Generally speaking, people who like to create problems are adverse to taking responsibility for them. SOMEBODY has to take the blame. Why not the victim? Your already screwing them. Just keep the same momentum going. The victim is the easiest person to blame any why expend the greater effort to find a different scapegoat when you are already only out for you self.
Technically, the government didn't create this issue - the demolition company did. The government is just enforcing the rules, as intended. Now, if those rules need updated or changed to account for this, that's a whole other discussion.
@@LJCyrus1 The government wasn't properly supervising their contractors. They ordered the demo, let them go after the demo company to collect for the screw up.
I don't understand why she hasn't already sued the demolition company for the cost of finishing the demo and cleaning up and the current cost to replace the house? The demo company should be insured and if they're under contract from the city, would the city not also be liable?
We don't know who contracted them but I doubt it was the city and who the hell knows why she would ignore this problem until she's forced to do something about it.
The older WaPo story says she consulted attorneys but could not afford them. I'd assume they have concerns about whether the company (You Call It We Haul It) is collectible, so they won't take it on contingency.
We're all thinking private company, but was it? Even if you come home to a drunk man sleeping in your home he would be arrested for breaking and entry plus trespassing ( he thought it was his home).This company trespassed and did a lot of breaking ( destruction of property ). That's a crime. Civil suits are for recouping your losses.
Exactly , how can they proceed without an inspectors ok or was the actual job being done unlawfully by order of the city and they just meesed up on the address or made it look that way ! Qualified immunity allows government to always use the dummy card !
A drunk driver drove into our dry cleaner's front fence and a retaining wall. The police found the guy down the road driving with part of the fence stuck to the front of his car. They let him go we were told because there's a lot of paperwork associated with arresting a non-citizen. When the dry cleaning store owner started yelling at the police, they threatened to cite him for obstructing the sidewalk with the debris from the retaining wall.
Maybe if the crew and/or their company were foolish enough to not check who owned the place before starting, there'd be a civil case against them. But it'd probably be a criminal case against whoever hired them.
If you hired a crew to demolish your own home, and the crew instead demolished the mayor's home, it would be the demolition crew they would be going after, not you, and yes it would be a civil matter
So, if you home is destroyed by an outside force without the cities permits it's a violation? I wonder if they issue fines for tornados victims. How dare you not ask first to have your home surprisingly demolished without our say so.
My car got stolen in the 90s. The guy who stole kept getting parking tickets. Philly kept threatening to put a boot on my car despite me sending them *numerous* copies of police report proving it was stolen. Long story short ... it took me almost a year to get that mess straightened out. Insult to injury added when car was recovered by AC police... they towed my car when they caught the guy who stole it. I had to pay a $200 towing/ impound bill. The guy had the car longer than I did and all he got was probation. Both the DA and judge were idiots... along with Philly parking enforcement!!!
@@01Lenda I agree with this fully , except I would call them sociopaths. Psychopath implies an underlying mental health disorder like schizophrenia. From very well min Sociopath is a term people use, often arbitrarily, to describe someone who is apparently without conscience, hateful, or hate-worthy. The term psychopath is used to convey a sociopath who is simply more dangerous, like a mass murderer.
@@01Lenda municipal jobs are hard and often pay trash, this is just how capitalist America works - the laws all assume that you have infinite money and if you've been wronged you'll recover your money in court
There would have to be proof that it was done on purpose or that the demolition company wasn't licensed or didn't have permits on the property they were supposed demolish. Absent those factors it is a civil matter. There are other factors where it could evolve into a criminal matter, but the known current facts don't support criminal charges.
Would’ve been a clever racket… If it was the city who tore it down… But it was a private company, unless you’re implying the private company is working with the city… But I doubt the private company would want to be involved in the scam
Boarded up or not, i guarantee she was paying property taxes, so there is value in the boarded up house and damages have occurred. . The lady should lawyer up asap.
Another item : I heard no mention as to whether or not the contractor was issued a demolition permit in the first place. It seems as though the woman made contact with the contractor, whom admitted to the error. Thus, she obviously knows the name of the contractor. Seems to me the next immediate step would be to find out if the city of Atlanta issued a demolition permit to that contractor. If the city did in fact issue a demolition permit to that contractor, then the city ought to be applying pressure on the contractor to straighten things out. Surely the house the contractor was supposed to demolish cannot be far away, at most across the street or, one or two houses away. Definitely some important information missing from the overall accounting of things at this point. But, perhaps the issue I've brought up has already been addressed.
