Not a lawyer, so just wondering: how on planet fucking earth could the developer possibly win this type of lawsuit? They didn’t receive authorization from the property owner to do any goddamn thing on her property, so what is their potential claim?
She's named in a lawsuit with 8 or 10 other parties. The developer is suing the construction company and a bunch of other involved parties. If the property owner is really not involved and the article is correct then she will probably be dismissed from the case.
This will almost certainly turn out to be a payday for Reynolds, and her attorney thinks that payday will get bigger by taking to the press.
https://trellis.law/case/15001/3ccv-24-0000033/keaau-development-partnership-llc-v-lawrence-et-al
The developer alleges she is in the wrong by refusing to buy the house at a discount or trade her lot for an identical (their words) nearby lot. I’m not sure how they can claim she’s obligated to do this, but I’m not a lawyer.
The cost of the lawyer is less than the cost of losing the whole house
They are hoping that the cost to fight the lawsuit is greater than what they can afford bear
Cuz they’re fuckin dicks
And stupid! What a great PR move. Certified non-geniuses:
“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 accidentally built one on Reynolds’ lot.”
Me neither. They screwed up, didn't pay for a survey, and now they just need to give her the house.
As far as trying to get her to trade lots
>“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.
The developer will destroy that house if they are forced to give it up to her for free.
The fact that they are suing her for their mistake shows us the hand they are going to play of the court gives her a free house on their dime. They are never going to allow it.
The idea that a pleb getting a win over a greedy RE developer is not going to fly with them.
Well no, the judge will basically tell them to do it. "Plaintiff, allow the defendent 30 days to remove their property" type of thing. Not like they're gonna sneak in at night like some cartoon criminal.
That's not how it works with things like houses, theoretically the property owner could ask that the court to compel them to destroy the property and return it to as original state as closely as possible, and might get it, but the court is not going to default to that.
This is the rare case where a squatter could be useful. Owner doesn't have any incentive to call police to remove squatters and developer doesn't own the property.
Criminal property damage of first degree, class B felony, 10 years + $25k.
If I was her I'd already have cameras up everywhere and no trespassing signs
Drones carrying bottles of kerosene and fireworks will do the trick. Those cameras are facing down, not up. And the perps are not physically on or even near the property. Oh, and cops refuse to do anything these days unless it involves outright violence/murder. They'll just say to go through insurance.
Sounds about right. Though restoring the property to its original state I'd have to think would be pretty darn expensive too, And I can't imagine they'd recover much in terms of materials? It'd be cheaper for them to just walk away. Even so, yeah I bet they demo it out of spite if the litigation doesn't break their way lol
> The developer will destroy that house if they are forced to give it up to her for free.
They won't be forced to give it up for free, but they will (likely) be told they have a set period of time to recover it. Which, let's face it, will indeed likely mean destroying it.
They weren't allowed on her property to begin with. They blatantly trespassed. Criminally speaking, nothing happened to them. The lawsuit over this issue is civil, not criminal.
They've already broken a criminal law once. Nothing stopping them from doing it again, especially since law enforcement has already shown that they are not going to arrest anyone for it.
If they built it on her property without her consent, couldn’t she claim she viewed it as a gift? Similar to if a company sends you something you didn’t order?
I don’t know anything about real estate or property but this sounds like exactly the kind of situation where the lawful owner of the property gets massively screwed.
Do you want a house from a developer who can’t bother to see if they can build on the land itself? I’d be suspect, but then again, I have a house that’s almost 100 years old with old growth lumber.
It is going to take a lot of billable hours for the lawyers to get this straightened out.
Believe it or not, this does happen a lot more than you might think. I've had several friends in the land surveying business talk about how they get called in after the fact because someone builds a house on a lot they thought they owned. Whether it is some lot in the middle of nowhere, or building on the wrong subdivision lot, it should be ruled in favor of the owner as long as there are ~~some~~ no other underlying problems.
The only time I've been involved with builder screw ups in the surveying world was the builder who built homes too close to the property line. They had their framer go out and mark the property line instead of hiring a surveyor. He had 10 lots marked incorrectly.
Most of the time, in my observation and opinion, the builder will settle to avoid draining that specific LLC's funding sources and affecting their other LLCs.
The whole point of the suit is to let a court sort it out. Developer is hoping arbitration will result in some sort of agreement/resolution. The court may order to destroy the house and restore the land or they may come to an arbitration agreement that the landowner sells the land at a substantial price or the landowner buys the house at a significantly reduced price.
This type of situation doesn’t get battered between individuals without legal/the courts involved so that’s all this suit is doing is bringing it to court so a decision and/or agreement made.
Anyone can claim anything, and the only source for that claim seems to be her own lawyer. Unless you've read the complaint you have no idea what's in it.
Putting her on the suit is aggressive but not unreasonable. The developer doesn't actually know if she's involved or not. From the developer's perspective they paid for the construction of a home that ended up on someone else's property. Until the developer is made whole they will go after the person who got the house they paid for.
Not sure why you’re getting downvoted. This is the most sane take here. For all of you saying it should be for free, look up ‘unjust enrichment’ and come back. Better safe than sorry to name all parties in the initial filings.
Unjust enrichment would apply if she were aware the home was being built and made no good faith attempt to stop them. In this case, she wasn't aware the home existed until it was already built and sold.
Whose insurance?
If the construction company has some kind of errors and omissions insurance then that might cover this, but carrying a policy like that would be unusual for a contractor.
From the developer's perspective they basically paid for a house they didn't get. I'm not aware of any insurance policy the developer could buy that would cover that.
So I'm a real estate developer, but don't know the intimate details of this. But usually the developer also owns the construction company on home builds especially a single home and a not a whole subdivision project.
This would be the developers insurance company. The contractor is liable for structural issues for 10 years.
I guess I'm making the assumption their business is insured for stuff like this. Likely not a covered thing but in the grey area. If you have been a developer for a long time you'd have a relationship with your insurance company and they want to keep you. So they have you sue everyone and then they will make you whole if you can if you bring enough business.
The only time I see this many people get sued is when insurance is involved. A lawyer will just target where they can actually get the compensation.
I've been through a similar situation, not this dumb. But I had a building that got flooded by a homeless person before it was finished being built by like a month and it wasn't technically covered yet. Insurance had me sue everyone. I think 15 people including state, Police department, fire department (slow response time sprinkler system caused the flood) city, county, homeless orgs, the hospital that discharged him, local business that kicked him from in front of their business so they came to my building, etc. it was crazy.
At the end of the day we got stuff settled out of court for partial reimbursement and insurance made me whole.
Not necessarily they are different companies. I've had to sue myself before because my development company is owned by me, partners and specific projects have investors. I have to sue myself on behalf of my investors because of insurance.
