Lot owner being sued for someone building a home in the lot owner's parcel

[GON]

Reading this story a few times, I still don't understand lawsuit against the lot owner. I can see other parties being sued, but not the lot owner. Crazy....... Seems the lot owner is the party that should be using, loss of use of here property, removal of vegetation from her lot, etc.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/hawaii-property-owner-left-stunned-095700264.html

 

[BHopkins]

The article I read said that the suit is based upon the fact that these building lots, including the one that the home was accidentally built on, are essentially the same, with no difference in view or size or other features, that would make one more desirable over another. And the property owner was offered another lot, but refused.

So the suit is based that the property owner is being unwilling to negotiate in "good faith", and appears to be trying to financially benefit from their honest mistake.

I get the argument of the developer. But I tend to side with the property owner. To me, there is something, not only socially, but constitutionally wrong, that a person could be forced to yield their property because of the mistake of a developer. It is hers. Simple as that.

 

[Owen Lucas]

I think the developer is trying to drag this out and make it financially painful for the owner.

Keaau Development Partnership is in for some bad publicity and is going to learn about the Barbara Streisand effect very soon.

 

[GON]

I think the developer is trying to drag this out and make it financially painful for the owner.

Keaau Development Partnership is in for some bad publicity and is going to learn about the Barbara Streisand effect very soon.

$500k USD in Hawaii is chump change. I can't believe the lot owner is not offered the home built on her lot in exchange for her not suing. The cost to put that lot back in the condition it was before the construction is going to be huge monies.

The question in my mind is what is the judicial system in Hawaii like for civil matters. Impartial, or good ole boys club..... We take for granted that the judicial system is impartial, some may not be.

 

[Pew]

I think the developer is trying to drag this out and make it financially painful for the owner.

My thoughts too; it seems to be the norm.

"I'll just sue until you have no money left even though I'm wrong."

This is what makes people do crazy things.

 

[BMWTurboDzl]

Reading this story a few times, I still don't understand lawsuit against the lot owner. I can see other parties being sued, but not the lot owner. Crazy....... Seems the lot owner is the party that should be using, loss of use of here property, removal of vegetation from her lot, etc.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/hawaii-property-owner-left-stunned-095700264.html

I think because the house was sold the sale proceeds are either held up in escrow or were disbursed to the lot owner and the developer is suing to get its money from the sale.

 

[dubber09]

Property owner has a very valid defense - What DID I DO WRONG?

 

[Hall]

So the suit is based that the property owner is being unwilling to negotiate in "good faith"

I didn't read the linked story but have read about this before. The issue with the "good faith" argument is builders or developers could keep doing this (elsewhere), make the owner some sort of offer, then sue if they refuse. It sets a really bad precedent.

and appears to be trying to financially benefit from their honest mistake.

Supposedly the developer or builder chose not to survey the properties. I wouldn't call that an "honest mistake".

What I am boggled about is that any judge allows these suits to move forward.

 

[SC Maintenance]

I read this a few days ago.

The developer is suing everyone "Now, Reynolds, along with the real estate agent, the construction firm, the architect, the prior property owner’s family and the county — which approved the permits — are reportedly being sued by the developer"

I understand the developers frustration, however given their interest in suing everyone and there brother, I hope the judge hands it back to them in spades and makes them 100% liable.

I know of no law where a private party can compell onother private party to sell them anything.

 

[SC Maintenance]

What I am boggled about is that any judge allows these suits to move forward.

A lawyer friend of mine tells me anyone can sue anyone for anything at any time.

I presume the judge will dismiss the suit against the property owner eventually - unless they can somehow find a law that compels the owner to sell.

 

[Hall]

A lawyer friend of mine tells me anyone can sue anyone for anything at any time.

Yes, you can file a suit (for anything). A judge can toss it out too.

 

[BHopkins]

@Hall and @SC Maintenance, I agree that these lawsuits seem so wrong. It seems unjust that this lady should find herself in a position of having to protect what is rightfully hers, and be burdened with the expenses that will be incurred.

I make no claim to being a law expert, but I know that in a civil matter, a defendant can ask for a Summary Judgement, if he/she feels that the evidence is overwhelmingly in their favor, or if a lawsuit is totally without merit. If the Summary Judgement is granted, the case is dismissed without a trial.

I can't articulate it, but I know in some circumstances, the judge can make the litigant pay all of the defendant's legal expenses.

It would be great if both of these could happen for this lady.

 

[SC Maintenance]

Yes, you can file a suit (for anything). A judge can toss it out too.

All the article says is they have filed to sue. Who knows if a judge has even been assigned. The defendant has to ask for the case against her to be dismissed before it can be dismissed.

Its all likely tactics in hopes a negotiated settlement will come about - using the legal system as a threat to compel this lady to sell. That's even worse IMHO. I hope she sticks it up their bottom.

 

[samven]

The story says she brought a counter suit, with any luck the Judge will throw out the plaintiffs suit and make this lady whole again by awarding her damages sufficient to cover her lawyer, taxes and land restoration. Generally you are not allowed to profit so the house would have to be torn down and the land restored or she would have to compensate the the investors for the building. The investors may gift her the house in return for not having to tear it down and do the reclamation but then she may get tagged with income tax on the value of the house.

 

[SC Maintenance]

Houses can be moved. They should get moving.

 

[JimPghPA]

I read this a few days ago.

The developer is suing everyone "Now, Reynolds, along with the real estate agent, the construction firm, the architect, the prior property owner’s family and the county — which approved the permits — are reportedly being sued by the developer"

I understand the developers frustration, however given their interest in suing everyone and there brother, I hope the judge hands it back to them in spades and makes them 100% liable.

I know of no law where a private party can compell onother private party to sell them anything.

No, 200% lible.

 

[BMWTurboDzl]

I read this a few days ago.

The developer is suing everyone "Now, Reynolds, along with the real estate agent, the construction firm, the architect, the prior property owner’s family and the county — which approved the permits — are reportedly being sued by the developer"

I understand the developers frustration, however given their interest in suing everyone and there brother, I hope the judge hands it back to them in spades and makes them 100% liable.

I know of no law where a private party can compell onother private party to sell them anything.

My understanding is that the house has been sold and if so does the builder have a claim towards the proceeds or did they build the house for free because someone pointed to the wrong lot?

 

[Hall]

Houses can be moved. They should get moving.

I've seen other suggest this. Can modern houses be moved though ? Only houses I've seen moved were 100+ structures that were overbuilt. Modern houses, while not "weak", are designed and built with a lot of engineered structure, aren't they ? They aren't made or able to be manipulated the way it's needed when jacking up or moved.

 

[fdcg27]

I had seen this earlier.
I'd say that the developer is out of luck and out of options and that this filing is a hail Mary pass given that they have no good options.
There is no onus on the landowner to negotiate in good faith or bad, having had no relationship with any of the other parties involved.
The developer screwed up badly and will have to eat the costs of having done so.
I find it hard to believe that nobody involved had at any point the suspicion that they were building on the wrong lot.

 

[pbm]

We take for granted that the judicial system is impartial, some may not be.

Recent events have shown the 'judicial system' can be highly partial IMO.