We have 45 acres in the mountains. We live on the property which is heavily forested. I don't often walk the back property line. One day I hiked up and found a house newly built on our land. Oh yes, the courts had it torn down. The other peoples lawyer didn't even try to come to a settlement with us. He just wanted the land and argued that since the house was there for 3 months and we didn't notice, then we gave up the rights to our property. The judge laughed him out of court and ordered the house torn down within 30 days AND ordered the land made whole again. They had cut down dozens of trees, bulldozed a road partially on our land and partially on national park land. It was a cluster F. But we won.
You gotta love lawyers. After 3 months he wants adverse possession. In Hawaii it takes 20 years to attach adverse possession to real property. And the lawyer knows it.
That's what's wrong with this country. A lawsuit where a perpetrator is suing the victim should never even make it to the court. Should be immediately cited as an intimidation tactic and they should be brought up on charges.
Hoping the person they are suing doesn't have the money to hire a lawyer, here in NJ a good 10k to get a lawyer. That's the reason big companies always bullie small ones because they have the money to hire lawyers.
I worked with a woman that got a house for free like this. They told the builders they were on the wrong property and showed prior surveys. They continued building saying she was wrong. They let the house be built. One good lawyer later they have a free house, builder ate the cost and built a new house in the correct place.
I hope the house in the Hawaii case is not torn down. However, the woman that owns the lot should not give in. To me, best case would be for her to take ownership of the house, if she wants it. Otherwise, tear it down or move it, remove the other installations and restore to original condition.
@@mplsmark222 It seems likely to be torn down. They mentioned the natural flora being destroyed, but she wanted that flora to be there for religious reasons.
@@tenchimuyo69 yes, I remember hearing that in a previous report. It is just such a waste of resources to destroy the house. But I agree the owner should have every right to demand the property to be restored to its original condition. I hope she gets back to that, and put all this behind her.
@@mplsmark222 Why is the best case for the property owner to take possession of the house or tear it down?! You do know that houses are built "on" foundations, which means houses can be lifted off the foundation and moved. That would be the best case.
@@xcalibertrekker6693 I believe if he was doing his job he wouldn't have taken the case, perhaps i am mistaken or it is not everywhere in the US but lawyers taking intentionally bad cases just to charge fees from idiots is considered unethical.
I live in Alabama and the most I have ever paid for a survey is $478.00 back in 2013. So at worst maybe $1000.00 in Hawaii. Hmmmm. Math is easy. Except toilet paper math. Toilet paper math is hard.
I own 41.5 acres in Michigan. Land is rural and all homes are on well and septic in our township. I pull in the drive after work and the neighbors are installing a new septic field. Problem is they are 100% on my land. What really pisses me off is he knows he is on my land. I confront him and he says I have no room on my land and this is the only place I could put it. It is an engineered field and is quite large. Approximately a 60x60 area. He says I am going to the township and ask for a variance and there will be nothing you can do about it. He says - You have plenty of land and it really shouldn’t be a problem. I said before you get that variance I’ll be calling the police and having you charged with trespassing. The beauty of calling the police was we had the land surveyed about 6 months prior and stakes were still outlining our property and we had also had the surveyors drawing. The police said without that proof of property lines it would have been a civil matter and up to the courts, but because we had the survey in our hands he was screwed. He had to remove what he had installed which was about 90% of the field. I would say about 10K in labor and materials. The only work that remained when I caught him was basically covering the field. We still do not speak and that was 6 years ago. He didn’t understand that’s what’s mine is mine…and that it’s not what’s yours is mine!
I've got trespassers too that claim the "you've got so much land, this really doesn't impinge on you" defense. I politely listen, then tell them to get off of my property and don't come back as I will be filing suit for any future incursions. Normally that works. Had one person who returned to tear down a no trespassing sign that was blocking the trail he used. Three days later, there were four no trespassing signs in it's place. He seems to have gotten the picture.
Lol, getting a variance doesn't give you the right to someone else's property! Where do people come up with these thoughts?!? A variance relieves you from restrictions in the code that would normally stop you from doing something on your OWN property, and being granted a variance almost always requires the consent of any neighbors who would be impacted by the variance (at least it does in Ohio, I've been granted and have accepted variance from neighbors in multiple jurisdictions here).
