"An attorney for PJ’s Construction said the developers didn’t want to hire surveyors."
Well there's your problem.
The answer here should be simple... the developers pay for demolition, removal of the house, and restore the property back to the condition where they found it.
They've sued everyone instead...
The lady that owns the property, the people who used to own it, a bank, an insurance company, I think a person that lives on another lot, the person who sold them the other lots.
In all likelihood the lawsuits are a stall until they can declare bankruptcy and start a new company.
But they can't just "restore" the property, it was full of mature native trees/plants and for bulldozed.
Also the reason they didn't "need" surveyors, was lots are clearly marked via numbers on telephone poles. They just read the numbers wrong. Which is even worse.
But they can't just "restore" the property, it was full of mature native trees/plants and for bulldozed.
Oh God.....tree law....I never realized how much I missed this.
Psh, the trees are the easy part, trees (for the most part) stay where you plant them.
Good luck reintroducing the pocono swallow, or even being able to afford to fly a Bird Law specialist out from Philly to determine damages.
Seriously tho, this lady just got a $500k house and probably a 1/10th of that in damages for a lot she paid 22k for.
A house that increased her taxes tenfold and that the developers are saying she can’t have.
It also says this was discovered when they sold the house. Hopefully that sale fell through with no clear title, but someone else may think it’s theirs
According to the article I read yesterday there are squatters in the house refusing to leave
Eh.
I read an article a couple days ago
She bought it super cheap when it was an isolated lot in an undeveloped area to be used as a retreat.
Then this developer built a shit ton of house all over, even if her lot was the same, the area was drastically changed.
Like, I get it, it sucks for her.
But it would have been even worse if they didn't build a house there.
You just decided that what you think she should do with her property is more important than what she thinks she should do with her property.
Nope.
I'm saying she bought a lot in an undeveloped area, and now there are half million dollar homes all over the place.
That lot is no longer remote.
Now she'll likely make a bunch of money and buy a bigger plot that's more remote and likely to stay that way for longer.
I didn't take the time to explain every little detail, and it looks like a lot of people need them.
Thats not the point, it was her block.
She chose that block, maybe she liked the plants, the shape, the hill its on, the view, or had plans for a particular layout.
Like someone stealing your car then saying "oh you can get a more expensive one with the insurance payout" when really you just wanted the one you had.
It's not a car.
It's a plot of land. One that she bought because it was isolated and natural.
Now it's a neighborhood full of rich people.
It's not the same as when she bought it, even if they didn't build a house on her land.
It's not complicated
But it's still her land not yours. She decides what she wants done with it. Regardless of if the situation changed in how remote or not the land is does not change it was hers to decide.
On the plus side, this thread is helping weed out a lot of people to add to the block list
I mean I'm happy for you but a weak person runs away from being told they're wrong by numerous people. Blocking won't change the fact that you're wrong.
You don't understand tree law. A same tree of about the same size and age must be transported and planted where the old one was. It can cost well over $20,000 per tree. They don't get to just plant a sapling and say "20 years from now, you're all good".
Then it also has to survive the transplant and a fair amount don't, so must be replaced again if they fall over or die from the move.
Tree law? Let's say you and I go toe-to-toe on bird law and see who comes out the victor.
Biggest thing I miss from old reddit. Oh well.
Just have the Lorax settle this
They couldn't afford surveyors but they can pay lawyers to file a half dozen fraudulent lawsuits?
I hope a judge smacks them.
Didn't say they couldn't afford them. They didn't want to pay that expense
Lawyers cost a lot to win a case like this.
One lawyer to send letters to 20 people demanding they all each pay...
That doesn't cost much, might actually work, and stalls the issue.
And leaves you enough time to close up shop, declare bankruptcy, and walk into court with Groucho glasses saying "your honor, clearly this suit is filed towards Romanes Eunt Domum. The company I run now is Romanes Eunt Domus."
The restoration part is where everyone involved is totally screwed.
Bold move Jim, let's see if it pays off.
There really should be a law that says a business can't sue someone and declare bankruptcy because it looks like they'll lose.
Until they declare bankruptcy and reorganize as JP's Construction.
Dear dumbass,
Please remove your abandoned property.
Love,
Attorney with the easiest job ever
Surveyors: Actually a really important job because without them nobody knows where the fuck anything actually is in any precise way, nor does anyone actually know they own the land they think they do.
