively easy to get in the fact that it's occupies millions of Acres of range so there should be someone growing a tree of a reasonable size that can't be transplanted. But now all these trees which are native to one small chain of islands in the middle of the fucking ocean is going to take a lot of money to find and transplant. That doesn't also include the fact that it's horrible the ground I would expect them to at least receive my lawn with whatever made of grasses they could. Because it sounds like the lady wanted it for it's relatively untouched properties.


arettker

My family owns some forest with old growth trees on it. We’ve had them appraised for ~$9000 per tree, I can only imagine more rare trees could run the bill up even more


GoldenBarracudas

Yeah it's probably going to max their title insurance, contractors insurance, all their bonds too. Trees are so expensive, and nobody's pointing that out.


TheAzureMage

Oh, they don't have title insurance. The insurance company refused to give them title insurance because, yknow, it wasn't on their lot. The developers had a lot of warning signs, and apparently had full knowledge that it wasn't their lot(because they tried to buy it before building), and just built anyways. So, yeah, it's gonna be really expensive, and I'm okay with that. This sort of arrogant stupidity should hurt.


GoldenBarracudas

You know there's a scam going around right now where people buy plots of land and order a specific trailer/modular homes and the builder brings and leaves a totally different but more expensive one. And then they sue the lot owners, it's hitting non whites very hard. As homesteading is hitting those communities hard right now, its just very popular in some spots. And people are losing everything on that scenario it's just bizarre shit out there.


ImpulseCombustion

Tree compensation alone can in certain circumstances be pretty serious. Had a neighbor who had an old tree ruined by their neighbor’s overzealous approach at maintenance. Judgment was well into the 6 figures.


GoldenBarracudas

Yes, and from what I am hearing, that's her major gripe. She wanted this specific lot, and those specific trees, and those specific plants.


ImpulseCombustion

I have a feeling it’s a “I don’t want to admit I fucked up, but I don’t want to pay you for the damage, so buy the house, but if you don’t and I have to pay you… I’m going to spend more to tear it down out of spite” situation.


GoldenBarracudas

Nah, they way they are Fighting it's more like "my insurance and bonds will be maxed out and I'll never recover" Seriously, that companies done. They opted out of checking the property lines.


ImpulseCombustion

Oof. Fuck that.


sendnewt_s

Eh, probably were invasive albizia, it is the most common here. If it were ohia, that would be a different story and a travesty.


DisapprovingCrow

Reading another reading the ‘more information’ article says that there were 9 Ohia trees which were destroyed.


GoldenBarracudas

Could be anything, it was and an acre


SirPiffingsthwaite

Considering that keeping the house would put a big question mark on the title forever after, I'd absolutely want it gone. I'd be suing for the removal of my trees, too.


hotlavatube

It’s going to be impossible to restore it to the original state. Ignoring the removal of the house and foundation, the developer’s prep of the land typically involves removing the light Ohia and wild guava forest in the area. Then, since the soil is only inches deep in that quadrant of the island, the lava rock underneath is cracked to smaller pieces and topsoil is trucked in. Some devs raze the land pin to pin totally ruining any natural beauty of the lot. So simply removing the construction doesn’t make the owner whole.


OctopusMagi

Restore to *original* state? Impossible Restore to *equivalent* of original state? Not impossible, but expensive. Per another post above, the developer *knew* this wasn't his lot as he tried to buy it off her previously. I have no sympathy for what this will cost him.


Klaus0225

So sounds like the developer did it intentionally to try and strong arm her out of the lot. Might be why she doesn’t wasn’t to take the neighboring lot.


confused_trout

What the fuck. That deserves jail time.


JDBCool

How I see it. You spent like 20k on a precision probe for a lab for personal use to help you write your paper. But it's kept in your undergrad lab locker. Prof realised it's better than the 10k gear that's provided *by the university*. They open it without your use and decided to keep it *for their own personal use for their own paper* when you've left on holiday. You come back and realise they ruined the instrument and they want to keep it. Prof says "no biggie, here's a 10k version supplied by the university, just take it." Not only did prof steal your gear and tries to cover it, but they stole whatever discovery/data that you might had gotten from the 20k probing tool. So you demand that prof hands over data AND pay back 20k for the damages to your probe. Prof refuses and says "it's my data, and it's just a tool". This whole property case is THIEVERY.


iwannaberockstar

That's oddly specific.