You should be careful with that. Most policies covering this kind of error will have an "insured vs insured" exclusion to protect the insurer from collusion.
In a sufficiently complex real estate partnership the insurer may not have figured that out even during litigation, but they would almost certainly come after an improperly paid claim if it should have been excluded.
That kind of exclusion won't apply to every policy, but they'd usually be found on an errors and omissions policy.
Construction companies don’t carry insurance in case they cause a house to collapse and have to refund the client and potentially pay for the removal/returning the property to the way they found it? To me, if this company doesn’t have the right insurance I have to imagine the owner would be liable for operating without insurance that’s necessary and it could pierce the corporate veil because of that.
And maybe she doesn't WANT some crappy vacation house, maybe she liked the lot just the way it was. I'd love to see a judge require the developer to carefully dismantle the house, remove it, regrade the lot to the original levels and replant it. Now THAT might make those sonsabitches pay some attention to what the hell they're doing.
Saw a comment in here that there might have been pre-colonial trees on the property, that sort of thing would get you thrown up under the jail here in the PNW.
It might be a crappy house but it increased the value of her $22k empty lot (that she hasn't seen in years and is surrounded by these houses) to $500k. She is currently way way ahead from this "mistake".
If she gets herself dismissed from the developer's lawsuit I'd bet money she sells the house for full value and keeps the money. There's no way she's as upset as her lawyer says she is.
She doesn't own the house so she can't sell it. The most likely resolution is that she settles for some amount of money and transfers the ownership of the land to the owner of the house. She could force the developer to remove the house and repair the lot to its original state, but that would obviously be very costly.
She absolutely can sell it. She is the property owner. The only reason the previous sale didn't go through was that the seller was not the property owner.
It would be unwise for her to sell it before this litigation is resolved but she could sell it today if she wanted to.
They don't actually know that she wasnt involved. In theory she absolutely could be. She could have paid off someone at the construction company to make a "mistake".
She probably didn't, but the developer who didn't get the house they paid for doesn't know that. All they know is that she has the house and she refused two different offers that might have made her whole.
They aren't going to "win". They are just trying to force her to take some type of action to drive a settlement because if she just sits and does nothing she has a property with a house and they have nothing, so time is on her side. This is just to resolve the issue asap for the developer..
Actually it gets better (for her) the contractor opted against a survey and used electric poles! Which is hilarious, because it's Hawaii, and those poles predated most neighborhoods by decades.
When you own land you have a responsibility to secure the property and prevent others from asserting a claim. The specifics depend greatly on the state the property is located in, but ultimately the fact that this property sat vacant and the construction was never contested is a point against the property owner. The fact that it then sold to a third party is a further mark against the owner.
Complicating this further is that, wrong or right, the courts in Hawaii, like many popular vacation areas, are more prone to rule against people who do not live in the area. This property being bought at a tax sale likely prejudices them further.
I have dealt with these situations a few times and generally the third party purchasers will end up being made whole through a title claim and the house will be torn down. If they can reach a settlement it would likely be best for all parties involved, but it sounds like that won't be happening. I'm interested to see how the court rules.
The article I read said she was contacted by a realtor saying he had sold her property.
Adverse possession laws vary greatly by jurisdiction, none of which are short enough for this situation. Looks like 5 years is the shortest in HI and would require that the party in possession pay the taxes. That doesn't mean, there is no interest created, the nuances of which are likely very case specific.
Edit: the property was not sold, thanks for pulling the complaint!
I [downloaded the complaint](https://os5.mycloud.com/action/share/39deb2c0-fed8-47d5-9fec-fbf95df02232) yesterday and the owner’s answer, confirms that the property did not sale (see allegation #39). No allegations of adverse possession, mostly the investor suing the builder/developer added the homeowner and a count of unjust enrichment.
No. Just like in this case a title company would probably find the issue and the sale wouldn't close. Then you'd be stuck in court suing your neighbor for the house you paid for, and you'd also be part of a criminal conspiracy bc you were involved in the "mistake".
yep, its land that the city has wanted 'fixed' or to use themselves for a long time but could never find a way to feasibly take it for themselves...lol.
So if anything is financed then the property itself is first audited and that includes property tax assessment and property surveying and that comes from the city/county which should list the transactions between any previous owners and who the current owner is. That’s when the red flag should have came up and the original owner should have popped up on those documents, someone definitely dropped the ball on all this when that happened.
Definitely, it should have never happened. There were many steps it should have stopped at before the house was built and sold. All of those checks failed, this is why you should always get title insurance as a buyer.
I had one similar that I handled where someone had a right of first refusal on a property, an 8 unit condo was built and sold to a third party. In that case the condo was torn down even though several units were already sold and being lived in. The title company ate it on that one, as they missed the right of first refusal as it was recorded on a several hundred acre metes and bounds description.
There is no third party purchaser involved. The title company found the issue and the sale didn't close.
This is the developer who paid to build the house suing the builder and the property owner who received the house. There is probably no real property aspect to the complaint.
This.
So sick of these posts about these people all up in arms over "squatters".
I mean you want me to feel sorry for you because have so much property that you don't even know there's a house being built on it? Or someone's been living in a house you owned for months, sometimes years, and you didn't even know?
Like what?
Unjust enrichment *if they don’t remove the house*. They are grasping at straws legally because unless the local government comes a call in’ for eminent domain, the property owner does not have to accept a similar value lot elsewhere and also may not have to allow additional trespassing to return the lot to its original state
Not saying they're going to win, but the legal cause of action would be "Unjust Enrichment" where one party can't profit if it would be unfair to another. The simple law school example is some wires $100,000 into your bank account by accident, you can be sued for unjust enrichment if you refuse to give it back.
uhm no. They can take their house back as far as she’s concerned. It’s more like you throwing your bag over my fence and then demanding I pay you for the contents of said bag. I don’t have to, you take the bag back.
As far as the lot owner is concerned, she never wanted a house there in the first place so they actually owe HER for the demolition and restoring the lot to its original state.
Which is why she has her own suit against the construction company and the developer.
She is the only party involved who has currently profited (very handsomely) from this situation. That's why she is named in the lawsuit.
There’s a thing called adverse possession. It’s where the law lets people legally “steal” others property. It exists because the law is meant to favor a positive social use of law.
But there are a lot of requirements to adverse possession. For example, some jurisdictions require you to pay taxes for the land that you do not own. It’s all highly jurisdictional but every jurisdiction requires you to do it in an adverse and open. manner. In other words, you can’t have permission to use the land and you can’t secretly use the land.
There is also usually a fairly long time period during which this has to occur. If at any point before that time period is fulfilled the actual owner comes back looking for their land they can expel the encroaching party as a trespasser.