@@scottmccutcheon9828 That's what I want to know to. If the City gave them the Permit, but they demolish the wrong house. The state STILL in fact vetted them and GAVE them the permit. Would the city not ALSO be held Liable for the Company's mistakes? If someone highers an Employee, and that Employee hurts a customer, would not BOTH the employee AND the company itself be Sued and Responcible? So why not in this situation?
People blaming the city of atlanta code enforcement for doing their jobs need to ask themselves why the neighbors should have to suffer lower property values because this woman refuses to hire an attorney. She can afford one and this is an open and shut case
The government didn't do anything wrong here. It's the Demo company that screwed up. If you were living next to this property would you be happy with it being left in such condition? Something must be missing from this story. Like Steve said, lawyers should be lining up to take on her cause.
She should have called the police and filed a report. The demolished house is a crime scene which should have precedence over city ordinances for some period of time. Evidence needs to be collected and then presented in court for prosecution of the perpetrators.
It is not actually a crime scene. If you call the police they will tell you that it "is a civil matter". Tearing down the wrong house may be stupid and careless or just bad luck, but it does not make you a criminal any more than hitting someone else's car with your's makes you a vandal.
@@david672orford I suggest that tearing down a house is an intentional act. If I hit your car on purpose, that's a crime. And if I hit your car and leave the scene, that's a crime.
@@JeffC-fq1be tearing down a house is an intentional act. Tearing down the wrong house is not. They intended to tear down the contracted demolition. The problem is someone got the address wrong and that is the part that needed to be intentional and it was not.
@@david672orford Not really, until they actually investigate, in most cases it's just as simple as taking statements, then it is a crime scene since they don't know if the damage was done intentionally or not. You can hit and run someones car after all, it's just that if the damage is minor it tends to just get ignored, but if you T-boned some guy at an intersection and drove off the cops are coming after your ass.
It's like receiving a speeding ticket from the police after the thief who stole your car drove through a photographic speed trap at double the posted limit. Which is also a thing.
@@lets-getbrandon4192 No, it's not. Not even remotely. The city ordered the threat of the fine. but they had nothing to do with her getting her house torn down in the first place.
I suspect the reason she hasn't contacted lawyers is because she is still in a bit of a state of shock. I had a kitchen fire 3 months ago. and although I did all the appropriate things immediately. I realized a month later that I was still a bit "shocky' about the experience. Three months in I am finally myself again, and that was only a kitchen, not a whole house. Hopefully she has some friends or family that will guide her to a proper solution for this.
@@mandolinic The only way the city would be liable is if they had an inspector on site and the inspector did not confirm the address. That said, I'd want to see the permit that they pulled for the house that they did not demo. That should list bonding and insurance.
My mother told me a story where the city wouldn't give a permit to demolish an old home on her friends' property so they could build a bigger house. So they found a loophole that said they don't need permits to demolish the insides of a structure for remodeling. So they built the shell of the new, larger, house around the previous house, then tore down the old house and carted it away truck load by truck load to the dump until it was all gone and they could finish the rest of the house. Terrible, but a good story.
I know someone who also did that in Mass. They wanted to expand by adding an addition but the town wouldn't let them so they built a new house around the old one. Bureaucrats suck.
I actually worked on a house with something similar to that going on. For some reason something wouldn't allow the house to be completely demolished, but they would let you do additions or expansions. So, we took down half and built a bigger newer half. Once that was done and inspected a new permit was pulled to take the other half down and built a second half of a new home. It was on a lake somewhere in central Florida...
@@pontiacg445 gub'ments are stupid and 90% of evening they do is stupid. I agree we do need them to cover that 10% of security and making sure businesses aren't abusing the populous, but that's all.
The city is at fault so now they're trying to shift the blame onto the homeowner. This is absolutely disgraceful. I hope she has a good lawyer. This city is trying to dodge all responsibility.
Whi is the city at fault? Did the city hire the contractor to demo a house and gave the contractor the wrong address? If so then the city is liable for everything. If not, then how is the city liable for anything?