The fact she got a tax bill for the value of the lot PLUS the home value proofs the city AND the developer and house owner knew 100% they were on that ladies lot.
@@showwhite7320 jumping to conclusions? The tax bill is the conclusion and it proves the assessor knew the lot belonged to the land owner which means they knew the house was being built on the wrong lot from the beginning.
I read where this woman, Ms Reynolds, carefully chose her lot because of the view, all the gorgeous mature plants that grew on it, and some kind of esoteric criteria that was significant to her. That has all been destroyed by that builder who cleared the lot and built a cheap spec house with a big price tag. --------- I am so happy that things are going her way and there was no foolish obstacle that prevented justice.
I remember reading that as well. It will be very interesting to see how her separate lawsuit for damages turns out. She deserves to prevail and be compensated. The truly unfortunate part is that even with proper compensation, the damage cannot be entirely undone. 😢
@@herewegoagainrv1363 Friend of mine who owned a private camp ground had a very mature pine tree damaged by a car that ran off the road. Not too bad of an accident but the tree had to be taken down. She hired an arborist and the quote to replace the pine tree was in the neighborhood of $200,000. All covered by the driver's insurance. That is just one tree. Imagine having to replace an entire lot of trees and vegetation.
A cheap spec house that the developer didn't permit or build to local regulations. Hmmm, how did that happen? You'd think if he thought he was building legally he'd done it right, wouldn't you?
The argue would be also to sue for loss of mature wildlife, plants, lichins, mycelium and minerals due to concrete foundations being put down and the building and utilities
Let me see if I can follow the arguments: - I buy some land - You accidentally build a house on my lot - I ask you to take your house off my land - You say that’s too much work, too expensive, and I should buy the house from you - I say “no deal” - You sue me, claiming I’m being unreasonable. Did I miss something?
*ONE SENTENCE SUMMARY:* A house was mistakenly built on a woman's property in Hawaii, leading to a court order for its removal and ensuing legal battles. *TOP 10 IMPORTANT POINTS:* 1. A woman found an unauthorized house built on her Hawaii property. 2. The house was constructed due to a miscalculation using telephone poles. 3. Legal battles ensued, with multiple parties suing each other. 4. The court ruled the house must be removed from the woman's property. 5. The property owner received significantly higher tax bills due to the unauthorized construction. 6. Squatters occupied the house, causing safety concerns. 7. The court ordered an independent company to demolish the house. 8. The construction violated building laws and lacked proper permits. 9. The woman was awarded attorney fees and costs. 10. The court scheduled a trial to address further damages. *TAKEAWAYS:* 1. Always conduct proper surveys before construction to avoid legal issues. 2. Unauthorized construction can lead to significant financial and legal repercussions. 3. Courts recognize the unique value of individual properties. 4. Legal ownership and property rights are strictly enforced. 5. Ensuring compliance with building regulations is crucial.
I am too, but since she is seeking the most extreme remedy... she will also have to go after them for massive damages. So she is not even quite to the half way point of this nightmare yet. While "the principle of the thing" is all well and good and she has every right to do whatever she wants here and is justified in doing so... if I was in her shoes I'd have been seeking a MASSIVE settlement the included leaving the house on the lot and me being "righteously pissed" and demand a big payout (probably equal to the original property value, plus the entire maximum value of the house, plus court fees). The reason is there is every possibility that if it drags on long enough whatever money or insurance the developer had will run out and it'll just be "that's it sorry they're bankrupt." You need to think about the best outcome for yourself, not just how much you can get back at who wronged you. That's not all there is to it.
@@lauraelliott6909 I don’t blame her at all especially if she had a dream house she wanted to build. I was curious if they could have worked something out instead of tearing it down so they both could have done better than tearing it down. They should be more careful next time. It was her property.
@@Slightlysalty1 Did you pay no attention to the video? The house was not built to code, the builders were blatantly cutting corners, then the place was trashed and declared a hazard. It was a predatory and unlawful piece of fraud meant to scam somebody out of money as soon as a suckered could Be found to offload it to. It's really kind of disgusting sewing hiw obsessed so many people are in the comments over preserving an illegal heath hazard... for no better reason than criminals wasted time and materials to construct it? You really ahould rethink your values in this situation.