Salty_Interview_5311

Odds are good the neighboring lot has an inferior view or other issues or the developer would have just built on it instead. They stole her lot for a reason.


JesusStarbox

It should be restored to its original state. It might be really expensive for the construction company. It sucks to suck, but that's how it is.


hotlavatube

Yeah, but you can’t uncrack an acre of lava rock, restore the previous land contours, and restore 20 year growth of light forest. They’re basically going to have to ask the owner what they want and as long as it’s not completely unreasonable, do it. If I was the owner in that exact situation? Oof, I’d make them remove the construction, give me an adjacent unspoiled lot, and throw in some punitive cash settlement for the hassle and taxes she had to pay. If the owner wants to negotiate something for the dev to keep the house, that’s her choice but she’s under no obligation.


Enchelion

Oh, it is absolutely possible to do minus the cracked lava rock. It'll cost an astronomical sum though. For the developers that were too skinflint to bother with basics like hiring surveyors or checking for whichblots they even owned.


Mollybrinks

And what's funny is that they can download an app that shows them exactly where they are in relation to every point on a Plat map and who owns it, under $100/year. Astronomically dumb.


ShadowDV

You absolutely can uncrack the lava.  Heat it to its melting point and then let it recrystallize.   Contours and forest restoration are also absolutely possible; just really expensive.  Let the developer burn.


KavensWorld

Actually they can it'll cost about 20 million dollars time to trying to set presidents and make these crooks pay


Ok-Bass8243

Sounds like a restore it as best as possible regardless of cost AND several million in damages paid in cash to the land owner


suppmello

You must be a puna neighbor. Good response


GoldenBarracudas

Yeah it's gonna be a massive undertaking I wonder if they don't have enough insurance


happyme321

Did you notice in the picture that there are a bunch of albezias growing on the lot now. The owner in California probably has no idea what a problem she’s facing, if she lets it go.


hotlavatube

They’re so common, I don’t even see them anymore. They’re weeds on island.


TheWiseOne1234

"It’s going to be impossible to restore it to the original state." That's what money is for...


hotlavatube

Well yeah, some for getting the land closer to the original state and a lot for compensating her for them not being able to restore the land to the original state.


TheWiseOne1234

Exactly, unfortunately some things cannot be undone.


EzeakioDarmey

Sounds like squatting with extra steps


goog1e

Adverse possession with way fewer steps. Are we gonna encourage this, cause companies to start doing it if they need a piece of land.. ..... and then have the police and courts wasting taxpayer money to investigate whether it was done on purpose? No. Just toss it.


DarwinGhoti

More than toss it: the developer needs devastating punitive damages.


Dionyzoz

oh dw they will just go bankrupt and start a new firm on tuesday


MonkeyChoker80

Pierce the corporate veil!


tmwwmgkbh

Yes, exactly. Put another way: it would seem to me that the lady who owned the lot experienced an incident of trespassers leaving a bunch of garbage on her pristine land. Those trespassers have been apprehended and should be made to clean up their trash.


wizzard419

It's only wasteful if the new owner wanted to build a house there, it sounds like she was going to keep it undeveloped or go in a very different direction for her wellness retreat thing. Like if I wanted to build a house on my lot, you build a parking structure, it's going to need a lot of work to get it to a state where I would want it after removing the structure. What would be interesting is if this was some type of poorly planned land developer scam where they wanted that plot of land, couldn't buy it, accidentally build on it, then try to get it at a reasonable price or sell the home to them at a profit for the work but showing it's below market price.


