FINAL RESOLUTION From the Daytona Beach News Journal, September 2, 2015: THE HAMMOCK - Mark Voss said it wasn't a "big deal," but after wading through piles of red tape, he was relieved that he and another property owner have worked out an agreement over an ocean-front vacation house that was constructed on the wrong lot. Keystone Homes of Palm Coast built the house at 21 Ocean Ridge Blvd. N. when it was supposed to have been built on 23 Ocean Ridge Blvd. North. The former originally was a vacant lot owned by Andrew Massaro, of North Carolina, and the latter was owned by Voss, who lives in Missouri. After it was discovered that Voss' home was constructed last year on Massaro's lot - and after the gaffe made national headlines - the two sides worked to come up with an agreement. In the end, Voss and Massaro switched deeds and Voss had to fork over an additional $20,000, according to records. The money was to cover the difference in value.
I would gladly pay the increase in property taxes, if you build a house on my lot. In all seriousness, did the family building the house never visit the house under construction and realize this is not our lot?
The people who owned the lot had a conscious. They realized people would be financially ruined if they kept the 'free' home... and decided to swap lots. They did get $20k for their trouble. All good, and nobody loses. Could have been a LOT worse. Same thing is happening right now in Hawaii... except the lady who owns the lot is wanting the builder and developer to bulldoze the home and replant the jungle... despite being offered an identical lot next door... and I'm sure some compensation to go along with it.
At a cost of half of your property and a significant depreciation on your home’s value, Absolutely not worth it. The land owner deserves the equivalent in value of the land and the home PLUS damages, the value in depreciation, and legal fees. Otherwise the contractor should have to demo at their own expense and return the land to the state it was in. This is a stupid mistake to make.
Translation: "next November, not this November, but next November we will send out a bill and the city will extort money from someone through coercion."
You know if I owned that lot and REALLY wanted to build a house in that location, I'd play nice. Provided the neighbor's lot is equal size/just as nice. Which on a beach front I doubt there is any real difference in topography/drainage 50 or 100 feet next door. I'd say pay my lawyer and give me enough $$$$ to buy a nice 30 to 40 foot center console boat with two outboards. IE enough $$$$ to pay for about half of the house I plan on building.
@@Lee-xs4dj probably a really long legal battles, tens of thousands in lawyers fees, months of headache, and the eventual tear down of the house. Instead of just... you know, trading places.
@@Lee-xs4dj lmaoooo yea ok "After it was discovered that Voss' home was constructed last year on Massaro's lot - and after the gaffe made national headlines - the two sides worked to come up with an agreement. In the end, Voss and Massaro switched deeds and Voss had to fork over an additional $20,000, according to records. The money was to cover the difference in value."
What if he didn't want to swap lots? I would just tell the court I want them to tear it down and restore my lot to exactly how it was before, AND pay me a nice sum for my trouble.
If I was the guy who owned the lot the house was built on, I would gladly sell it to them. But only after it was revalued with a shiny new house on it.
The way this normally works is that everyone involved lawyers up and begins the negotiation process. Sometimes everyone is able to reach a mutual agreement, and sometimes it ends up in court and gets messy.
These lots look fairly similar, but one time this happened in Georgia and the house was built on the flatter piece of property and the empty lot was up and down with steep slopes. Plus, in Georgia you might have quite different views.
Ideally the owner would be reimbursed for the land, the value of the home if sold, damages for depreciation of surviving property, and legal fees. Or the contractor should be required to demo at their own expense and put the land back in the condition it was in before they destroyed it.