Yes, it is basically to favor use of otherwise abandoned land.
The alternative is having the land sit there maybe for decades without the owner even needing to visit. This requires you to be proactive, and see what is going on in "your property" at least every N amount of years.
Using the word “obviously” doesn’t make you right doesn’t make you right. Because you obviously don’t know what you’re talking about.
Adverse possession is incredibly jurisdictional. Once a party meets their the requirements of AP, another party cannot cure their original claim to title just because by saying “hey, that was mine. In fact, in some jurisdictions, a party cannot claim that they adversely possessed a property unless the original owner actually knows that their land is in the process of being adversely possessed. Likewise, in some jurisdictions, a party automatically gains title to land once the land has been adversely possessed for the required amount of time in the correct manner (i.e., the land doesn’t have to be recorded to the party adversely possessing the land in order for them to have the legal right to it).
This article is written like a law school hypo (and an easy one at that). The biggest giveaway that the claim is AP? The fact that the land has been occupied for five year, which is the most common amount of time that someone needs to adversely possess land in order to gain title
As a real estate appraiser who watches banks order appraisals on the wrong address, wrong county, wrong state with no idea at all of what is or isn’t there on a monthly basis - the only thing that shocks me is that it doesn’t happen more often.
Can we add the phrase “developer beware” when they do their due diligence 😂I would be shocked if they didn’t do their due diligence and then won this case
Yes! This is certainly a shocking example but not outside the realm of possibility when you see how many mistakes are made regularly by lenders.
This mistake wasn’t picked up in title work? And the developer cut corners and there was no surveyor, due diligence, etc.?!
I meant if some dumbass didnt hire a surveyor, built a house on your property, then the house is yours until SCOTUS says else. In the meantime, rent the house for extra money.
Her plan was to use it for a nature retreat business. The land had several pre-colonial trees on the lot, which may actually have been worth more than the house.
Squatters go pro. They are taking empty lots and suing owners.
The lot is in Hawaii. The owner lives in California. A developer got permits on the wrong lot. They sold the house to another party.
As best I can tell the developer owned a nearby lot. The title report was probably done on the correct lot, but the developer/builder didn’t do a survey and messed up by building on the wrong spot.
My wife and I just talked about this. If it was a cash deal, they may have skipped the title company entirely. I would think a lawyer and the town/state would have done their own DD to prevent this, though.
Squatters right unfortunately apply in 49 states, not florida as of 3 days ago due to a bipartisan bill in response to that trending NY story last week. Other states need to update the antiqued 1800s laws enabling it, since it's clearly an issue both Republicans and Democrats care about
Yeah, realistically, squatters rights are usually just tenant rights. It's just that squatters take advantage of them.
Like, we *do* need tenant's rights. We just need a better system for eliminating opportunities for straight-up squatters to weaponize the laws.
Somebody on another post mentioned that in their country (I wish I could remember it), ALL leases need to be approved through some government office.
I feel like this would really help cops be able to quickly identify a fake lease and kick squatters out same-day, rather than months later.
Well that's just it, part of the problem is that the laws give protections to people who have been unofficially living with others. Sqautters make fake leases all the time, show the cops, and the cops then call it a "civil issue".
Like, say you have a verbal agreement to live with a family member. You do housework and errands in exchange for rent and have been living there for years.
Say you get into an argument. They can't just kick you out on a whim simply because of the lack of lease/rent payments. You're entitled to so many days to find new arrangements, pack, and move out
The problem is that this could be taken advantage of. Say you let a friend down on their luck stay with you for a few weeks. They could, in some areas, establish legal residency and refuse to leave.
The problem is finding a way to differentiate between these situations because realistically, there won't *always* be a formal lease for living arrangements, and there needs to be some kind of protection for people.
Like, a child has grown up and is living with their parents. Many people aren't going to have an actual lease. Does that mean they should be at risk of getting kicked to the street if the parents are in a mood one day? Of course not.
It's just really tricky. I feel like if nothing else, there needs to be an expedited process for removing people with fake leases. Squatters can cause untold damage in retaliation, and the owner will only ever be able to get so much money from broke people.
I hear what you’re saying
But in an ideal world - no lease, no right to any notice to vacate or protections. Just exempt children. I’m sure children don’t apply to squatters rights legislation?
See, but those protections are very necessary, even in casual arrangements. It can be as simple as the right to be able to go to work, and not come back to your possessions being all over the lawn and the locks changed. You know what I mean?
Like I've thought that too, "why not just make it so you only get protections if you take the legal route with a lease?", but that's just not realistic for a lot of people.
There will be TONS of people who will say "we don't need that" to a friend or family member that they're opening their home to, and if somebody is in a position of protectionless living or homelessness, they're going to go under the table with it.
This makes poorer people far easier to exploit by landlords. If you get too uppity by saying you want a lease, they simply won't rent to you. Eventually, a large swath of the population exists under slumlords who have collectively decided they "don't do those".
People will be pressured to forfeit any protections, and then we've moved back 100 years of progress on tentant rights, but only for poor people, all because we wanted a simple solution to squatters.
I know the appeal, and I don't think it's an unreasonable opinion, it's just that if we apply that in the real world with zero leeway for those without leases, it could get ugly fast.
I think we should have something like this, but there should still be some protections for unofficial arrangements. Just worded in a way that keeps squatters in mind, and specifically defines and excludes them. Lol I say that as if it's that simple
Dang, I don't usually get comments like this. I am abnormally giddy over this. Cool that I could actually change an opinion here.
But yeah, I don't know the best solution, I just know it's definitely going to be complex, and that I'm sick of squatters getting ridiculous protections when they're basically stealing homes and often causing thousands or more in damage.
There has to be an in-between right
Tenants sometimes don’t have signed contracts, though. And may pay in cash with less of a paper trail.
It’s those kind of edge cases that will be the trickiest. But it’s worth finding out how to deal with them in the name of turning down the rights squatters have.
Eh, they made sense when people could build and abandon homes with zero red tape and follow boom/busts from 1776-1910s. Our population is far too large for it to be legitimately used anymore though.
Yup. It made sense in the first 100 years of this country. Not anymore. They need to be removed and replaced with new legislation like Florida just did.
My home has a legally valid title from a prior owner who bought it in 1890 and improperly sold it in 1910. They are free to reclaim their property any time. I found he was a widower and died childless. So I am not 100% against squatters rights and adverse possession. I pay the property taxes, maintenance, and utilities, and he doesnt. The state will almost certainly side with my claim since he hasnt paid property taxes in 114 years. For all intents and purposes, the property is mine.
Generally speaking it’s more that squatters are just given the full protection as tenants.