Or just give the property the owner the house for free in exchange for not suing and cut their losses. Would probably be cheaper in the long run, especially counting legal fees.
She doesn't want the house because it balloons the taxes on the property from a few hundred to thousands per year
First: she has a right to be made whole and it’s not her concern what the people who wronged her have to go through to do that.
Second: she never wanted a house. She had a special vision for the space, a space that has now been damaged.
Third: squatters have rights and she may not be able to evict them. Their rights may take precedence over hers here.
Not disagreeing with any of this but it should be clear to this lady her vision was screwed the moment a developer built a bunch of cookie cutter houses all over that area. A meditation center doesn't really work in that area any longer.
The issue with the taxes, the lawsuit, and the squatters is exactly why I would have just taken the offer to trade properties, she has an enormous headache on her hands and bailed on the easy way out of it.
Squatters seldom have the "rights" to just take property as easily as the internet often seems to think they have. It very often takes years to assume those rights plus paying the taxes on it. And if it were so easy to do that it became such a common problem, it wouldn't be as big a meme as it currently is.
My question is: "Just how little are you paying attention to your personal property that you unaware of a many month's long building process taking place on your property?" Or is the property owner that stupid and has her ass that far up her own head?
I mean, I own several hundred acres of property, (farm land and forest), and a good chunk of it is 300 miles away. I KNOW what happens on that property. If someone tried to build anything on it without my knowledge or consent, I would know within a week of the start of the building and real hard pointed questions would be asked of the fools doing the building.
She doesn't reside in the state, and the state is Hawaii (an island). We can assume she also has no social connections there, at least none near the property. Do you expect her to be telepathic?
Her daughter lives there and was the one to recommend the property. That said I don't think you lose your rights by not checking your stuff regularly. This developer could have had that house up in a matter of months, Does not really need to be a long time.
Not telepathic, but you can hire companies to watch over your investment. And if you can afford real estate in Hawaii and live elsewhere, you can afford to hire such a company.
You can. But should you be expected to? Lol. It's an empty lot in a residential neighborhood. I think it's fair to NOT expect people to be putting unauthorized structures on it.
Fair or not, it happened and the actual property owner does have an obligation to know what happens on the property she owns - absent or not. So she bears some responsibility for what happened. Think about a small child falling into an abandoned well you didn't know was there. As the owner of the property, you are expected to know of it's presence and you are accountable for what happens with it. It's a part of the joys of owning property.
So if you end up owning property, understand when that if that day comes, that there are more obligations to ownership than simply making loan payments and paying your taxes.
I own property.
I'm just saying it's incorrect to characterize this woman as ass-headed, because it's not a reasonable expectation to assume somebody might build on your land, or to have to spend your time and money to safeguard against that specific problem. Making sure there are no uncovered well, sure. Constant surveillance to keep out rogue construction companies? In a neighborhood? No.
And whether you found out in a week or several months, it's still a huge headache. So you notice a bit earlier if you're paying close attention. Big whoop. You've still got a huge hole and a house foundation on your property. The developer still broke the law, and you did NOT break the law or do anything dumb by expecting others to adhere to property law, and doing what is required of you by law.
Wouldn't the property owner already own the house?
Or they do whatever the property owner wants because it’s their property. They don’t get to decide shit.
They also offered to “swap” her for the lot next door. F that, they should offer to buy it from her for fair market value
Is that not what they are doing by offering an identical lot next to it that cost the same?
Doesn't sound the same, since one of them now has a house on it.
The options are restore it (identical lot next door), or a fair market value, which would be the cost of the land plus repair, or a suitable replacement. She ignored two fair trades that have plenty of precedent in courts, to achieve more damages than she should be entitled too. She definitely seems like she’s trying to get her cake and eat it here too.
You aren’t entitled to the value of the house, that’s going above and beyond damages.
Yes. How dare her object to her property being irrevocably changed without her consent. How dare she not just roll over and accept a completely different property in exchange to make it easy on them.
No two properties are the same. You can't decide for another that your attempt at a compromise (that only benefits you) is sufficient.
Shit happens, she was given recourse and demanded far more than the damages she incurred.
How does swapping two properties benefit one? They need to pay for all the legal paperwork and everything, they aren’t coming out ahead, since the cost of the house would be the same on either property.