@@Slightlysalty1 If it's concrete blocks built on a poured concrete slab foundation, there is no way to move it intact. I assumed if it was moveable that would have already happened. Chances are if the builder was eager to save a few hundred $ by not doing a survey then the house is likely poorly built and not worth keeping to have to pay $3600 a year in additional taxes.
Can you imagine what a horrible precedent it would be if the judge ruled for the builder. Builders wouldn't care if they owned the property anymore, they would build on any lot they liked and then force the actual owner to sell it to them. What a horrible situation that would be.
This woman stated that the developer tried to force her to sell the lot to them before they even built the house and she said no because she already had plans for it. Then they "accidentally" built on this lot which was highly desired and offered to trade her a significantly less desirable lot. Then sued to get full ownership of the lot. They deserve what they got.
@@sophiesnuffy2563 She has cross/counter complained. She has been awarded attorney fees. A hearing/trial is scheduled for late July to determine damages.
I am a surveyor for the past 30 years. And never ever heard anything like this before. A developer counting telephone poles; and building houses. this one's for the books.
Im no expert on Hawaii, but it has a climate and architecture that relies on breezes, and the style may look easy (hurricanes and earthquakes, and environmental regulation argue differently). Somebody who watched too many DIY and flipping shows appears to got ahead of themselves, and none of the adults stopped them in time.
I guess you're infering that telephone poles are not recognised Survey Marks in USA, and that property Titles are not described in terms of telephone poles either. That wouldn't fly in Australia, either.
A few years ago, in Sioux Falls, there was a house being renovated in an established neighborhood. The owner was a doctor and apparently wanted the biggest house in the neighborhood. Work began and soon it became clear that zoning laws were not being followed. The house grew in size to the point where it infringed on their neighbors. Early into the process, notices were served to the contractor, who I'm sure communicated them to the owner, but work progressed. Eventually it wound up in court and the judge decided that the house either had to be brought back into compliance or tore down. It was tore down.
Great judgment. Always get a survey, even if you're just putting in a fence. We learned that the hard way and it cost us $3000 to fix it. At least we discovered it right away and fixed it at our cost because it was our mistske. The unmitigated gaul of the builders to sue this woman is unbelievable. So glad the court sees it that way, too.
My mom used to ask me "if you don't have time to do it right the first time, where do you imagine getting time to do it again?" I think that sort of applies here as well.
Agreed; never heard of a Contractor doing something that stupid, that cost him over Half a Million bucks for a $500.00 survey, counting telephone poles, how did this nut job Contractor get his License ?? here in Texas they do not play that, the Inspector's Office Checks and you must submit a Survey to the City or County. smh
@@barryhoneycutt3894more than likely there was an original surveyor of the tracts and he might have had in his original contract low cost options to place markers IAW with survey.
I used to make original digital maps for an appraisal district in Texas. Thus I saw things for the first time that owners were often unaware of. As I was drawing maps in my own neighborhood I found a house built half on a lot they did not own. What happened was they bought 2 lots and ended up putting the house in the middle of the two, except they missed. They bought lots 3 and 4 but built the house centered on lots 2 and 3. Everyone was friendly enough about the error, and they agreed to clear the title by trading lot 2 for lot 4 with a couple of warranty deeds.
Been following this case. Congratulations to Ms. Reynolds for her victory. She was living in the upper 48 and had no idea this was happening on her property in Hawaii. How dare this developer try to literally steal her property and sue HER. So happy she is getting justice. I hope you continue to follow the story through until the very end. Something tells me it's not over...
She's stupid. She could have negotiated and got the house and all that work for PENNIES on the dollar, then rent the house out until she's ready to build what she wants. Just to rip and roll a 1 acre lot costs $30K now, it used to be $2-3K before the scamdemic. If she's smart, she'll do that and use the court order as leverage. I'd offer them $10K for them to walk away, it'll cost them more to tear it down.
Yes they did. The guy that stole her land KNEW and felt since she was a Haole they could take advantage of her. I’ve had land in Hawaii, loved it and still do. But there’s a whole culture in Hawaii that hates Haole’s and do take advantage.
I doubt it, that's a really ridiculous scheme. It makes so much more sense that they were lazy and didn't survey to be cheap. And is what the court concluded who looked at all the facts, too, as well as being common sense.