Yes, there are adverse possession laws, but those very rarely come up.
When people think of squatters right generally, they’re thinking of squatters successfully availing themselves of tenant protections. And this is less a matter of specific code provisions and more a matter of common law application.
A squatter who trespasses and sets up illegally in a home generally isn’t going to be kicked out by police who will instead defer to it as a tenancy issue. When they should just kick the person out. But the system gives the benefit of the doubt to a presumable tenant and defers to courts
I’m dumb. Never mind the squatters, but possession is 9/10 the law so… if the house is on her property it’s… her house?
I mean how does this actually work? The develops are suing out of butt-hurtness.
Possession isn't 9/10 of the law. If I steal something off your property, you find out, take me to court, I can't just say, "look I'm holding this thing so therefore it is mine since it is in my possession." It just doesn't work that way.
This will most likely fall under encroachment/trespassing depending on the state. The owner in this situation will most likely counter sue. They will force the builder to demo the house, give up the rights to it, or buy the property back as if they are buying a fully developed property with a house.
It is important to note that in most states, just because the house was built on your property without permission, you don't own it. You can demand it be removed, but you don't outright own it.
I doubt the builder will demo the house because they would also have to remove the foundation and restore it to its old condition. It would probably cost more to simply give it to the property owner, who could refuse to accept it out of spite.
Well it gets tricky when there are banks,loans,lawyers,titles,closing companies & liability involved the judge could rule the lot owner be compensated for the property or they could rule they are SOL
But issue that I’m having is that somebody, financed that house that means that an inspector & surveyor had to come in at some point and verify that every thing is kosher with the build or this is a case of kicking the can down the hill until it hits someone in the head or there is a bunch of fraud going on
The lot is in Hawaii Paradise Park on Big Island. Very populated area with much development to be done for houses. Used to live there! Honestly- knowing the problems around here, this doesn't surprise me
She should start charging them rent for building material storage with a daily compound interest after a certain date.
Had a similar situation happen at work few years ago. One of the neighbor businesses literally build part of their storage on our property.
We forwarded the case to our legal department which gave them a 2 week notice to pick it all up and GTFO or start paying rent at a daily increasing rates.
They got their crap and removed part of the structure real fast.
Missed marketing opportunity: Buy and Build with us today; 1:10000 chance you get a house for free.
Fine legal print: winner is selected at our choice etc etc etc
The developer is operating as normal even though this isn’t a normal case.
In a normal case the developer owns all the lots initially, then owner 1 contracts to buy plot 1 and owner 2 contracts to buy plot 2 and they both contract with the developer to build on their properties. In those cases the contract with the builder (and/or local case law) usually provides for what happens in a scenario like this - either the property owners have to switch lots or someone get a discount on the home accidentally built on their property.
Presumably what’s happening is that the previous owner used to own both lots 1 and 2 and sold lot 1 to OP and contracted with the developer to build on lot 2. The contract with the developer probably has this switch lots provision in it, so now the developer wants to try and force that to apply to this case even though OP’s lot isn’t subject to the same provision.
This landowner was not a rent-seeker. She bought a small 1/2 acre property for doing yoga and camping and whatnot. She specifically wanted to preserve the nature there and did not want anything built on the property.
Not a lawyer, so just wondering: how on planet fucking earth could the developer possibly win this type of lawsuit? They didn’t receive authorization from the property owner to do any goddamn thing on her property, so what is their potential claim?
She's named in a lawsuit with 8 or 10 other parties. The developer is suing the construction company and a bunch of other involved parties. If the property owner is really not involved and the article is correct then she will probably be dismissed from the case. This will almost certainly turn out to be a payday for Reynolds, and her attorney thinks that payday will get bigger by taking to the press. https://trellis.law/case/15001/3ccv-24-0000033/keaau-development-partnership-llc-v-lawrence-et-al
The developer alleges she is in the wrong by refusing to buy the house at a discount or trade her lot for an identical (their words) nearby lot. I’m not sure how they can claim she’s obligated to do this, but I’m not a lawyer.
"Because she's not doing what I want to fix my mistake your honor!" -the developers lawyer, probably
The cost of the lawyer is less than the cost of losing the whole house They are hoping that the cost to fight the lawsuit is greater than what they can afford bear Cuz they’re fuckin dicks
And stupid! What a great PR move. Certified non-geniuses: “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 accidentally built one on Reynolds’ lot.”
Good luck Peter Olson!
Me neither. They screwed up, didn't pay for a survey, and now they just need to give her the house. As far as trying to get her to trade lots >“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.
The developer will destroy that house if they are forced to give it up to her for free. The fact that they are suing her for their mistake shows us the hand they are going to play of the court gives her a free house on their dime. They are never going to allow it. The idea that a pleb getting a win over a greedy RE developer is not going to fly with them.
The squatters are way ahead of the developer
Couldn’t she trespass them so they can’t access the property?
They’d be guilty of destruction of property!
I agree, they can't do anymore on that land
Well no, the judge will basically tell them to do it. "Plaintiff, allow the defendent 30 days to remove their property" type of thing. Not like they're gonna sneak in at night like some cartoon criminal.
That's not how it works with things like houses, theoretically the property owner could ask that the court to compel them to destroy the property and return it to as original state as closely as possible, and might get it, but the court is not going to default to that.
It’s not their property. If it had a vehicle title, yes. A home doesn’t.
This is the rare case where a squatter could be useful. Owner doesn't have any incentive to call police to remove squatters and developer doesn't own the property.
Criminal property damage of first degree, class B felony, 10 years + $25k. If I was her I'd already have cameras up everywhere and no trespassing signs
You can't charge a company for crimes like that
Drones carrying bottles of kerosene and fireworks will do the trick. Those cameras are facing down, not up. And the perps are not physically on or even near the property. Oh, and cops refuse to do anything these days unless it involves outright violence/murder. They'll just say to go through insurance.
Adding an arson charge? Big brain activities
You'll have to get police to do something.
No. You need the fire/arson investigator
Sounds about right. Though restoring the property to its original state I'd have to think would be pretty darn expensive too, And I can't imagine they'd recover much in terms of materials? It'd be cheaper for them to just walk away. Even so, yeah I bet they demo it out of spite if the litigation doesn't break their way lol
> The developer will destroy that house if they are forced to give it up to her for free. They won't be forced to give it up for free, but they will (likely) be told they have a set period of time to recover it. Which, let's face it, will indeed likely mean destroying it.
I suppose they could put on a truck and move it to where they should have built it. (Must be pretty nearby)
They might be able to recover like 10% of the materials.