There is a chain of responsibility here. The city has responsibility/oversight of the contractors they hire to perform as contracted. The city will be on the hook to the homeowner, then the city will have to go after the contractor.
@@donh6416 You're assuming the city hired the contractor to demo a house. It isn't said who hired the contractor and gave them the wrong address. That is the biggest piece of this missing because whoever hired the contractor and provided them with the wrong address is responsible for everything.
Many companies where I live won't tear down a house without the person who contracted them, or a representative they are familiar with, is present. While that doesn't stop a spiteful neighbor from tearing down half of someone's garage, it means that that neighbor was physically present when doing so, and can easilly be gone after by both the contractor, and the owner in the case of malice. In all other cases, it simply means that there is someone on site to go "Yes, THIS is the correct house", so there's no mistake. Seems like a simple solution.
There was an article some years ago about a house in (I think) San Antonio in which the homeowner returned from work and found their house leveled. It was apparently a practical joke. The demolition company just showed up and tore down the house even though it was clearly in excellent condition and was occupied.
The same people who are saying just because the house was boarded up it was her fault, blame the people who legally carry large amounts of cash and get it take by civil asset forfeiture..... Edit: I would check and see if someone is trying to purchase that property and they got turned down. So to retaliate they hired a company to demolish it under false pretenses. But it got caught halfway through.
I don't get why if i went and destroyed a strangers house i would be in jail, but a dumb demolition crew are just allowed to leave, as far as i know they don't have any immunity.
@@AC-yj8cx So, if I rent a Caterpillar D-9 and bulldoze my neighbor's house I get off Scott free unless someone can prove intent? Oops, sorry I was just learning to drive one of these things!
We are the gornments bosses yet go into a gov building with a camera AND YOU WILL SEE THAT THEY SEE US AS THEIR PEASANTS AND THEY ACT AND MAKE POLICY THAT MAKES THEM ALL ACT LIKE THEY ARE THE OWNERS AND ARE OUR BOSSES
This is incredibly infuriating, and shows just how little the State cares about it's citizens. If a criminal broke in and destroyed this person's property it would be a criminal matter, but because a business did it, it now becomes civil? The State should be smart enough to know this poor woman shouldn't be fined for something someone else has done. Vote every politician out that thinks this is acceptable.
But to to clear one thing up in your example, if a person broke in a destroyed the home then it could be construed as “malicious”, whereas there’s no allegation that the construction company tore down the house maliciously. A crime typically requires mens rea (a guilty mind), which is the point at which the government begins to enter the picture.
The issue isn't the "state", it is the "city". Atlanta is notoriously disfunctional. (just ask most anyone living in Buckhead) Steve mentioned "a perfect world"; all this woman needs is someone in the Atlanta city government to "be better than uncaring trash". They cannot correct it BUT they can try to put pressure on the company that did the damage. As for Steve's reference of whether the company is "licensed, bonded, and/or Insured", you can pretty much assume NO to all three. If they were, they would be bending over backwards to make things right with the woman.
@@johnsmithers8913I’m not sure that has anything to do with the size of the business. Every person’s sole purpose at their job is to consume and grow. It’s a rare person now a days who goes to work because they love their job and want to make the world a better place.
@@catnvol Going out on a limb for the OP, I believe the city is the state in this meaning of the term. Note the capitalization. The US is a state, as in Secretary of State. Canada is a state. A state actor is a (often military) authorized force or person, etc. State in this case means the governing body: a country, provinces, counties, parishes, cities, and townships are all considered part of the state. It's a bit confusing because in the US and some other locations, state has two meanings, one local and specific, and one that is a general political term for authority. Capitals are sometimes used to distinguish between a state (as in Texas) and the state (as in the political body).
The company that accidentally tore down the place, should have shown some balls and good business sense by stepping up and helping her with the rest of the demo, maybe getting a retro permit if possible, and then giving her the amount of what the worn out house was worth.
A lot of construction "companies" are literally just a couple guys with an ad and maybe a website that hires some cheap labor when someone gives them a job.
Construction companies are arguably some of the shadiest around since the majority of them are just a few people who play Three Card Monte with LLCs, like Steve described in the video. A lot of them don't even have assets, they just lease tools and equipment and hire laborers when a job comes in. So them having "business sense" or treating people right - whether that be customers or employees - usually doesn't happen.