If I recall correctly, in some states it is BUT people can get around this by filing the suit in a different state that does allow frivolous lawsuits to be filed with the intention of buying time or exhausting resources.
@@SmallSpoonBrigade And now she's got a court order for that, at company expense. Which means she's already effectively won, and can best stick it to them by refusing a settlement for anything other than the order.
I saw one comment that they took everyone to court in an effort to get it resolved faster. Otherwise they'd have to wait for their victim to come the case. Their victim lives in California.
It was more having what is going to happen, happen. Everyone was sued and let the courts sort it out. Not all suits are the plaintiff trying to screw over the defendants. There was a case in the news a while back "aunt sues nephew for hugging her". What it was she was knock over and hurt her leg. Her medical insurance refused to pay saying her brothers home owner insurance needed to pay. She needed the courts to say who was at fault so they can then go after insurance for refusing pay. She was never going to force her nephew to pay anything and just needed the "disput" of who was at fault settled so she can go after the insurance companies.
Happened to my late Uncle many years ago, only it was a large development built by a local mobster who illegally gobbled up my Uncles parcel of land and said basically "how ya gonna sue me with two broken legs". My Uncle ended up with $350K after spending a few days searching deeds-titles and transfers going back 50 years. He was followed and threatened but wasn't intimidated. It was all on (very old) paper and he won his case easily. The mobster didn't have a leg to stand on, broken or whole.
Hi, here's a comment from the UK. I'm so glad this woman won her case to get her land back. I could not believe the details when I read about this case, to sue the owner if the land well several words come to mind, are they mental, have they got a screw loose only in the US. I sincerely hope the woman can start to relax once this huge pile of manure is sorted out. Suing the owner of the land!! The people who did this and caused so much upset should be in their knees, but, I worry for her as these types of settlements can go down the sewage pipes and declare Bankruptcy. Wishing all goes well for the property owner. Linda Groves, Dundee, Scotland.
The developer was just greedy. They tried to cut corners by not paying a few hundred dollars for a surveyor. When they found the mistake, they tried to force the woman to accept another lot instead of removing the house. It is going to cost them probably over a million dollars in the end with building a house, suing other people, and then paying to remove the house. All of this was to save several hundred dollars.
There was a story on reddit about a man that came home from WW II to find out his childhood friend had passed away. The problem was his friend was alive and well completing his military service. The mayor of their home town had declared his friend legally dead in order to seize the land and sell it to developers. The look on the mayor's face when this marine marched into city hall to kick a** and take names. The mayor was convicted, the developers had to remove the homes and the property was restored to its original state.
There are some pretty strong laws on the books protecting those serving in the military and their homes. Don't know how the laws were back then, but the public sentiment in favor of the troops seems to have been something not to screw with. I suspect the criminal conviction was only the start of the mayors issues.
This woman was saddled with a home she didn’t want, taxes on that house, insurance, and the cost of maintenance. It wasn’t a windfall, it was a huge burden.
Could they seriously not arrange a swap for lot 115 or 113 or any of the other 197 lots in that immediate area? I will bet you that on judgment day we will see that she was lying when she claimed that lot 114 was somehow so unique that it would justify demolishing a brand new house.
@@angrydachshund Why should she have to do anything? Who cares if you think she is lying it was her property from the get go and should have the land the way it was before the house.
I am very happy for your assistance, the Attorney (from Hawaii) impressive work, the judge’s work, but most of all the persistence and determination of the true property owner (Reynolds). Continue to kick butt!
I'm glad the builder wasn't able to bully the lady and the courts made the right decision Hopefully he grants the lady that the builder pays all court costs and lawyer costs
@@silverfeathered1 he's referring to the verb entitled...as on to be entitled versus social security (a noun), an entitlement you are owed and earned.
@@Jmamelia Yes. That's the problem. Entitled by itself implies it was bestowed by others. Conversely, self-entitled means you've bestowed it to yourself. "Acting entitled" is not the same as "being entitled".
Exactly my thoughts. All the builder had to do was go to the county courthouse to ask if the property wzs owned by a private citizen or the developer. Or consult a title company to look it up. Counting telepbone poles is ridiculous.