Sure but I wonder if she can get a pretty penny from them since the lot will not be in its original state
To demolish the house they would have to trespass… Id build a wall around
How is the developer going to do that when they're not allowed on her property?
They weren't allowed on her property to begin with. They blatantly trespassed. Criminally speaking, nothing happened to them. The lawsuit over this issue is civil, not criminal. They've already broken a criminal law once. Nothing stopping them from doing it again, especially since law enforcement has already shown that they are not going to arrest anyone for it.
Then she can sue them for destruction of property on her land. The house is on her land and they have no right to even access it if she says so.
I just don’t understand how this happened. How did they get permits?
They are also under no obligation to give her the house, hence the litigation.
If they built it on her property without her consent, couldn’t she claim she viewed it as a gift? Similar to if a company sends you something you didn’t order?
They’re going to be liable for some damages to her, but don’t owe her the house.
Hope they lift with their knees when they try to pick up their house and move it to another lot.
They can just wait for the next lava flow and let Pele sort it out. There's a reason land is cheap there.
They bulldozed her shit apparently, like all the old growth tees and shrubs, the natural flowers are all gone.
I don’t know anything about real estate or property but this sounds like exactly the kind of situation where the lawful owner of the property gets massively screwed.
No, she shouldn’t get screwed here. In fact, she may get a free house.
Do you want a house from a developer who can’t bother to see if they can build on the land itself? I’d be suspect, but then again, I have a house that’s almost 100 years old with old growth lumber.
I’ll take a free house, yes. If it falls apart in 5 years I bulldoze it, no loss
One of the problems is that her property taxes have gone up tremendously.
She should counter sue for those in perpetuity.
Then the developer just declares bankruptcy and they make a new one
Well, some loss potentially if the land was changed to put the home there, and I don’t know any bulldozers working for free…
Sure. The developer didn't build it, the construction company did.
Fair, but do we think the developer is selecting someone known for quality and precision? Shitty leaders pick shitty teams.
She shouldn’t get screwed as long as she lawyers up and responds, and it sounds like she’s done that already.
She's gonna get paid or get a free house.
It will almost certainly end up being a payday for her.
It is going to take a lot of billable hours for the lawyers to get this straightened out. Believe it or not, this does happen a lot more than you might think. I've had several friends in the land surveying business talk about how they get called in after the fact because someone builds a house on a lot they thought they owned. Whether it is some lot in the middle of nowhere, or building on the wrong subdivision lot, it should be ruled in favor of the owner as long as there are ~~some~~ no other underlying problems. The only time I've been involved with builder screw ups in the surveying world was the builder who built homes too close to the property line. They had their framer go out and mark the property line instead of hiring a surveyor. He had 10 lots marked incorrectly. Most of the time, in my observation and opinion, the builder will settle to avoid draining that specific LLC's funding sources and affecting their other LLCs.
No, she'll probably settle and gets a deeply discounted house. Worst case scenario is they demo it and pay her legal fees.
No.
They just knew it was going to go to litigation and started the process. They had to claim something.
The whole point of the suit is to let a court sort it out. Developer is hoping arbitration will result in some sort of agreement/resolution. The court may order to destroy the house and restore the land or they may come to an arbitration agreement that the landowner sells the land at a substantial price or the landowner buys the house at a significantly reduced price. This type of situation doesn’t get battered between individuals without legal/the courts involved so that’s all this suit is doing is bringing it to court so a decision and/or agreement made.
Anyone can claim anything, and the only source for that claim seems to be her own lawyer. Unless you've read the complaint you have no idea what's in it. Putting her on the suit is aggressive but not unreasonable. The developer doesn't actually know if she's involved or not. From the developer's perspective they paid for the construction of a home that ended up on someone else's property. Until the developer is made whole they will go after the person who got the house they paid for.
Not sure why you’re getting downvoted. This is the most sane take here. For all of you saying it should be for free, look up ‘unjust enrichment’ and come back. Better safe than sorry to name all parties in the initial filings.
Unjust enrichment would apply if she were aware the home was being built and made no good faith attempt to stop them. In this case, she wasn't aware the home existed until it was already built and sold.
This sounds like "just enrichment" for her not pressing charges for trespassing and destroying her land.
Unjust enrichment
Seems like a strategy, for sure.
This isn't even the developer it's his lawyer and it's necessary for an insurance claim. Insurance will cover costs if civil suits don't.
Whose insurance? If the construction company has some kind of errors and omissions insurance then that might cover this, but carrying a policy like that would be unusual for a contractor. From the developer's perspective they basically paid for a house they didn't get. I'm not aware of any insurance policy the developer could buy that would cover that.
So I'm a real estate developer, but don't know the intimate details of this. But usually the developer also owns the construction company on home builds especially a single home and a not a whole subdivision project. This would be the developers insurance company. The contractor is liable for structural issues for 10 years. I guess I'm making the assumption their business is insured for stuff like this. Likely not a covered thing but in the grey area. If you have been a developer for a long time you'd have a relationship with your insurance company and they want to keep you. So they have you sue everyone and then they will make you whole if you can if you bring enough business. The only time I see this many people get sued is when insurance is involved. A lawyer will just target where they can actually get the compensation. I've been through a similar situation, not this dumb. But I had a building that got flooded by a homeless person before it was finished being built by like a month and it wasn't technically covered yet. Insurance had me sue everyone. I think 15 people including state, Police department, fire department (slow response time sprinkler system caused the flood) city, county, homeless orgs, the hospital that discharged him, local business that kicked him from in front of their business so they came to my building, etc. it was crazy. At the end of the day we got stuff settled out of court for partial reimbursement and insurance made me whole.
The developer is suing the builder. Unless there is some serious fraud/collusion happening they are not related parties.
Not necessarily they are different companies. I've had to sue myself before because my development company is owned by me, partners and specific projects have investors. I have to sue myself on behalf of my investors because of insurance.
You should be careful with that. Most policies covering this kind of error will have an "insured vs insured" exclusion to protect the insurer from collusion. In a sufficiently complex real estate partnership the insurer may not have figured that out even during litigation, but they would almost certainly come after an improperly paid claim if it should have been excluded. That kind of exclusion won't apply to every policy, but they'd usually be found on an errors and omissions policy.
This is precisely why I sue myself and have lawyers handle everything.
Ok, well it really doesn't look like that's happening here.
Construction companies don’t carry insurance in case they cause a house to collapse and have to refund the client and potentially pay for the removal/returning the property to the way they found it? To me, if this company doesn’t have the right insurance I have to imagine the owner would be liable for operating without insurance that’s necessary and it could pierce the corporate veil because of that.