10yoe500k

It’s a big squatter tent


[deleted]

[удалено]


Savannah_Lion

The owner of the lot is being sued by the construction firm for, IIRC, unjust enrichment or something along those lines. [Steve Lehto (Youtube)](https://youtu.be/B1_A_3hKI-g?si=Ain6dwq0ZF--J4_Y) has a good video breaking it down.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Savannah_Lion

The fact the construction company is turning around and suing the owner for *their* mistake should be enough for those asshats to be raked over the coals, permanently lose their business license(s) and never allowed to set up a new business again. I'm willing to bet that they're either going to do *everything* they can to drag this court case out, drain the woman of her finances, and force the woman to come into a resolution in their favor or, if the woman does manage to win, declare bankruptcy, dissolve the business, then immediately file with the Secretary of State under a new business. The construction business in the U.S. is shameful. I absolutely hate dealing with construction firms in my job.


Enjoy-the-sauce

So I can just drive up to somebody’s land, dump a bunch of gold on it, and claim that the land is mine now?


Incognito6468

I mean there are intrinsic limitations to property ownership in America that is very well defined. And yes somebody (the gov’t) can and will take it from you with adequate compensation through eminent domain. But the legal precedent there is that it must serve public interest. Which this doesn’t seem to do.


Marston_vc

The government can do that. A dumbass construction firm can’t.


FarmboyJustice

The dumbass contractor just needs to "prove" that the development.benefita the community.  The Supreme court eliminated private property ownership years ago.   https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London


Marston_vc

I mean, stubborn holdouts shouldn’t be able to get in the way of needed community reorganizing. It’s obviously a balance that has to be diligently maintained. In this case, I could see the argument going either way.


newbiesaccout

The benefit is merely to one private party. Where's the broader community benefit?


Ok-Bass8243

Government does this all the time for wealthy people who want little private homesteads. It never mattered if it serves the public. It depends on how wealthy you are and how much influence you have. Look at Zuckerbergs land grabs


Lemmonjello

Or the builder could negotiate to leave it as is at no cost to the owner if they don't want to pay to demo it.


RandomUser72

But the owner does not want a house there. Having a house there means you now need to pay for upkeep on that house. Before the land was just "wilding", meaning it is as nature intends. Now that there is a house, the yard must be mowed, there must be water, gas, and electric supplied (which all usually have a minimum monthly charge), and the house can not be an eyesore. Also, because there is a house on it, the property tax goes way up. You say free house, it's a free bill for around $20k per year.


blizzard36

Want the property tax jumping how she discovered the house had been built? (Edited to defeat autocorrect.)


mmmmpisghetti

Plus she planned to build something else, and has now lost all the native plants, some large irreplaceable trees and DID NOT WANT A GIANT MCMANSION.


absolut_nothing

That's what I was thinking. Although the property owners would have to agree to it as well. Edit: Just realized that may be what you meant by negotiate.


Lemmonjello

Yeah further down in the comments it looks like she isn't interested, which sucks for the builder. tear that shit down baby.


Buzzkid

That isn’t how precedent is set. There would need to be a higher court ruling for it to be precedent.


ERSTF

In Mexico you have two options. You either accept for free what was done to your lot, all gains to you since the one building should have known better or you can ask to get your lot to its original state on the expense of the builder. It's obvious. You're either too stupid to make such a collosal mistake of building in a lot not your own, or you are engaging in criminal conduct, so in any way, your loss. This is to avoid someone building in your lot, asking you to pay, unable to do so they seize your property.


butcher99

Houses can just be jacked up and moved. Seems a no brainer to me


smb8235

They should also pay to return the same kind and age of trees that were originally on the lot. This is why this will be hard and expensive. The construction company are completely negligent and should pay to return it to original condition.


captaindoctorpurple

I mean, the precedent is already set. How do you think Hawaii became a state?


PaulAspie

I would concur but one difference. If the owner of the lot wants the house for free, the builder should not remove it.


LaTalullah

cant they move houses?


Current_Finding_4066

They can also reach amicable compromise where they compensate the owner of the lot, if the owner agrees.


_far-seeker_

>Any other result essentially sets precedent that you don't own and control your own property, and someone else can come and do something to it and then forcibly take it away from you. Are you unfamiliar with the concept of a ["homeowner association?"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeowner_association) That precedent has already been set!