A builder near where I live figured out the fine to demolish a house was cheaper than pulling the permit. He could tear down the house and haul it all off before the inspector ever knew what was happening and then paid the fine for failing to pull the permit. It is a civil infraction so for him so it was an easy business decision.
That applies to large corporations as well. Want to dump a bunch of toxic shit into the local drinking water supply because disposing of it properly would be more expensive? Why not... the fine will be less. Its just smart business practice.
Yeah in Melbourne, this historic pub was demolished amid a big outcry and the company just ignored everyone because they did what they wanted to do and factored the fines as a business cost. At the end of the day they get to erect the building they want.
The city is trying to intimidate her and I hope she stands her ground !!! The city has nothing to defend itself, so threats and intimidation is all they have !!!
the irony that an LLC, which was created to protect an individual from being destroyed by an honest mistake, is now used by unscrupulous individuals to avoid accountability.
I'm a retired Michigan architect, structural, civil engineer. I've drafted up many demolition plans in my time. They can be just as complex as construction documents. Yes, indeed, they need to pull demolition permits, land usage permits, and often times other permits like wetlands, which at times require demolition plans to be drafted by architects and then submitted to township and city planning committees for approval.
@@spacecoastz4026 the city isn't assigning blame, just responsibility. It's her property, and she still needs to do something about it. If the city says it needs to be pulled down after pulling a permit, get the permit, hire a company to do it, and get it done. Add the cost to the lawsuit. She could give the original company the chance to do it by the deadline, but if they can't or won't, hire someone else.
@@JKiler1 they'd hate me, the city would now be the proud owner of the nation's newest cobalt-60 storage site. Inspect to your heart's content, at your own risk. The upside, no need for street lighting, cobalt-60 glows in the dark. I actually did lose a house. I had gotten called away, some war thing and all, so I deployed and while gone, some enterprising individuals stripped out every inch of copper in the building. Wires, pipes, all gone. Redeployed home to find a shell. I let the city take the house, as there was no way to recover the damages for less than the property value. The city of Filthadelphia then assessed my payroll tax at thrice what was declared in my tax filings, compounding the amount "due" while I was deployed. Just another fuck you for your service to an ungrateful nation. And I refuse to do business with anyone within those shitty limits. The Commonwealth's singular shitty of the worst class. Yeah, still feel a bit salty over that mess.
We live in a small town in a small county and our neighbor had to pull a house down and the guy she hired thought that he could do just that - pull it down. He hooked a chain up to his Dodge and wrapped it around the front porch pole and pulled, actually thinking that it would pull the house down. Obviously, the pole came off and the house stood. We sat there and watched the ridiculous scene, unable to walk away. It took him days to demolish this two story home and he put all of the debris into the basement, filling the rest with dirt. The house they put in its spot has already started sinking due to the debris settling. This is a good example of why people need permits - this guy had no idea what he was doing.
Actually….the whole dumping it into the basement the covering it up…happens all the time by demo crews…that’s what they do with the debris if there’s a basement u set it….the home won’t settle if they had had it properly prepped for new construction
@@arribaficationwineho32 the system has to let some civil actions sometimes to happen. These no excuse policies are always issues, especially with unwilling to compromise bureaucrats that refuse to acknowledge the big picture issues that are not the fault of the citizens.
Never admit that someone or some entity did you a favor by destroying your property. I don’t see an upside to her saying that. In fact, it will probably work against her.
Pretty straight forward: 1. Get an attorney 2. Find & notify the company that started the job to come and finish 3. If they refuse hire a company to complete the job and include those $$ in the suit against the first company. I'd notify the Atlanta building department of the plans, so they know they're not being ignored. If they still levy fines, pay them and included those $$ in the suit as well. She wants to make sure she keeps the Building Department in the loop so they're aware of her efforts and are on her side (if only emotionally).
Personally, I'd hire another company for the job. The first one is obviously incompetent, and I don't believe in rewarding incompetence with more work. I'd shop around for someone to finish the job, pick the highest bidder just to make the bill saltier for the first clownshow, and sue them for the money.