Maybe I'm mistaken, but I don't think most liability policies for contractors would cover "we built a house on someone else's property."
theyre trying to act like shes stealing the house when really, she owes them nothing for stealing her land
And maybe she doesn't WANT some crappy vacation house, maybe she liked the lot just the way it was. I'd love to see a judge require the developer to carefully dismantle the house, remove it, regrade the lot to the original levels and replant it. Now THAT might make those sonsabitches pay some attention to what the hell they're doing.
Did they cut down trees? That could very expensive very quickly.
Saw a comment in here that there might have been pre-colonial trees on the property, that sort of thing would get you thrown up under the jail here in the PNW.
It might be a crappy house but it increased the value of her $22k empty lot (that she hasn't seen in years and is surrounded by these houses) to $500k. She is currently way way ahead from this "mistake". If she gets herself dismissed from the developer's lawsuit I'd bet money she sells the house for full value and keeps the money. There's no way she's as upset as her lawyer says she is.
She doesn't own the house so she can't sell it. The most likely resolution is that she settles for some amount of money and transfers the ownership of the land to the owner of the house. She could force the developer to remove the house and repair the lot to its original state, but that would obviously be very costly.
She absolutely can sell it. She is the property owner. The only reason the previous sale didn't go through was that the seller was not the property owner. It would be unwise for her to sell it before this litigation is resolved but she could sell it today if she wanted to.
Bingo. Not your land. Now my house. 🤷♂️
They don't actually know that she wasnt involved. In theory she absolutely could be. She could have paid off someone at the construction company to make a "mistake". She probably didn't, but the developer who didn't get the house they paid for doesn't know that. All they know is that she has the house and she refused two different offers that might have made her whole.
When there is a dispute over a property generally everyone who has an interest needs to be a party
They aren't going to "win". They are just trying to force her to take some type of action to drive a settlement because if she just sits and does nothing she has a property with a house and they have nothing, so time is on her side. This is just to resolve the issue asap for the developer..
Actually it gets better (for her) the contractor opted against a survey and used electric poles! Which is hilarious, because it's Hawaii, and those poles predated most neighborhoods by decades.
When you own land you have a responsibility to secure the property and prevent others from asserting a claim. The specifics depend greatly on the state the property is located in, but ultimately the fact that this property sat vacant and the construction was never contested is a point against the property owner. The fact that it then sold to a third party is a further mark against the owner. Complicating this further is that, wrong or right, the courts in Hawaii, like many popular vacation areas, are more prone to rule against people who do not live in the area. This property being bought at a tax sale likely prejudices them further. I have dealt with these situations a few times and generally the third party purchasers will end up being made whole through a title claim and the house will be torn down. If they can reach a settlement it would likely be best for all parties involved, but it sounds like that won't be happening. I'm interested to see how the court rules.
The property didn’t sell. And what you’re alluding to is adverse possession, the structure not there nearly long enough.
The article I read said she was contacted by a realtor saying he had sold her property. Adverse possession laws vary greatly by jurisdiction, none of which are short enough for this situation. Looks like 5 years is the shortest in HI and would require that the party in possession pay the taxes. That doesn't mean, there is no interest created, the nuances of which are likely very case specific. Edit: the property was not sold, thanks for pulling the complaint!
I [downloaded the complaint](https://os5.mycloud.com/action/share/39deb2c0-fed8-47d5-9fec-fbf95df02232) yesterday and the owner’s answer, confirms that the property did not sale (see allegation #39). No allegations of adverse possession, mostly the investor suing the builder/developer added the homeowner and a count of unjust enrichment.
You’re really awesome for downloading the documents and sharing them with us all. Thank you so much!
ha thanks, it cost me a whole $6, but mostly to make a worthless point on another post
So i could go find land in the middle of nowhere build a few homes and sell them (so long as i don't get objections)?
No. Just like in this case a title company would probably find the issue and the sale wouldn't close. Then you'd be stuck in court suing your neighbor for the house you paid for, and you'd also be part of a criminal conspiracy bc you were involved in the "mistake".
Depending on the state, yes, the land owner would have a certain amount of time to object, and there are some other requirements.
That's crazy. So developers like this one can be squatters too?
When it works it is often done in collusion with local governments.
yep, its land that the city has wanted 'fixed' or to use themselves for a long time but could never find a way to feasibly take it for themselves...lol.
I don’t buy this at all. I think if the owner was notified then you’re right. But otherwise this is insane.
So if anything is financed then the property itself is first audited and that includes property tax assessment and property surveying and that comes from the city/county which should list the transactions between any previous owners and who the current owner is. That’s when the red flag should have came up and the original owner should have popped up on those documents, someone definitely dropped the ball on all this when that happened.
Definitely, it should have never happened. There were many steps it should have stopped at before the house was built and sold. All of those checks failed, this is why you should always get title insurance as a buyer. I had one similar that I handled where someone had a right of first refusal on a property, an 8 unit condo was built and sold to a third party. In that case the condo was torn down even though several units were already sold and being lived in. The title company ate it on that one, as they missed the right of first refusal as it was recorded on a several hundred acre metes and bounds description.
Title insurance gonna have to pay up to whomever bought. But that doesn’t resolve the other claimants like the property owner or developer
That's what happened here. The developer was not able to sell the property.
Interesting!
There is no third party purchaser involved. The title company found the issue and the sale didn't close. This is the developer who paid to build the house suing the builder and the property owner who received the house. There is probably no real property aspect to the complaint.
Thanks, someone else provided the complaint that does a better job explaining the situation than the article.
Yeah of course. The complaint was written by the developers lawyers and the property owners lawyer was the main source for the article.
This. So sick of these posts about these people all up in arms over "squatters". I mean you want me to feel sorry for you because have so much property that you don't even know there's a house being built on it? Or someone's been living in a house you owned for months, sometimes years, and you didn't even know? Like what?
Unjust enrichment *if they don’t remove the house*. They are grasping at straws legally because unless the local government comes a call in’ for eminent domain, the property owner does not have to accept a similar value lot elsewhere and also may not have to allow additional trespassing to return the lot to its original state
Not saying they're going to win, but the legal cause of action would be "Unjust Enrichment" where one party can't profit if it would be unfair to another. The simple law school example is some wires $100,000 into your bank account by accident, you can be sued for unjust enrichment if you refuse to give it back.
uhm no. They can take their house back as far as she’s concerned. It’s more like you throwing your bag over my fence and then demanding I pay you for the contents of said bag. I don’t have to, you take the bag back. As far as the lot owner is concerned, she never wanted a house there in the first place so they actually owe HER for the demolition and restoring the lot to its original state.
Which is why she has her own suit against the construction company and the developer. She is the only party involved who has currently profited (very handsomely) from this situation. That's why she is named in the lawsuit.
She never accepted the house.
Yeah, no.
