Property owner stunned after $500,000 house built on wrong lot: ‘Are you kidding me?’

Brkdncr@lemmy.world to News@lemmy.world – 495 points –
Property owner stunned after $500,000 house built on wrong lot: ‘Are you kidding me?’
fox19.com
183

You are viewing a single comment

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.

They couldn't afford surveyors but they can pay lawyers to file a half dozen fraudulent lawsuits?

I hope a judge smacks them.

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.

There really should be a law that says a business can't sue someone and declare bankruptcy because it looks like they'll lose.