@@nuclearmedicineman6270 I hear you. It would be an uphill battle...a case you'd lose the moment the judge asks two questions: 1) directed at the halfassed company; "Did the plaintiff contact you and request you complete the job? No they did not your honor, I was never given the opportunity to "finish" the job. Follow up question to the plaintiff; Did you make a reasonable effort to contact the original company and ask them to address the issue? No? Well in that case it's on you.
When I bought my home, the plot plan on the deed showed 3 out buildings where none existed when I bought it. I went to zoning to get that corrected. First tax bill I get I was being charged taxes on 3 out buildings that did not exist. I go to the tax office to have that get corrected. Then I get a notification that I needed to pay for 3 teardown permits, plus late fees for buildings that had been torn down years before I even bought the property.
The Government and its minions are immune from all responsibility for its mistakes which is the complete opposite of how it works for the rest of the citizenry.
I've said this on a couple of comments on this video. I think the thing we're missing which is an important piece of information is did the city give the contractor and erroneous address or did the contractor misinterpret the address and go to the wrong place? Those details should point culpability in the right direction. I think Steve is over target by saying the list of people to be sued is long. And if it's permissible in the municipality actually naming city officials and contract company officials in the lawsuit so that they are personally required to answer and be involved in discovery would be the path I would probably go down.
@@BillyMcCord when the junkie mistakenly burns down thier dealers neighbors house, it is NOT intentional arson. Also the junkie was a New Yorker and talked fast with his accent, sooo... The baby rabbits died from brain hemmorage, as the result of the pasteurized milk that was purchased at hy-vee. True story! 1982... Wisconsin, (as i recall)
To prove a crime you have to prove that all of the "elements of the offense" are present. For theft you might have to prove that the accused took someone else's property, that he knew it was not his, that he knew he did not have permission, and that he did not intend to give it back. The court doesn't need to read his mind, they are allowed to infer intent from the details of what he did. Maybe he went into someone else's house uninvited, carried something out, and sold it. That is generally enough to convict. Unless he can show that he was supposed to go into someone else's house, take something out and get rid of it. If he produces a work order for the neighbor's house, it is going to be hard to argue that he is a thief. He is still at fault, but it is more like being at fault in an auto accident. The person who caused the damage has to pay for it. That is what we have here.
Sad that our government institutions can exercise "Executive Action" on a whim to benefit themselves, but cannot do the same in a circumstance such as this...The "common sense" totality of the circumstances here speak for themselves...
What a joke! Someone destroys property and no one is criminally charged!?!? Yet the city ignores it and then goes after the victim!?!? Justice thy name is Comedy. 😑
Don't understand why it would cost her any money? If the city finishes the job, why would the cost of the original mistake fall to her? What type of legal system is this and what lawyer worth his/her salt can't litigate this? Shameful. All those years of law school and can't argue this?
Never underestimate local government to double down on a mistake, by making another mistake. This can compound multiple times until something breaks. Often the innocent citizen.
@@shittyopinionsno it's not. If it was you'd be seeing politicians and government officials getting treated like the tyrannical ones in the 1800s were treated. You're just coping
@@lrmackmcbride7498 Yes, but to get what she's owed, she'll have to file a tort against the demo company. It doesn't sound like they're insured, or like they're going to do the right thing of their own accord.
Who originally sent the demo team? I lived in Georgia, in a suburb of Atlanta, for almost a decade, and on at least 3 occasions there were stories splashed across the news where the police raided the wrong house because their warrant had the wrong address on it or the cop reading the warrant read it wrong. Worse, every time it happens, the city refuses to pay for repairs for damages caused. In looking up this story, it appears that the city of Atlanta, in March of 2023, sent a demolition team to tear down another house (different from this one), where they had sent the notices to the wrong address beforehand, getting the zip code wrong. I am unsure what is going on, but it seems to be an ongoing and widespread problem.
What is going on is that there is a finite pool of IQ points in the universe, and as the population keeps growing there are fewer points to award to each new person.
@@johnpublic6582 thankfully pizza delivery drivers seem to have enough intelligence to find the right house even if cops and demolition crews don't.. Maybe because if they make a mistake they have to pay for it?
I went and looked up a recent article on this. Apparently there is much more to the story. The woman is a victim of deed fraud. Another person claiming to be her daughter and saying she was deceased was given ownership of the property by a court years earlier. After that got sorted out and the judge ordered the property placed back in her name, this person hired a contractor to demolish the home claiming that they were the owner.