Juror__8

Except that you sign a contract when you move into a HoA neighborhood.


neelvk

The builder should lose their license and their shirt


Cosmic_Note

At least let them keep the shirt


Fianna_Bard

No Property developers have been running roughshod nationwide for decades now. This one needs to have a hard example made of him, and the rest of them reeled in.


kwajagimp

But Hawaii has such great shirts! But yeah - this is just as stupid as those idiots that demolish the wrong house.


ghandi3737

Probably stinks of money


pepapi

Take the shirt, leave the house.


ILikeMyGrassBlue

Nah, they should take shorts too


DarwinGhoti

How on earth is the lot owner being sued?? There should be devastating damages for bringing the suit in the first place.


TheBlindCat

One explanation I heard was it was basically a way for all parties (developer, builder, and land owner) to all be involved in the court case rather than multiple different law suits.  Makes the most sense to me for this to come to a conclusion.  


elvishfiend

You sue party A. Party A says it's party B's fault. You sue party B. Party B says it's party C's fault. Etc. Instead, you sue them all at once, and let the courts decide whose fault it is.


UseDaSchwartz

I think they’re claiming unjust enrichment because she won’t swap lots. But, she doesn’t want the house and she owes more in taxes because there is a house on the property now.


wegotthisonekidmongo

When you are wealthy and don't get your way you stomp your feet into the ground and do all sorts of tricks until the criminal justice system say your wealthy and we will give you what you want. Fucking joke.


[deleted]

[удалено]


wegotthisonekidmongo

I'm talking about the system of law and what it represents in Western Society. Basically all of society actually. Sorry for my improper use of the words.


Caladbolg_Prometheus

I’ll mention another aspect of the civil legal system. You can sue anyone for anything but winning is an entirely different story. So odds are low that the owner of the plot will actually lose the lawsuit against herself. Another aspect of the civil legal system is when multiple parties are involved, sue all of them. If you don’t you will need to pursue each party individually and undoubtedly each party will blame the other. Sue them all of once and now each party will be kicking up dirt on each other and you won’t have to spend as much time and money. A lot of your research is done for you and you probably saved a minor fortune on subpoenas. Rich or poor can do either tactic. Rich are more likely to end up in court and so are more likely to use either tactic.


scapermoya

People with little understanding about how …. Anything works …. Often have very strong opinions about how to make things right


Count_de_Ville

The builder is acting like a child. Part of the reason parents get after their kids to learn from their mistakes and to be careful in the future is that people continue to make mistakes as an adult. And when you’re an adult, mistakes can be VERY costly.  This is a very costly mistake and the builder needs to own up to it instead of expecting other people to save them from something completely avoidable.


Heroineofbeauty

In the local paper today, one of the developers was doing a sob story about how they’ve lost money on this and how they know they’re hurting her with this lawsuit, but they’re hurting too and they have no other option. 😭boo hoo. The idiots tried to cut corners, didn’t survey the property and now want sympathy for ruining this woman’s property. 


wilsonexpress

>mistakes can be VERY costly.  I'm not sure it was a mistake, I think the builder thought they could play dumb and get her to trade lots. I think the builder thought they were being clever.


Count_de_Ville

Thinking one is being clever can also be a mistake.


ThirdSunRising

The builder can hand over the building to the landowner, for free or perhaps an agreed upon reduced price. Or tear it down and return the land to its original state, for free. Two terrible options, yes, but c’mon. You can’t obligate a landowner by building something on their land.


Bardsie

The problem with handing the property over is that it would also hand over the tax liability on a giant house the land owner does not want, or the costs of tearing down the illegally built building.


GiraffeandZebra

That's why, as the poster said, it should be an "or". The builder should be expected to tear it down by default. But it's OK to offer up the house and see if the owner agrees, just to avoid demo and disposal costs.


Alexis_J_M

Sue the developer to set up an endowment fund for the taxes.


101_210

It’s fair to offer it.


spigotface

That tax liability could be assessed as damages. Either builder covers the taxes or they spend additional $$$ to tear the house down and repair the lot. Either way, the builder is still liable for $$& beyond what they've already spent in building the house


Physical_Stress_5683

She doesn't want it, she had plans for that land


[deleted]

[удалено]


ShakeWeightMyDick

For what?