You seem to think the developer benefits here? Even though it’ll costs thousands of dollars in legal fees to process everything? And in the end all they have is a lot with a house, that they would have still had regardless? Where is the benefit to the developer?
And yes, when it comes track homes every property is more or less the exact same, that’s the entire point of them. Theres actually very few cases where lots have any significant difference to them, except for custom communities that are a rarity anywhere.
Shit like this does not happen and when it does the person who fucked up needs to be taught the reason this is rare. In this case the developer needs to be held accountable, they won’t because they’ll file bankruptcy and open a new llc the following week though
The benefit to the developer is being able to be careless, make an expensive mistake, and get off for almost nothing
I do think they were careless but not malicious. There's no possible way to turn back the clock and put all the trees back in the lot, so she's going to have to settle for something besides what she started with.
There’s no possible way to turn back the clock and put all the trees back in the lot
Oh you sweet naive child.....
Okay let's go with your thing. So developer can now, by your logic, pick any property they want and just build there without the consent of the owner, as long as they later find a similar enough lot to switch with the owner later? And the owner just has to agree to it because it's still a fair trade?
Of course they can’t just up and fucking do it lmfao, the second time a company tried that they would lose their business license and everything else. The courts aren’t stupid like you are.
Shit happens, most people understand this, I’m sorry you expect everyone to be perfect.
They don't expect them to be perfect. They expect them to be accountable for the consequences of their mistakes.
And they were in this specific case……… they aren’t trying to railroad her, they gave her the 2 standard options for remedying it, that has been used for decades already throughout the industry to deal with these exact issues, since shit fucking happens. If a business starts making a habit of it, of course they will deal with it, you seriously think they would just let a business continually do it? Get a fucking grip on reality FFS.
She refused the two standard options, and is now suing for above and beyond damages, that’s why she’s being countersued. The business was trying to be accountable FFS lmfao. Both sides can be assholes AND wrong here, or did that thought never cross your mind….?
they aren’t trying to railroad her
That lawsuit implies otherwise. Also of note, those are the standard options the development companies prefer, there are thousands of cases where those options are refused and damages awarded (see almost all of tree law).
I don't think the developer comes out ahead.. but I do think that the punishment on them should be punitive to the point of causing them to never do it again. Swapping out a fully treed lot (that the owner wanted) with a flat wasteland with a house on it could inequitable, depending on what you value. If they can give her one the same size as hers, fully wooded, that might matter.
If they can give her one the same size as hers, fully wooded, that might matter.
That is quite literally exactly what the deal is…….
Literally the lot right next to it, so she can’t even complain it’s a different location…
They've also caused her stress and hassle solely due to their fuckup. At the minimum I think she should be entitled to some amount of punitive damages, because she wouldn't even have to be thinking about this if these people had actually done their job. And all that is assuming the two lots were equivalent before the house was added. We only have the people who have something to gain by that saying it is.
Why don't they just pick up the house, and put it over there?
Seriously, I've seen houses being moved on trucks before, would it be faster and cheaper to do that?
It looks like slab on grade construction, there's no moving those. The houses that can be moved are up on posts or over a basement.
The land has permanent damage and no trees genius.
Which is why she was offered the identical lot next door that still has all of that?
So, protip for future developers: is there a nicer lot next to yours that you want? Build a house on it and go "whoopsie" and offer tradesies
It has all the original trees from her lot? It has the same gradient, adjacent gradients and stone? There's tons of differences between any two lands and equivalency would be up to the injured party -which they denied. Any judgement would be to make the injured whole or reach an agreement. Stamping your feet like the developer has any defensibility in their negligence is laughable.
You also can't look at this like a winning lottery ticket where you'll be flush with cash for the rest of your life because of it.
Taking this to trial could wind up with the woman only getting her $22k back and missing out on the other identical property or keeping her same property with a free $500k house on it. The developers royally fucked up here but it's not like they maliciously clear-cut her land and built a house on it which would be something that should come with a hefty penalty.
I think the court is just going to try to make her 'whole' which comes with the risk of missing out on a much better pre-trial settlement since her actual investment in the property was only $22k. This is not too different than you accidently getting into a fender bender at low speed and the other party suing you for millions of dollars due to 'pain and suffering.' The court isn't going to reward someone for being greedy.