Next: "They're going after any future homes she might reside in!" 🙄 Get the attorney general involved. Also make sure the local news is aware of your situation too.
@@lynnohl2526 Yes, but I meant like a "7 on your side" type of station. Fox tends to be Universal and might not have the time to harass (remind) those folks the way a reporter clearly needs to because this ridiculousness is beginning to feel beyond incompetence and has quickly become their way of doing business! A plucky reporter and a camera man might be able to do more.
She never pressed charges and even if she did who would she press it on? The workers? The Owner? What if the owner wasn't there and didn't make the decision? Even if we did know who made the decision criminal destruction of property requires malice or intent, getting the wrong address is not malice or intent, therefore it's a civil case and not criminal.
@@duewhat9815. 1. Thats what a criminal investigation is for. 2. The answer is not no one is responsible. Someone is. And the company itself should be criminally charged. The C suite can serve the jail sentence.
@@duewhat9815You would press charges on the people that directly did it(the workers) and sue the company. If I show up to your house with demolition equipment and then your house ends up being demolished.. how was that not my intent? She wasn't in the city when it was demolished so how is she supposed to ever prove malice. As if they'd send her a letter and be like hey we're doing this out of malice. If the company was contracted by the city, the way the city is treating the situation shows malice to me
@@TooShots Intent in law means that they are knowingly breaking the law, in this case they believed that they were working on the correct house...they're liable for damages but they did not commit a crime. No, you should not arrest the workers and sue the company, wtf...
@@imjashingyou3461 Yeah they're going to do an investigation on whether or not they acted with criminal intent...right. And yes the company is responsible, civilly not criminally. I don't know why you would want to live in a world where the owner of a business can be arrested because of a mistake someone else made, you would of fit very well in the soviet union.
Steve you didn't mention that she may also be able to go after the people that hired the company to do the demolition work in the first place. This company wasn't just wandering the neighborhood looking for places that they could demolish without being contracted to do so. I believe that the people that hired this company were employees of the city of Atlanta. Atlanta isn't going to go out of business or go away any time soon so they would be collectable and since they are now trying to get her to pay for the demolition companies mistake as probably ordered by the city, I would think that she would have a decent case against the citations. The other problem is that the city claims that they tacked the notice to the front door but it was found in the back yard. Presumably they didn't find the front door in the back yard. Also given that everyone has a cell phone camera she could demand proof that it was posted on the front door if that is still there. If package delivery companies can show me a picture of the package having been delivered then I am sure that the city can show proof of service beyond a signed paper. There are many cases of mail or packages being dumped in remote areas and never being delivered.
This is certainly NOT a mistake. This is a CRIME... plain and simple. The Demolition Crew and every administrator involved in this need to be sent to Prison for this.
I had an interesting scenario happen in my parent's neighborhood a new neighbor was moving in and building a new house on their lot. The construction company she hired screwed up the laying of the foundations and construction was ultimately stopped as a civil suit ensued. The neighborhood HOA got involved and was ordering the construction site be demolished due to it being an eyesore and started issuing daily fines against the owner. The trial's judge ruled that the construction site was evidence in the case blocking the demolition order but did allow the daily fines to proceed. The HOA knew the whole drama of the situation and made no immediate attempt to collect against the owner and just let the fines accumulate while the owner added the fines to the lawsuit for what they were suing for. About a year later the owner won the case and was awarded the full cost of the demolition of the old house, the whole cost of the old house, the cost of the HOA fines, and more. Needless to say the HOA made a huge budget surplus and used the money to construct a public tennis court for the residents with their share when the owner finally paid off their fees.
My dad moved out of his house last year and independence to move down with me. And because we know what it could be like up there. We went ahead and boarded up the windows that were ground level and the doors. Unfortunately that did not stop anyone. The city came out at least once to re board up the back door and charged him for that. Once people couldn't get in the back door any more. They ripped the air conditioner out of a higher window and then use the chair to climb up inside. So yeah, just because a house is boarded up. Doesn't necessarily mean there's anything wrong with it. There definitely was something wrong with it after a bunch of people busted in.