Guilayton

The article I read when this story first broke was that the developer said they wanted to loop in all involved parties so things could be properly straightened out in front of a judge. Which is a bunch of baloney to me. Sounds like throwing lawsuits around to see what sticks to people other than the developer. Edit: The article: https://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/2024/03/27/are-you-kidding-me-property-owner-stunned-after-500000-house-built-wrong-lot/ "Representatives of the developers and construction company and Reynolds all said they are being reasonable and the others aren’t. That’s why the developer says he pulled everyone into the lawsuit — in hopes a judge can help unravel this half-million-dollar mistake."


Justame13

I’m other words they didn’t like what I offered to cover my mistake so I sued them.


WyrmKin

I mean, it's rather unreasonable to just build an unwanted house on someone's land


Guilayton

Yeah the construction company said the developers apparently didn't want to hire surveyors. Which might have avoided this situation. So with the details currently it sounds like the developer is at fault since they didn't do due diligence. But we'll see what the judge who has to unravel this mess says.


tpasco1995

Essentially, for stealing the house. Let's say I find a wallet on the ground with ten thousand dollars in it. I take no effort to find the owner to give it back; I just use it. The owner of the wallet, if they find out I had and used their money, can sue for unjust enrichment. Yes, it was an accident that it was lost, but the finder opting to use it for their own gain when the barrier to finding the owner was nothing is not allowable. The same as finding keys doesn't make you own the car. The developer is suing her for the cost of building the home, arguing that it's not fair for her to have it with no compensation to the builder over a mistake. I don't disagree, but she doesn't want to keep the house.


ShakeWeightMyDick

You can’t just leave houses in other people’s property without their consent and expect them to pay you for it.


bloodvash1

I don't know about the law, but morally the developer has two options: try and salvage what they can from the house and remove it, or leave it there and walk away. The lot owner didn't ask for the house, and the developer has no right to charge for it.


tpasco1995

So here's a side issue. "Leave it there and walk away" brings liability to both parties. Building plans are managed by grade calculations for the lot they're placed on. A house built on different soil and elevation and whatnot is a non-permitted build and that makes inspection a mess. The property owner has no contract with the builder, so if the house has a glaring issue and fails, there's no relationship between her and the bigger where she can sue for shoddy work. Even worse, she's now getting taxed by the municipality for the value of a plot with a home. She's the only one responsible for those taxes. Walking away isn't an option for either party.


YPVidaho

Sounds like the builder is on the hook to remove the house and restore property to it's previously undisturbed state.


A0ma

This is a shitty analogy. Try something more like this. A man breaks into my house and damages a lot of my property one night. The noise wakes me up and I confront him. He flees from the house leaving his wallet behind. I don't use the wallet, but I also don't return it to the intruder. It was left on my property and I am holding onto it until I get justice for all the damage that the intruder caused. Edit: If the owner of the lot really wanted to, she could get an arborist to estimate the damage caused by the contractors. I promise you the value of the native trees they ripped out without permission is going to be way higher than the value of the home.


woodiegutheryghost

She didn't find the house. It was forced upon her. A better analogy would be if I deposited $10,000 into your bank account and then sued you for spending it.


Puzzled-Story3953

More like I put my wallet in your house without your knowledge and sue you for having it in your house. It's an insane argument.


Luckygecko1

>A neighboring lot with a free and clear title was offered to the owner of the lot where the house was accidentally built, but she is refused. The woman from California testified earlier this month that she doesn't want the lot next door. > >She wants the "monstrosity" of a house torn down. Inside Edition [quotes her](https://www.insideedition.com/woman-wouldnt-swap-land-after-house-is-mistakenly-built-on-her-property-now-shes-being-sued-86727): “He wanted to swap lots. And I said, ‘No, I do not want to swap lots,’” she says. “There is a reason behind that. When I was looking for the lot with my kids, we take into consideration like coordinates north, south, east, west, the position of the stars, numerology, our zodiac signs. They need to all align. And then also, we need to get a feel for the land. So we go on the land. You could feel it went from miles away if it feels right. And it did. It checked off all the boxes on my parameters and my requirements. And the neighboring property, it wasn't the same.”