I just discovered your show, loved it and subscribed. You are restoring my faith in the justice system. Now, you and Michael Popok (Midas Touch on Utube) are my two, favorite, go- to lawyers on the internet to learn about the law. Thank you. Please continue to do what you do. We need more lawyers like you. 👍
It happened in Australia a builder built a house on the wrong block and when the owner of the block who only visited his block on rare occasions saw the house on his block just changed the locks and moved in. The courts ruled that he now owned the house as well. The person who paid for the building had to sue the builder for the cost.
I saw this news story, the owner said she had researched and purchased this property because of its location in regards to some astrological position or some such, so no other properties would replace it as it’s literally the only one she wanted for its exact location. So at best, they could try settling financially along with offering to leave the house and save he selves the demolition and clean up costs. But even then I think she was planning on eventually building her own house design, so really, the only settlement would be to remove the house and try to butter her up and pay her before she goes back to court for damages, at the very least you’d save on paying her legal fees for it.
A $50 surveyor's wheel likely would have identified the lot being off as well. They didn't do even the bare minimum of effort to get it right and they deserve far worse than this.
@@johnanon658 That's automatic. The company that made the mistake are idio!s. They should've taken the loss and take the steps, instead they compounded their monetary losses by going to court.
I'm still flabbergasted that the incompetent clowns had the nerve to sue the person they wronged. If I were on that jury when this goes to trial, she'd walk away owning their company.
This is why it is good to post No Trespassing signs on your priperty if it is a vacant lot. She had to sue. If anyone got hurt on that property because of the house, they could have sued her, and that would have made this even more complicated. With No Trespassing signs, in some atates it will deny trespassers the right to sue.
Too many people would rather double down on a mistake than admit they messed up. And all too often they win, perpetuating the trend. At least that's not happening this time.
@@velvetbees It is a good idea to post your property in any case. People otherwise may wander onto your property and say that they didn't know that it was private property. If one of those people get injured, they may sue you. At least if it is posted, then you can threaten them with criminal trespass.
@rickss69 sad fact is that doesn't always happen. Laziness, corruption, and prejudices exist in humans, and many don't check biases when doing their job.
@@reh3884 It's the bit about the actual restoration to the condition it was previously that was denied. But, the case will continue for damages, which will probably be rather extensive, trees are not cheap to replace. The area may not be quite as it was originally, but if she gets a certain number of trees, she probably doesn't have to place them exactly where there were trees, which may be a bit of an upside.
Mr. Lehto had something similar happen but much more complicated. We bought a parcel on a mountaintop over a lake. There were 4 parcels & because it was up a mountain, there was a requirement to have a cul-de-sac. Seller said he had the property surveyed. We got town approval for our house plans. During construction there were 4 separate occasions where both town & bank inspections were done to assure all was being done as per permits. The house was there for more than 25 years until we learned it was built in the wrong place-it was in the middle of the cul-de-sac! Because our home was essentially built in the middle of a private road our case ended up being a precedent setting ruling. It’s really quite interesting if anyone is interested..I’d love to hear your thoughts! The case is: Guardino v Colangelo et el Copake , New York.
I just read part of the case. Very interesting! That was the most non-Hostile hostile takeover over of a land 😂 Did anyone ever build in the other parcels?
@@Slightlysalty1 yes! All parcels had been sold way before the case went to court. They found out at the same time we did that our house was in the wrong place. They all submitted statements stating they had no problem with our house remaining where it was. It was the new purchaser of the property behind the house that was pushing the issue because if our house was removed he would then have direct access to a country club that was next to our place. He was a big shot from the city who was building a summer house-we were locals in the rural area, working class who had to spend all our savings to pay the legal fees. There was an acre of woods in between the country club & our house that was standing in the way of the new buyers direct access to the club. We owned those woods - he wanted them, and he was willing to push an old local couple, my parents, out of their home to get that land. Our only choice was to claim eminent domain-fortunately we had good local neighbors who had no problem with the house remaining where it was. After 2 year of back & forth & delays between attorneys, (and many dollars later), we won the eminent domain case.
@@marrysanchez1300 I’m glad you won the case. It was the logical choice, which I know isn’t always the outcome when it comes to the law. We all have the same rights, some people just think their rights mean more. 😉 I hope the property stays in your family forever and the city guy never bullies someone into selling the wooded acreage. Just think, law students will read your family’s case or lawyers will use it as defense for another during their careers. The guy who sued and lost should’ve been on the hook for legal fees.