Yeah, people act like her house must be falling apart for it to be boarded up when the truth is there are AHs out there that break into properties for whatever reason they want! When I was a kid we were set to move into a house we were renting and literally days before we did some thugs had noticed its vacancy and broke in writing gang signs on the walls and smashing the nice chandelier light in the dining room. The property was only vacant for a few weeks between tenets and in that short time, they acted. Obviously, the landlord is not going to board it up for a couple weeks but it shows that there are people who will attack these empty properties and that is why people board them up.
in the UK Criminal law defines gross negligence as 'a conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care, which is likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm to persons, property, or both. Knocking down a house without making sure it was the right one with the relevant permits would be gross negligence@@duewhat9815
I would say that is called 'the burden of prove'. The jury/judge can than decide if they believe your excuse or if the fact show you did it on purpose. If you are not a demolition company I do doubt that a jury/judge would believe you and demolishing any house without a permit might be illegal in itself.
If you are asking whether someone could do it as a crime (maybe for revenge) and then get off, the answer is yes in theory, but it would be totally impractical if it could be pulled off at all. He would probably have to start a demolition company, spend a few years doing jobs, and then somehow get a job demolishing a house which could plausibly be confused with his victim's. Pretty far-fetched.
Dealing with local government is always mind boggling. My house in Florida was demolished by the Hurricane 2 years ago. The first thing the county said was we will not issue a permit to build until you have been approved to demolish and also the certification by a properly licensed hazmat inspector of adherence to disposal of toxic waste. I will be dealing with this mess when we get back to Florida this winter. (sigh) Insult to injury, is they say there will be an $7500 fee to cover future costs of supplying the lot with utilities, despite the utilities are there and have been for decades.
Funny how I am not a lawyer but my first thought exactly what you said. The demo company that made the mistake should offer to take care of it and minimize their damages. The loss of the house is still a loss and still might cost them more money but at least it won't be the cost of the demo on top of it.
Did the city contract the demo company to demo the house? I think that she needs to hire a lawyer to dig into this. This isn't the first time this has happened.
We get what we vote for. Everyone gets worked up over big national elections, but hardly turn up to vote for the positions what will affect them the most.
Wait. They blamed her?! Wtf is wrong with people? Why hasn't the company's insurance paid for the cleanup? It's undisputed they tore down the wrong house.
I love in our free and democratic society, if you are the victim you have the worst time of all the party involved! The city? they are doing their job. The demo company? If they will ever be find guilty, will just pack up and keep on going with their life (and don't get me it's illegal, Steve explained how it works), the victim? will probably be financially ruined!
@@tomk4484 Destruction of property doesn't require negligence. If a kid is kicking around a ball and it flies through someones' window that would be negligence but it's not criminal, it's civil.
This thing where houses are knocked down by mistake goes on all over the country for decades, gee you would think some of those smart lawmakers would make a law to keep this from happening.
People in Atlanta need to send the story to their Mayor and City Council members. Code compliance needs to just put this on hold. I hope that the only reason the news station didn't mention a lawsuit was because they hadn't asked those questions of the victim.
I had a neighbor drive through my garage. I was trying to figure out what to do with the damaged garage. When I got home Thursday I found a notice from the city stating that I had to have the garage removed by Friday, the next day, or the city would remove the "nuisance" and bill me. There was literally no way for me to find a contractor at 6 at night to remove it without coming out and seeing it and quoting the project. When I got home on Friday the garage was gone. The city took it. I was left to litigate against my neighbor. It took 6 months to resolve. The city said that because they declared it a nuisance they had the right to give me immediate notice.
I was a licensed plumbing contractor in Fl. and the companies that do the Demo have to pull the permit and be licensed, the homeowner in these cases most times cannot pull such a permit, so it would fall on the city to follow up with the Demo company.
I don't think this was a mistake anymore. I don't even live in Georgia but I've heard some variation of a house being torn down in Atlanta by "mistake" about 10 times now. To what end, no idea...
Why is destroying someone else's property exclusively a civil matter? Criminal damage is a criminal offence. Doing it through incompetence doesn't mean it isn't criminal. And it's the individuals who did the damage who should bare responsibility.
Call the cops and have a report made for felony destruction of property. And before someone says it's a civil matter. In maryland people have been prosecuted for this exact thing
17:40 I think I saw the story in Mechanics Illistrated when I was a kid. After WW-II, a company bid real cheap to demolish a large number of homes. A losing bidder wanted to see how he was going to make a profit, so he watched a surplus Sherman tank drove through each home, and a crew picked up the pipes and wires for recycling. His final comment was something like, "I'm learning things."