Where did you see that it was identical? I only read that it was a lot next door.
"An attorney for PJ’s Construction said the developers didn’t want to hire surveyors."
Well there's your problem.
The answer here should be simple... the developers pay for demolition, removal of the house, and restore the property back to the condition where they found it.
They've sued everyone instead...
The lady that owns the property, the people who used to own it, a bank, an insurance company, I think a person that lives on another lot, the person who sold them the other lots.
In all likelihood the lawsuits are a stall until they can declare bankruptcy and start a new company.
But they can't just "restore" the property, it was full of mature native trees/plants and for bulldozed.
Also the reason they didn't "need" surveyors, was lots are clearly marked via numbers on telephone poles. They just read the numbers wrong. Which is even worse.
Oh God.....tree law....I never realized how much I missed this.
Psh, the trees are the easy part, trees (for the most part) stay where you plant them.
Good luck reintroducing the pocono swallow, or even being able to afford to fly a Bird Law specialist out from Philly to determine damages.
Seriously tho, this lady just got a $500k house and probably a 1/10th of that in damages for a lot she paid 22k for.
A house that increased her taxes tenfold and that the developers are saying she can’t have.
It also says this was discovered when they sold the house. Hopefully that sale fell through with no clear title, but someone else may think it’s theirs
According to the article I read yesterday there are squatters in the house refusing to leave
Eh.
I read an article a couple days ago
She bought it super cheap when it was an isolated lot in an undeveloped area to be used as a retreat.
Then this developer built a shit ton of house all over, even if her lot was the same, the area was drastically changed.
Like, I get it, it sucks for her.
But it would have been even worse if they didn't build a house there.
You just decided that what you think she should do with her property is more important than what she thinks she should do with her property.
Nope.
I'm saying she bought a lot in an undeveloped area, and now there are half million dollar homes all over the place.
That lot is no longer remote.
Now she'll likely make a bunch of money and buy a bigger plot that's more remote and likely to stay that way for longer.
I didn't take the time to explain every little detail, and it looks like a lot of people need them.
Thats not the point, it was her block.
She chose that block, maybe she liked the plants, the shape, the hill its on, the view, or had plans for a particular layout.
Like someone stealing your car then saying "oh you can get a more expensive one with the insurance payout" when really you just wanted the one you had.
It's not a car.
It's a plot of land. One that she bought because it was isolated and natural.
Now it's a neighborhood full of rich people.
It's not the same as when she bought it, even if they didn't build a house on her land.
It's not complicated
But it's still her land not yours. She decides what she wants done with it. Regardless of if the situation changed in how remote or not the land is does not change it was hers to decide.
On the plus side, this thread is helping weed out a lot of people to add to the block list
I mean I'm happy for you but a weak person runs away from being told they're wrong by numerous people. Blocking won't change the fact that you're wrong.
You don't understand tree law. A same tree of about the same size and age must be transported and planted where the old one was. It can cost well over $20,000 per tree. They don't get to just plant a sapling and say "20 years from now, you're all good".
Then it also has to survive the transplant and a fair amount don't, so must be replaced again if they fall over or die from the move.
Tree law? Let's say you and I go toe-to-toe on bird law and see who comes out the victor.
Biggest thing I miss from old reddit. Oh well.
Just have the Lorax settle this
They couldn't afford surveyors but they can pay lawyers to file a half dozen fraudulent lawsuits?
I hope a judge smacks them.
Didn't say they couldn't afford them. They didn't want to pay that expense
Lawyers cost a lot to win a case like this.
One lawyer to send letters to 20 people demanding they all each pay...
That doesn't cost much, might actually work, and stalls the issue.
And leaves you enough time to close up shop, declare bankruptcy, and walk into court with Groucho glasses saying "your honor, clearly this suit is filed towards Romanes Eunt Domum. The company I run now is Romanes Eunt Domus."
The restoration part is where everyone involved is totally screwed.
Bold move Jim, let's see if it pays off.
There really should be a law that says a business can't sue someone and declare bankruptcy because it looks like they'll lose.
Until they declare bankruptcy and reorganize as JP's Construction.
Dear dumbass,
Please remove your abandoned property.