@@Slightlysalty1 thank-you. The best part of winning was the city man was a lawyer & had a real estate Development company called RMF properties. 😂 That was why I thought we never had a chance. Enjoy your day 🙂
From December of 1971 to about July of 1972 my mother and us four kids lived on my grandfathers inactive 400 acre farm in northern Michigan. I did not really appreciate the uniqueness of the place back then. The property was carved out of a forest and my grandfather had planted pine trees along the 1/3 mile long driveway to the farmhouse to keep snow drifts off the drive. We called it "The Lane". The 400 acres was not all farmland, so any land that had not been farmed was still forest. One thing is patently clear. If someone had come in and started tearing up trees that they had no right to tear up, they would forever change the look of the land. They might be able to replant the trees, but it would literally take a lifetime for the land to be restored to it's natural state. This lady deserves every penny she squeeze from these developers.
As I tried to explain in another post. It is far more than regrowing vegetation,, which for there may well be 100 or 200 years. The land itself is a lava flow,, the surface is hard black and in unbelievable waves and swirls, small hills that were semi solid when pushed there. The entire surface is a work of art of frozen ropes and coils and swirls, ripples,, crevasses where tubes have collapsed. It cannot be duplicated or restored, and some lots are incredibly decorated with these features, unique.
I love this story about your grandfather owning and preserving the natural wonder of the property. He must have been quite a guy to do all that. It's people like him who preserve instead of destroy.
@@Sailor376also So you know exactly where this property is? Or you are guessing? I somehow doubt a new homeowners association would be permitted to be built in an area you describe.
The woman should not be concerned at all about it being "wasteful" to tear the house down. The builders obviously were not concerned about surveying or suing her for their mistake.
@@alanjameson8664I don't think the house was as important to them as the land...they thought by sticking a house there they could more easily grab Reynolds lot to add to the parcel they already owned
Why not? Resources are limited, not to mention all the time that was put into building a house that would never be lived in on a property that is now pillaged of its original beauty. It's a damn shame.
Thank you for this update. I had read about this case a long time ago. I’ve worked in Property Management for over 20 years, this was the first time that I have heard about something like this.
When selling a house, I've pointed to the corner markers on the property. The surveyor still checked that they were in the expected location (they were). I saved them a bit of trouble locating them.
As an outside observer, I discount your opinion since you are an obviously biased party. OTOH, in this case, I think you are correct despite being a previous land surveyor.
@beepbop6697 with that large of an error yes the surveyor would have been liable. In general the surveyors are allowed a margin of error. Typically in the 1:10,000 range. So if the parameter is 10,000 ft they can reasonably expect to be an inch off.
@@maurer3d Doesn't make it any less insane. Next time they should just own up to the fact that they screwed up big time. Maybe they shouldn't half-ass locating the plot next time.
I remember hearing about this. The new clip I saw about it, the woman said she had bought that specific lot because of the engergy/vibe of the land. I believe that clip also stated that the people who had wronged her had offered to trade lots, but she refused because she had very specifically wanted the damaged lot. I think she was going to build some sort of wilderness retreat or keep the land natural and have spots for camping or something. I can't remember what exactly. I just remember she was adamant about having that specific lot.
In 2016 I bought a house on an 8000 sq. ft. corner lot in a fully developed subdivision. A knowledgeable friend recommended I get a survey. It seemed unnecessary but for $400 I went with the given advice. It turned out the utility easement encroached on the front corner of the garage. I said “correct the error”. After lots of hoo-hah, the owner, the original developer, and the municipal Utility split the $10K required to move the utilities and provide a modified easement. Cheap insurance. Lesson learned.
@@Subangelis they said the owner and fully developed (I took as complete). Let's let them speak for themselves, should clear it up fine without any assumptions needed.
@@TheJuanSolidHow would it seem wrong if they’ve built something on his property that does not belong? Regardless of when it was built does not reverse the damage done to the property by the utilities being built on his property.