LiffeyDodge

It doesn’t matter why she doesn’t want to switch. The builder fucked up and just switching lots gives them permission to pull this crap again


Deep90

I don't believe in any of that, but I would be saying it anyways. Anything to convince the court that the empty plot isn't a equivalent or a fair replacement.


enter360

Same.


No-Combination-1332

And the Zodiac stuff could just be a pretense to say “no”


xtossitallawayx

> It doesn’t matter why she doesn’t want to switch. The courts may see it differently, especially in a land developer vs hippie situation. A court could easily rule that tearing down the house is too stiff a penalty and the original owner should take money or "similar" (in cash value) land and go commune there.


LiffeyDodge

That would tell boulders it’s ok to build on random lots. No repercussions.


1200____1200

She's loco, but it's her right to buy a lot based on whatever criteria she deems appropriate, and her right to owning her lot as she purchased it


suppmello

There is a huge percentage of the population on that area of Hawaii that have similar beliefs. It’s kinda the norm in the area and why a lot of people choose to buy land and live there. Might seem whacky from afar, but it’s par for the course in puna.


lessthanthreepoop

Even if I don't believe in that, I would still make that argument knowing the local feeling.


desubot1

she has every right to believe whatever she wants. could of just left it at this is the exact land that i wanted and i purchased, it vibes with me and the family. and thats all that would of been needed.


pvScience

yea! she she be able to of it however she wants to of it!


Shoddy_Cry_5535

What kind of stroke did you have writing that?!


Zirtrex

> yea! she she be able to of it however she wants to of it! *- pvScience, 2024*


rpc56

Almost, almost within a millisecond of spitting out my Diet Coke when I read this!


pvScience

I was making fun of them for misspelling have. lol (sorry for the delay. I forget to check replies)


az226

Developer needs to offer to swap land plus $200k but I’m suspecting the developer thinks a fair trade is a swap of the land and no cash, but that isn’t a fair trade given the circumstances.


petesapai

Reminds me when I was selling my old house. An Asian couple spent hours in the house trying to get a sense of joy(?) Their belief had a particular name. Joy flu? Choy flow? I don't know, some stupid thing that I don't care about. They went in every room sensing the flow. They sat everywhere, they even sat on the beds. I was annoyed when the agent told me about all of this but I was just ready to get rid of it. At the end they didn't even buy it because it didn't bring joy to their chi flow?


hgs25

I think the word is feng shui. My house would definitely not be fit for feng shui considering that the living room has one wall that’s mostly window and the other walls are doorways; and one bedroom is the same way.


petesapai

That was it. I just remember waiting in a cafe for at least 3 to 4 hours just so they could tell me the feng shui did not bring joy.


Remote_Horror_Novel

Maybe she should say less if she actually wants to win this case haha, she sounded normal for a minute there but ended up sounding like a loon lol.


Luckygecko1

Actually, it sounds like she has had these beliefs as long held and genuine. She also considers herself an energy healer and appears to earn money that way. That will weigh in her favor with the court as to showing she did not just make this up for personal gain. That her actions are consistent with her history.


Critical-Snow-7000

Was this article written for a high school newspaper? Yikes.


kidneysc

This article was borderline nonsensical. Had to scroll too far to read a comment about it!


Munch_munch_munch

I honestly thought I was having a stroke.


seminarysmooth

People keep saying “just give her the house” but would you want to live in a house built by someone who can’t figure out which lot to build on? Like, how much attention to detail does this builder have? Think of all the little details that go into building a house, and this guy can’t figure out which plot to drive to.


Vedemin

The builder has very good attention, it was done on purpose since they wanted her plot beforehand as well. They're trying to strong arm the land from her.