Love,
Attorney with the easiest job ever
Surveyors: Actually a really important job because without them nobody knows where the fuck anything actually is in any precise way, nor does anyone actually know they own the land they think they do.
Or just give the property the owner the house for free in exchange for not suing and cut their losses. Would probably be cheaper in the long run, especially counting legal fees.
She doesn't want the house because it balloons the taxes on the property from a few hundred to thousands per year
First: she has a right to be made whole and it’s not her concern what the people who wronged her have to go through to do that.
Second: she never wanted a house. She had a special vision for the space, a space that has now been damaged.
Third: squatters have rights and she may not be able to evict them. Their rights may take precedence over hers here.
Not disagreeing with any of this but it should be clear to this lady her vision was screwed the moment a developer built a bunch of cookie cutter houses all over that area. A meditation center doesn't really work in that area any longer.
The issue with the taxes, the lawsuit, and the squatters is exactly why I would have just taken the offer to trade properties, she has an enormous headache on her hands and bailed on the easy way out of it.
Squatters seldom have the "rights" to just take property as easily as the internet often seems to think they have. It very often takes years to assume those rights plus paying the taxes on it. And if it were so easy to do that it became such a common problem, it wouldn't be as big a meme as it currently is.
My question is: "Just how little are you paying attention to your personal property that you unaware of a many month's long building process taking place on your property?" Or is the property owner that stupid and has her ass that far up her own head?
I mean, I own several hundred acres of property, (farm land and forest), and a good chunk of it is 300 miles away. I KNOW what happens on that property. If someone tried to build anything on it without my knowledge or consent, I would know within a week of the start of the building and real hard pointed questions would be asked of the fools doing the building.
She doesn't reside in the state, and the state is Hawaii (an island). We can assume she also has no social connections there, at least none near the property. Do you expect her to be telepathic?
Her daughter lives there and was the one to recommend the property. That said I don't think you lose your rights by not checking your stuff regularly. This developer could have had that house up in a matter of months, Does not really need to be a long time.
Not telepathic, but you can hire companies to watch over your investment. And if you can afford real estate in Hawaii and live elsewhere, you can afford to hire such a company.
You can. But should you be expected to? Lol. It's an empty lot in a residential neighborhood. I think it's fair to NOT expect people to be putting unauthorized structures on it.
Fair or not, it happened and the actual property owner does have an obligation to know what happens on the property she owns - absent or not. So she bears some responsibility for what happened. Think about a small child falling into an abandoned well you didn't know was there. As the owner of the property, you are expected to know of it's presence and you are accountable for what happens with it. It's a part of the joys of owning property.
So if you end up owning property, understand when that if that day comes, that there are more obligations to ownership than simply making loan payments and paying your taxes.
I own property.
I'm just saying it's incorrect to characterize this woman as ass-headed, because it's not a reasonable expectation to assume somebody might build on your land, or to have to spend your time and money to safeguard against that specific problem. Making sure there are no uncovered well, sure. Constant surveillance to keep out rogue construction companies? In a neighborhood? No.
And whether you found out in a week or several months, it's still a huge headache. So you notice a bit earlier if you're paying close attention. Big whoop. You've still got a huge hole and a house foundation on your property. The developer still broke the law, and you did NOT break the law or do anything dumb by expecting others to adhere to property law, and doing what is required of you by law.
Wouldn't the property owner already own the house?
Or they do whatever the property owner wants because it’s their property. They don’t get to decide shit.
They also offered to “swap” her for the lot next door. F that, they should offer to buy it from her for fair market value
Is that not what they are doing by offering an identical lot next to it that cost the same?
Doesn't sound the same, since one of them now has a house on it.
The options are restore it (identical lot next door), or a fair market value, which would be the cost of the land plus repair, or a suitable replacement. She ignored two fair trades that have plenty of precedent in courts, to achieve more damages than she should be entitled too. She definitely seems like she’s trying to get her cake and eat it here too.
You aren’t entitled to the value of the house, that’s going above and beyond damages.
Yes. How dare her object to her property being irrevocably changed without her consent. How dare she not just roll over and accept a completely different property in exchange to make it easy on them.
No two properties are the same. You can't decide for another that your attempt at a compromise (that only benefits you) is sufficient.
Shit happens, she was given recourse and demanded far more than the damages she incurred.