It isn't enough .. she's owed personal damages for what they put her through and thr company needs heavy fines on top of the costs to remove and make whole, not just fix it but pay PENALTIES
That wasn't my recollection. My recollection is that she wanted that particular location due to feng shui or something like that. I think she just wasn't in a position to build on the property yet, but did want only that particular location. Maybe because of her birthday. Anyway, I was waiting for Steve to respond to that.
@Emophiliac2 She wanted to build a clinic for women. The location was important to her because of the nature surrounding it and the views from the property. Obviously, you can't have a random house where you're planning on building a clinic/business, and they messed up the area in her opinion with the cinstruction. IIRC, She did say some nonsense about the location aligning your chakra or being in phase with the zodiac signs or something like that, but I don't remember exactly what it was. Either way, her intentions are good, and it was still her property and rights bulldozed and then sued over which is unjust.
I’m a career title examiner, with 17 years experience. It’s wild to me that the property wasn’t surveyed at all. In my state, any new construction requires 3 surveys, 1 before work starts , a 2nd when the forms are laid down, and a 3rd once construction is complete. It’s the surveyors job to verify all things physically related to the property... like which lot is the right one. We never do anything without a current and up to date survey.
The tax assessor DID NOT KNOW IT WAS THE WRONG LOT --- Don't be stupid. Their office has nothing to do with building permits. They came buy to assess the lot, and found a hose there.
The friend who told her a new house is on her land also knew. I bet the accessor look at the parcel viewer which has the lot boundary superimposed on a map. Curiously, when they first discovered there's a house on a lot with no building permit, and a lot with a building permit but no house, why didn't they say something?
Money, plain and simple. The DOR or whatever they have in Hawaii doesn't give a crap. Your house has been built without a permit and might be dangerous? Don't care, your property is worth more now. Gimme even more money!
Nah, there are two parts of the US government that are completely competent. The military and the parts that collect money. The rest are a bunch of fools.
It actually takes a lot of wealth and a lot of forethought (something these people obviously lack) to commit bankruptcy fraud. The only type of bankruptcy that would allow the owner to just walk away and start over is chapter 7 (dissolution) which involves the court taking control of company assets and selling them off to make sure debts are paid, and the court will check to see if any changes of ownership were made in a close timeframe before the bankruptcy (since this is a type of fraud, if any evidence is found the case can become criminal one). Even if they somehow could convince a court they didn't have enough money to pay, small companies often have financial entanglements between the owner and company it would be nearly impossible for the owner of a recently bankrupt company to get the necessary capital, insurance, and licensure while a bankruptcy is in progress (the process usually takes months but can take years).
I was with you the whole way on removing the house. My husband and I bought on a mountain private subdivision with all 5 acre lots. We all had to hire architects, builders, ect. Surveys are vital we still have our original survey markers. After 27 years, the lot next-door sold and they built a house. New survey happened and all is still in place.
As I recall. The contractor was trying to claim that Reynolds was unfairly profiting from getting a free house. How Dare she so much as break even on this infringement! How arrogant !
Lol but they didn't offer to give her the house as far as I know? Did they? How us she "benefiting" by having to pay $4,000 a year in property tax instead of $400? I'm glad she won. So often we hear of bullying, unethical people winning, which is probably why they claimed all the crazy things like her title not being valid, etc.
Reynolds didn't want them on the property and rightly so. They would probably leave stuff for spite making building a house impossible. They already proved incompetence. I wouldn't either.
Working as a surveyor in Florida we used telephone poles for rough location then proved the location using PRM's (permanent reference monuments) used to locate property in plated areas recorded in the court house.
When I first read about this, the article said the woman bought the property and planned to hold spiritual retreats among the flora and foliage of a tropical paradise. Kind of hard to do when the land was scraped clear, means that she lost her slice of heaven and a business.
They might not be able to restore it how it was but hopefully she's at least able to get enough money to hire a kickass landscaper to get it back to a somewhat natural state
It would be hilarious if the woman asked the court to have them remove it in a reasonable time frame (30-60 days) and for permission to charge storage and late fees for every day after that. LOL
The court order said she'll get quotes within 60 days and that work should proceed as soon as funds are deposited by the responsible party, should the responsible party not deposit the funds by the date specified by the court they're going to have a lot more to worry about than storage fees, they'll be looking at contempt of court.
She could ask, but would probably annoy the judge in doing so. 30-60 days isn't reasonable without having a contractor lined up with time in the schedule.