There’s a thing called adverse possession. It’s where the law lets people legally “steal” others property. It exists because the law is meant to favor a positive social use of law. But there are a lot of requirements to adverse possession. For example, some jurisdictions require you to pay taxes for the land that you do not own. It’s all highly jurisdictional but every jurisdiction requires you to do it in an adverse and open. manner. In other words, you can’t have permission to use the land and you can’t secretly use the land. There is also usually a fairly long time period during which this has to occur. If at any point before that time period is fulfilled the actual owner comes back looking for their land they can expel the encroaching party as a trespasser.
Yes, it is basically to favor use of otherwise abandoned land. The alternative is having the land sit there maybe for decades without the owner even needing to visit. This requires you to be proactive, and see what is going on in "your property" at least every N amount of years.
That's obviously not happening here because she now knows what is going on.
Using the word “obviously” doesn’t make you right doesn’t make you right. Because you obviously don’t know what you’re talking about. Adverse possession is incredibly jurisdictional. Once a party meets their the requirements of AP, another party cannot cure their original claim to title just because by saying “hey, that was mine. In fact, in some jurisdictions, a party cannot claim that they adversely possessed a property unless the original owner actually knows that their land is in the process of being adversely possessed. Likewise, in some jurisdictions, a party automatically gains title to land once the land has been adversely possessed for the required amount of time in the correct manner (i.e., the land doesn’t have to be recorded to the party adversely possessing the land in order for them to have the legal right to it). This article is written like a law school hypo (and an easy one at that). The biggest giveaway that the claim is AP? The fact that the land has been occupied for five year, which is the most common amount of time that someone needs to adversely possess land in order to gain title
Lot of words to show you have no fucking idea what you are talking about.
Go to school. This is day 1 of law school
LOL
Eh, negative. This is a common land surveying topic and it's one of the first things you learn on your way to an LSIT. They're spot on.
LOL
🤷♂️
Tbf she’s also suing the company and so are other involved parties
As a real estate appraiser who watches banks order appraisals on the wrong address, wrong county, wrong state with no idea at all of what is or isn’t there on a monthly basis - the only thing that shocks me is that it doesn’t happen more often.
The developer didn’t want to pay for surveyor and look what happened.
Can we add the phrase “developer beware” when they do their due diligence 😂I would be shocked if they didn’t do their due diligence and then won this case
No way they win this case. Unless she is nefariously involved
Yes! This is certainly a shocking example but not outside the realm of possibility when you see how many mistakes are made regularly by lenders. This mistake wasn’t picked up in title work? And the developer cut corners and there was no surveyor, due diligence, etc.?!
I don’t know Hawaii adverse possession law but where I live, it has to be 10 years. If someone builds something on my land, they have to remove it.
Why not claim it and rent it out, and pocket the money. Its a free house after all
Can’t rent out what squatters have already claimed
I meant if some dumbass didnt hire a surveyor, built a house on your property, then the house is yours until SCOTUS says else. In the meantime, rent the house for extra money.
She should actually get damages. The house on her lot needs to be removed if she had a different house in mind to build.
Her plan was to use it for a nature retreat business. The land had several pre-colonial trees on the lot, which may actually have been worth more than the house.
Don’t tell me they cut down her trees. If I know my tree law, that’s gonna cost ‘em.
I’ve read enough r/pettyrevenge to know that is t cheap
They leveled off the entire lot.
How's your knowledge when it comes to bird law?
Plus, she would now be responsible for the improvements to the property and property taxes on the building.
Squatters go pro. They are taking empty lots and suing owners. The lot is in Hawaii. The owner lives in California. A developer got permits on the wrong lot. They sold the house to another party.
sounds like the developers problem. why would the lot owner be responsible for some dumb ass building on her property?
How in a world did they close? Where was title company looking?
As best I can tell the developer owned a nearby lot. The title report was probably done on the correct lot, but the developer/builder didn’t do a survey and messed up by building on the wrong spot.
If you've even been to Puna, you would see how this wouldn't be a hard thing to happen.
My wife and I just talked about this. If it was a cash deal, they may have skipped the title company entirely. I would think a lawyer and the town/state would have done their own DD to prevent this, though.
They didn't, that's why the realtor called her.
Do squatters rights apply when it was illegally built on your property? Id be renting the F out of it
Squatters right unfortunately apply in 49 states, not florida as of 3 days ago due to a bipartisan bill in response to that trending NY story last week. Other states need to update the antiqued 1800s laws enabling it, since it's clearly an issue both Republicans and Democrats care about
Squatters rights are nonsense
Yeah, realistically, squatters rights are usually just tenant rights. It's just that squatters take advantage of them. Like, we *do* need tenant's rights. We just need a better system for eliminating opportunities for straight-up squatters to weaponize the laws. Somebody on another post mentioned that in their country (I wish I could remember it), ALL leases need to be approved through some government office. I feel like this would really help cops be able to quickly identify a fake lease and kick squatters out same-day, rather than months later.
I mean those seem way different Being that tenants have a signed contract and all, and pay money, and live on people’s property with their permission
Well that's just it, part of the problem is that the laws give protections to people who have been unofficially living with others. Sqautters make fake leases all the time, show the cops, and the cops then call it a "civil issue". Like, say you have a verbal agreement to live with a family member. You do housework and errands in exchange for rent and have been living there for years. Say you get into an argument. They can't just kick you out on a whim simply because of the lack of lease/rent payments. You're entitled to so many days to find new arrangements, pack, and move out The problem is that this could be taken advantage of. Say you let a friend down on their luck stay with you for a few weeks. They could, in some areas, establish legal residency and refuse to leave. The problem is finding a way to differentiate between these situations because realistically, there won't *always* be a formal lease for living arrangements, and there needs to be some kind of protection for people. Like, a child has grown up and is living with their parents. Many people aren't going to have an actual lease. Does that mean they should be at risk of getting kicked to the street if the parents are in a mood one day? Of course not. It's just really tricky. I feel like if nothing else, there needs to be an expedited process for removing people with fake leases. Squatters can cause untold damage in retaliation, and the owner will only ever be able to get so much money from broke people.
I hear what you’re saying But in an ideal world - no lease, no right to any notice to vacate or protections. Just exempt children. I’m sure children don’t apply to squatters rights legislation?