Hindsight being 20/20, she probably shouldn’t have stopped the demolition once it started and waited till after it was completed to alert the company that they got the wrong house.
She didn't stop the demo, the insane morons stopped mid job. Did someone look at the work order & say, "Hey guys, we're at the wrong place. It's a block away, let's leave!" What the hell???
""Hodgson said she's filed a police report and talked with lawyers but was "still in this process of figuring out what to do." "We keep pressing in different directions to see if something is going to happen," she said. She said the Atlanta-based company responsible, You Call It We Haul It LLC, has yet to contact her or offer any compensation for the mistake."
If she was the owner of record, why wasn't she personally served with the notice of demolition and the consequences if she didn't, i.e. the destruction of her property, instead of just posting a notice out of sight behind the house. Why didn't the City investigate and find out if any demo permit was issued in that neighborhood, and determine who destroyed her property, and whether or not the demo company had a city demo license and a city permit for the specific property and a record of who had asked for the house to be demolished and who was paying for the work. The intentional wrongful destruction of another person's real property is a felony in many states, and if the City facilitates the crime by wrongful or improper posting, failure to serve the owner at her residence or mailing address on City records, or at the address her property tax notices are sent to, etc. would seem to put the City in cahoots with whoever destroyed the house, and make the City, or its responsible employee(s), responsible for her loss of property value, loss of use, court costs and attorneys fees. Deprivation of real property w/o due process of law is often best pursued in federal court; the lawyer who represents the landowner would get a lot of publicity pursuing such a claim, particularly if this is found to be a widespread racket in the City, complete with not requiring licenses from, or permits issued to, the demo companies, and with kickbacks to City employees for their connivance in the scheme.
This reminds me of the steps taken by hospital personnel to make absolutely certain as to which exact body part is going to be operated on (or removed). The exact protocols probably differ from hospital to hospital, but in general the patient is asked multiple times before they're anesthetized to confirm the type and site of surgery, and those confirmations are recorded and compared with the written patient record. The idea is, of course, to not amputate the wrong leg, or remove the non-cancerous breast, and so on. And not to replace the wrong hip or knee joint. In some cases, if it's a right or left body part, careful patients have gone so far as to take a Sharpie and write "NO!" in big letters on the nonoperative side, and "YES" on the operative side. Careful surgeons take extraordinary care to make sure they get it right. And for non-life-threatening situations (such as demolishing a house) those involved should at the very least double-check to make sure they are "operating" on the correct site.
Not only does she need to clean it up, but they're also requiring her to get the "Proper permit" which she cannot get on her own. I wonder if she has homeowner's insurance that may cover it.I doubt it. Something for people to check in their coverage is whether their policy covers the 'tear down" of a totaled home. I read where someone had their house totaled and they took the payout only to find out they were liable for the removal of the remaining structure.
She needs to follow a lawsuit against the demolition company and then she also needs to follow lawsuit against the city because if there was permits that needed to be done none of that was done properly and she needs to countersue for everything that they're doing to her but add times about 3 so no matter what they think the house is worth if it had sentimental value or whatever I would not take anything under 3 million
There is one person she can still sue if all else fails, the person who ordered the demolition...I doubt they will be an LLC that will go out of business.
She is out not only the demoed house, but now spending money maybe she doesn't have for the clean up, and fees and fines. Then maybe years of attorney fees and court cost. It's like drawing the bankruptcy card playing Monopoly.
I'm surprised that with situations like this, the company in the wrong won't do THE THING that they could do (in this case finish demo/clean up of the house) rather than wait till they get sued and having to pay another company to do the work they could have done, presumably at less of an expense, and without at least some of the legal expense.
Mistakes were made.... The City of Atlanta should be trying to help the victimized homeowner, not amplifying the damage. The city should be pursuing the responsible contractor, not the victimized homeowner, to clean up the mess, and pay the permitting fines and costs. The homeowner needs to sue the contractor and the City, and any judgements must include all legal costs.
The city should halt any contract they have with the demolition company until they replace the womans house. Usually there is more than one home on their contract