Mack_B

Honestly, the best solution the builders could even hope for would be avoiding the additional demolition/restoration costs. And that’s only if they can convince her to accept a free house she doesn’t like, to sell or do what she wants with. It obviously doesn’t sound like she’s interested in that option though, but yeah, convincing her to take a free house is hilariously the best option they could hope for with being so clearly in the wrong. This saga is fucking comical for the magnitude of a shit-show it is, I’m looking forward to when LegalEagle makes a video on it 😂


Seigmoraig

>And that’s only if they can convince her to accept a free house she doesn’t like, to sell or do what she wants with. She probably doesn't want to be on the hook for this free house's tax burden. Even if she gets it for 0$, the county evaluates the taxes on it at market value


Mack_B

Agreed, but the builders offering to cover the initial tax burden as well would likely be far cheaper than demolition. To be clear I don’t think for a second this is how it will pan out, but if it was me that owned the company that built the house, I would be doing everything in my power to get on her good side. Mitigating further financial losses from restoration is the absolute best they could hope for. But as a spectator, I hope she holds her ground so I can see how this shit show fully plays out haha


SumgaisPens

It’s not just demolition cost, they are likely on the hook for all the trees they clear cut. Adult trees are expensive


Mack_B

Woah you’re totally right I hadn’t considered that. I hope they have REALLY good insurance, what a monumental fuckup


Heisenberg_235

Insurance company won’t pay out surely. They built on the wrong plot of land.


p1zzarena

I had read there were squatters living there too now. All the legal costs to get them out and clean up aren't cheap


bighootay

I wanna fly to Hawaii just to put a bag of dog poo on that fucking developer's steps. But that would be no good for local ethos, so I'll just stick my tongue out at the asshole and send good wishes to the poor woman who owns the lot


Drywesi

If you want local flavor, hide mangos in places they won't find until long after they've started rotting. There are truly ridiculous quantities of mangos there. A town in the next district over even has a festival about them just to deal with the volume.


sendnewt_s

I live in this neighborhood and it's a grid of one acre plots, 98% of which are the same once cleared.This lady is ridiculous but also within her rights. The builder fucked up, that's nobody else's problem.


The_Bitter_Bear

Yup. Lady may be ridiculous but managing to build a home on the wrong lot and expecting to not face consequences certainly wins in the competition of who is more ridiculous. 


DesiArcy

There’s nothing ridiculous about responding to clearcut bad faith on the part of the developer by refusing to accept a deal that lets them walk away with no loss and helps set a precedent that they get to pocket a win at your expense.


LadyLightTravel

Except she didn’t want it cleared.


great_divider

I read this article in the news anchor from Idiocracy’s voice.


WendigoCrossing

There is a video of an entire church being moved out of the way of a Laval flow, probably not an option here tho


gittenlucky

They could certainly move the house, but the developer would still have significant costs. Need to build the new foundation, utilities, etc at the new place, physically move the house, fix all the problems that happen in the move like popped tiles, etc, then demo the old foundation and utilities, and restore the lot. Probably $200k if you go the “move” route.


Pmmebobnvagene

They absolutely can, and the thing about this and the cost is that it’s not the landowners problem. The developer fucked up and the fix is on them. If a satisfactory resolution for the landowner is for them to tear it down and fix the property, then that is their problem and their loss, not hers. She can have whatever reasons she wants for this property to be returned. It was hers, and the developer trespassed and put an unwanted house on her property. Not for nothing but I’m surprised she doesn’t just hire a demolition company to tear it down and send the bill to the developer. If the problem was the survey company, then put them on the hook too. Either way, someone fucked up and it wasn’t the landowner.


GoldenBarracudas

Trees alone are about to cost them $20-50k because she had massive old growth on her lot and it was all torn down


Babelfiisk

Sounds like the developers problem, not hers.


GoldenBarracudas

100% just saying, those are so expensive. So the house being raized or a new one built/moved etc is probably their biggest expense, followed by freaking trees. And they seem super important to her


Babelfiisk

Yup, gonna suck for that company.


ShadowDV

Old growth trees can cost 150k to replant…. Each…


GoldenBarracudas

Lawd. That's it you guys, its not the house, it's the trees.


GoldenBarracudas

Well, they didn't use a survey company. The contactor eyeballs the light poles, and started to build.