How does swapping two properties benefit one? They need to pay for all the legal paperwork and everything, they aren’t coming out ahead, since the cost of the house would be the same on either property.
You seem to think the developer benefits here? Even though it’ll costs thousands of dollars in legal fees to process everything? And in the end all they have is a lot with a house, that they would have still had regardless? Where is the benefit to the developer?
And yes, when it comes track homes every property is more or less the exact same, that’s the entire point of them. Theres actually very few cases where lots have any significant difference to them, except for custom communities that are a rarity anywhere.
Shit like this does not happen and when it does the person who fucked up needs to be taught the reason this is rare. In this case the developer needs to be held accountable, they won’t because they’ll file bankruptcy and open a new llc the following week though
The benefit to the developer is being able to be careless, make an expensive mistake, and get off for almost nothing
I do think they were careless but not malicious. There's no possible way to turn back the clock and put all the trees back in the lot, so she's going to have to settle for something besides what she started with.
Oh you sweet naive child.....
Okay let's go with your thing. So developer can now, by your logic, pick any property they want and just build there without the consent of the owner, as long as they later find a similar enough lot to switch with the owner later? And the owner just has to agree to it because it's still a fair trade?
Of course they can’t just up and fucking do it lmfao, the second time a company tried that they would lose their business license and everything else. The courts aren’t stupid like you are.
Shit happens, most people understand this, I’m sorry you expect everyone to be perfect.
They don't expect them to be perfect. They expect them to be accountable for the consequences of their mistakes.
And they were in this specific case……… they aren’t trying to railroad her, they gave her the 2 standard options for remedying it, that has been used for decades already throughout the industry to deal with these exact issues, since shit fucking happens. If a business starts making a habit of it, of course they will deal with it, you seriously think they would just let a business continually do it? Get a fucking grip on reality FFS.
She refused the two standard options, and is now suing for above and beyond damages, that’s why she’s being countersued. The business was trying to be accountable FFS lmfao. Both sides can be assholes AND wrong here, or did that thought never cross your mind….?
That lawsuit implies otherwise. Also of note, those are the standard options the development companies prefer, there are thousands of cases where those options are refused and damages awarded (see almost all of tree law).
I don't think the developer comes out ahead.. but I do think that the punishment on them should be punitive to the point of causing them to never do it again. Swapping out a fully treed lot (that the owner wanted) with a flat wasteland with a house on it could inequitable, depending on what you value. If they can give her one the same size as hers, fully wooded, that might matter.
That is quite literally exactly what the deal is…….
Literally the lot right next to it, so she can’t even complain it’s a different location…
They've also caused her stress and hassle solely due to their fuckup. At the minimum I think she should be entitled to some amount of punitive damages, because she wouldn't even have to be thinking about this if these people had actually done their job. And all that is assuming the two lots were equivalent before the house was added. We only have the people who have something to gain by that saying it is.
Why don't they just pick up the house, and put it over there?
Seriously, I've seen houses being moved on trucks before, would it be faster and cheaper to do that?
It looks like slab on grade construction, there's no moving those. The houses that can be moved are up on posts or over a basement.
The land has permanent damage and no trees genius.
Which is why she was offered the identical lot next door that still has all of that?
So, protip for future developers: is there a nicer lot next to yours that you want? Build a house on it and go "whoopsie" and offer tradesies
It has all the original trees from her lot? It has the same gradient, adjacent gradients and stone? There's tons of differences between any two lands and equivalency would be up to the injured party -which they denied. Any judgement would be to make the injured whole or reach an agreement. Stamping your feet like the developer has any defensibility in their negligence is laughable.
You also can't look at this like a winning lottery ticket where you'll be flush with cash for the rest of your life because of it.
Taking this to trial could wind up with the woman only getting her $22k back and missing out on the other identical property or keeping her same property with a free $500k house on it. The developers royally fucked up here but it's not like they maliciously clear-cut her land and built a house on it which would be something that should come with a hefty penalty.
I think the court is just going to try to make her 'whole' which comes with the risk of missing out on a much better pre-trial settlement since her actual investment in the property was only $22k. This is not too different than you accidently getting into a fender bender at low speed and the other party suing you for millions of dollars due to 'pain and suffering.' The court isn't going to reward someone for being greedy.
Where did you see that it was identical? I only read that it was a lot next door.