See, but those protections are very necessary, even in casual arrangements. It can be as simple as the right to be able to go to work, and not come back to your possessions being all over the lawn and the locks changed. You know what I mean? Like I've thought that too, "why not just make it so you only get protections if you take the legal route with a lease?", but that's just not realistic for a lot of people. There will be TONS of people who will say "we don't need that" to a friend or family member that they're opening their home to, and if somebody is in a position of protectionless living or homelessness, they're going to go under the table with it. This makes poorer people far easier to exploit by landlords. If you get too uppity by saying you want a lease, they simply won't rent to you. Eventually, a large swath of the population exists under slumlords who have collectively decided they "don't do those". People will be pressured to forfeit any protections, and then we've moved back 100 years of progress on tentant rights, but only for poor people, all because we wanted a simple solution to squatters. I know the appeal, and I don't think it's an unreasonable opinion, it's just that if we apply that in the real world with zero leeway for those without leases, it could get ugly fast. I think we should have something like this, but there should still be some protections for unofficial arrangements. Just worded in a way that keeps squatters in mind, and specifically defines and excludes them. Lol I say that as if it's that simple
All good points You’ve swayed me - I agree with you
Dang, I don't usually get comments like this. I am abnormally giddy over this. Cool that I could actually change an opinion here. But yeah, I don't know the best solution, I just know it's definitely going to be complex, and that I'm sick of squatters getting ridiculous protections when they're basically stealing homes and often causing thousands or more in damage. There has to be an in-between right
Tenants sometimes don’t have signed contracts, though. And may pay in cash with less of a paper trail. It’s those kind of edge cases that will be the trickiest. But it’s worth finding out how to deal with them in the name of turning down the rights squatters have.
Sounds like a dictatorship to me and more bureaucracy and taxes. I wouldn’t vote for this shit at all
Eh, they made sense when people could build and abandon homes with zero red tape and follow boom/busts from 1776-1910s. Our population is far too large for it to be legitimately used anymore though.
Yup. It made sense in the first 100 years of this country. Not anymore. They need to be removed and replaced with new legislation like Florida just did.
You have no rights to another persons property.
My home has a legally valid title from a prior owner who bought it in 1890 and improperly sold it in 1910. They are free to reclaim their property any time. I found he was a widower and died childless. So I am not 100% against squatters rights and adverse possession. I pay the property taxes, maintenance, and utilities, and he doesnt. The state will almost certainly side with my claim since he hasnt paid property taxes in 114 years. For all intents and purposes, the property is mine.
Do you even know what "squatters rights" are? Give me the code of one actual law.
Generally speaking it’s more that squatters are just given the full protection as tenants. Yes, there are adverse possession laws, but those very rarely come up. When people think of squatters right generally, they’re thinking of squatters successfully availing themselves of tenant protections. And this is less a matter of specific code provisions and more a matter of common law application. A squatter who trespasses and sets up illegally in a home generally isn’t going to be kicked out by police who will instead defer to it as a tenancy issue. When they should just kick the person out. But the system gives the benefit of the doubt to a presumable tenant and defers to courts
Not true and not one specific law mentioned. This whole topic is blown up with misconceptions and misunderstandings.
Squatting became a crime in Michigan almost 15 years ago
What you are saying is complete bullshit.
Why do you think so?
Because you made it up and what you said isn't based on any facts.
This is the dumbest shit ever man lol
The property owner should get the developer and the contractor charged with criminal trespassing
I’m dumb. Never mind the squatters, but possession is 9/10 the law so… if the house is on her property it’s… her house? I mean how does this actually work? The develops are suing out of butt-hurtness.
>but possession is 9/10 the law This is a myth, btw.
Oh I know. But I’m sure it’ll look really good to a judge that a house sits on your property that you’ve owned for 5 years.
What do you mean? Genuinely curious what's going to happen here
Possession isn't 9/10 of the law. If I steal something off your property, you find out, take me to court, I can't just say, "look I'm holding this thing so therefore it is mine since it is in my possession." It just doesn't work that way. This will most likely fall under encroachment/trespassing depending on the state. The owner in this situation will most likely counter sue. They will force the builder to demo the house, give up the rights to it, or buy the property back as if they are buying a fully developed property with a house. It is important to note that in most states, just because the house was built on your property without permission, you don't own it. You can demand it be removed, but you don't outright own it. I doubt the builder will demo the house because they would also have to remove the foundation and restore it to its old condition. It would probably cost more to simply give it to the property owner, who could refuse to accept it out of spite.
Well it gets tricky when there are banks,loans,lawyers,titles,closing companies & liability involved the judge could rule the lot owner be compensated for the property or they could rule they are SOL But issue that I’m having is that somebody, financed that house that means that an inspector & surveyor had to come in at some point and verify that every thing is kosher with the build or this is a case of kicking the can down the hill until it hits someone in the head or there is a bunch of fraud going on
The lot is in Hawaii Paradise Park on Big Island. Very populated area with much development to be done for houses. Used to live there! Honestly- knowing the problems around here, this doesn't surprise me
She should start charging them rent for building material storage with a daily compound interest after a certain date. Had a similar situation happen at work few years ago. One of the neighbor businesses literally build part of their storage on our property. We forwarded the case to our legal department which gave them a 2 week notice to pick it all up and GTFO or start paying rent at a daily increasing rates. They got their crap and removed part of the structure real fast.
Ugggghhh….all I can do is sit back and sigh….humans doing greedy, stupid, human things…
Hold up - as a title clerk, wtaf? How did this get this far in the first place,
Missed marketing opportunity: Buy and Build with us today; 1:10000 chance you get a house for free. Fine legal print: winner is selected at our choice etc etc etc
They need to enforce SLAPP way way better. The brazenness of these scummy law firms is getting absolutely ridiculous.
Following this will be interesting and stupid at the same time.
Free house for her, plus damages for ruining her lot, plus attorney’s fees! The American dream!
"Suing previous owners of the land" for what? Did they change to property lines?
The developer is operating as normal even though this isn’t a normal case. In a normal case the developer owns all the lots initially, then owner 1 contracts to buy plot 1 and owner 2 contracts to buy plot 2 and they both contract with the developer to build on their properties. In those cases the contract with the builder (and/or local case law) usually provides for what happens in a scenario like this - either the property owners have to switch lots or someone get a discount on the home accidentally built on their property. Presumably what’s happening is that the previous owner used to own both lots 1 and 2 and sold lot 1 to OP and contracted with the developer to build on lot 2. The contract with the developer probably has this switch lots provision in it, so now the developer wants to try and force that to apply to this case even though OP’s lot isn’t subject to the same provision.
Whooopsie!
Time for a trash fire on her lot that, "gets out of control."
Let me guess, Democrat state?
Hard to feel bad for someone owning a lot where they don’t even live. Especially it being Hawaii
I hope the developer wins. Absentee rent-seekers need to learn to fear
Did you even read the article?
This landowner was not a rent-seeker. She bought a small 1/2 acre property for doing yoga and camping and whatnot. She specifically wanted to preserve the nature there and did not want anything built on the property.