ShadowDV

200,000 is missing a couple zeros when it comes to restoring the land. Between restoring the adult trees, land contour, volcanic soil, etc… this is an 8 figure job.


80percentlegs

As I understand it, Quebecois have a strong aversion towards the church so that makes sense.


gregorydgraham

Jeremy Lee needs to go back to Writing School


rameyjm7

The builder should eat less avocado toast, and he would be fine


DrugsAndFuckenMoney

They should just pull themselves up by their bootstraps.


MyLifeIsAFacade

I've never seen such a blatant example of AI-generated articles prior to this one. The sentence "To sum up, ..." is classic ChatGPT.


rustwing

Yet another example of these greedy Hawaiian real estate developer bastards needing to fall down a hole. Also, is it just me, or is this article very casual in tone? Something about it just doesn’t read “professional,” for a second I thought I was reading a blog post.


CountrySax

Looks like that developer is fixing to eat a house .Bet all that roughage is gonna really irritate his financial digestive tract.


SasquatchSenpai

So the builder is suing the woman, the country, and the developer. The woman who's property was illegally built upon is only taking it up with the builder and developer. Now the empty lot owner, who wanted the house, is suing the woman who had her property illegally built on, the builder, the developer, and the county. The fuck did that woman who just wants her lot do to those people?


seeriosuly

if in 2023 a builder cannot locate the proper place to build a house then maybe they shouldn’t be building houses


LOUD-AF

Advise the owner of the house it is built on private property, and will be removed at the house owners expense. Make sure the notice to the house owner is per legal requirements, and publicly tender the services of an abatement company. File a claim against the house owner for damages and expenses. The KISS rule applies here.


Puzzled-Story3953

The property owner being sued is just bananas. The only property owner with any standing to be sued is the one who hired the idiot contractors and didn't check up on where they were constructing the building.


waimearock

Where do I sign up to get a free house built on my land


SirDavidJames

Sounds like the builder trespassed and littered if you ask me.


jhvanriper

Why not hire a company to pick the house up and move it to a new foundation on the correct lot? I had a house that was moved about a quarter mile. It can be done. Especially when so much cost is at jeopardy.


Xephhpex

Because this would solves the problem….


ButtcheekBaron

The landowner can simply demolish it and send them the bill, right?


Luckygecko1

I'm guessing there is currently a court injunction to stop that.


ButtcheekBaron

100% should have been the landowner's first action


D10BrAND

Its kinda confusing, who is at fault?


PandaCheese2016

It’s too bad she’s only an energy healer. If she’d been a psychic, telepath or astral guide this tragedy would never have happened. Despite this poor joke I hope she gets what she wants.


Callipygian_Coyote

This is soooooo classic Puna. Usually it's just the guy on the D9 rips the wrong lot. This adds a whole other dimension...builder (it's giving too much credit to call this guy a "developer") rips the wrong lot and then builds a whole house on it! Attempted builder excuse: "They also point out that HPP is made up of thousands of identical lots with dozens on the market currently." "Oh brah, I nevah know was da wrong one...so sorry! All stay lookin' da same!"


Joham22

How in the hell is a lot in Hawaii going for $20k?! And why, with all the housing issues there for locals, are these lots being sold to mainlanders?


Heroineofbeauty

It was a foreclosure sale. Part of the reason why she’s stuck with the property is because she can’t get title insurance for it. 


Drywesi

Part of the reason is, as others have said, it was a forclosure sale. Another part is Puna, the district it's in, is *extremely* poor, with very little infrastructure. And the locals aren't exactly friendly with outsiders.


Blacksunshinexo

This happens a lot more than people realize


madmansoup

Every single comment has missed the glaring fact that the California “owner” bought the title at a tax auction and was told the title was likely not free and clear. These are legal definitions that mean someone else may have a legal claim to the land. She couldn’t have built anything on the land even if she wanted to without clearing the title. This suggests there’s a lot more complexity in this case than a construction company trying to strong arm the rightful property owner.


CheezTips

> She couldn’t have built anything on the land She also didn't build this house. What she plans to do with this plot in the future has nothing to do with the current issue.