@@SmallSpoonBrigade She has to provide the names of 3 demolition companies to the judge, who will chose the one to do the work. I am surprised the judge specified demolition without an option to move the house. Maybe the structure is a cheap building on concrete slab that is unsuitable for moving.
judge Mathis has always informed us: EVERYTHING IN REAL ESTATE MUST BE IN WRITING. houses are legal “improvements” on land & the deed owner is the owner RECORDED in the county (of an American state) owning the land. The deed explicitly states the legal boundaries of that land, where structures can be built only with written legal documents. in HI, many houses are legally surveyed & legally built & mortgaged on “LEASED” land. if u illegally build on land you do not own, the land owner gets to keep all improvements anyway, or demand that the “offending” structures be removed. an odor of bribery reeks here, because no survey, nor building permits issued for this new construction!
Nah, he/she was just doing what they were paid to do. HOWEVER, they could've refused the job. Remember though, we ARE talking about attorneys here. Slimy from the gitgo.
The reason they sued the victim is, shenanigans like that work... A LOT! Judges often come up with crazy, unfair, head scratching rulings... that usually favor the better funded attorney.
Only if he did something that is against ethics rules. This is when he makes false statements, misrepresents the facts, does shady business, does not do dilligence, violates his obligation towards the other party or the court and does damage by doing so.
It is not the lawyer that sues, it was the property developer that sued and he did it by hiring a lawyer. The lawyer has no dog in this fight and brings the case to court, even when he knows the case will probably be lost. Why? Because everybody has the right to bring a case to court and let the judge decide.
Given that the development was organized as a *partnership* , dollars to donuts one of those partners is an *attorney* . They probably came up with some oddball cause of action to put in the complaint, and thought that because they were first to file, the owner would either fold, or take another lot in exchange. Unfortunately, it just pissed her off.
They could have just measured the distance out using real measuring tools. It would have been like $50 for the tool and a bit of time to actually walk it off. They were just being lazy. What gets me is that even phone GPS could have told them they were on the wrong plot.
That’s a really good case to hear the outcome. I’d be interested in follow up if they actually do as you suggested and come to some sort of agreement. Even if they don’t, follow up on the fallout for damages would be cool as well. Awesome case 🙌🏻
Instead of admitting their mistake and trying to make it right, they sued her while their hands were dirty. They are thinking only of their loss and not the loss they caused Reynolds. They took shortcuts and therefore ate respinsivle for the errors caused by their choice. Thankfully, the judge stopped them bulkying the lady and is in the process of making them correct their mistake. She has no obligation to accept money or a land swap from them. I wouldn't either if I was her, not after they bullied her and sued her for their incompetence.
She should try and sue them for emotional distress that this is all caused her. She deserves way more than just her court costs and attorney fees and everything else paid for. This woman went through a traumatic event due to nothing of her own doing and all because of malicious intent from another party involved. They deserve to be punished and punished harshly. They knew what they were doing but stupidly they doubled down and tried to make it even worse. She deserves way more than what she got.
While their excuse is incompetence, I do not rule out it being a deliberate ploy to take possession of a desirable lot. Their actions in suing Reynolds suggests it was deliberate. If it was an accident they would be attempting to make it right. The law suit suggests malice.
I went through a similar situation in PA when having my home built. I lived out-of-town while having my new home built. When I settled on the home, I noticed via my "eye test" that my front yard seemed smaller than what was laid out on my deed. I had the property surveyed, and it turns out that the builder was incorrect on his assumption of where property lines were. He assumed that property lines followed utility boxes, and the utility boxes were along the property lines dividing lots. Totally untrue, of course. They took out a bunch of mature trees and built the neighbor's home closer to the property line that they had filed with the township, and the neighbor's driveway was quite a bit over onto my property. They refused to do anything about it, and I had to sue to have it removed which, naturally, caused a rift between me and my new neighbor.
Because of course your new neighbor thinks everything was all right, and you had go and be anal about what's yours. Glad you got things corrected. Really too bad, you had to sue.
@@MrCharlesEldredge Yes, we did try. We simply wanted the driveway moved back over the property line and the trees/landscaping replaced. The builder just flat-out refused, saying he was already losing money and didn't want to lose any more. (We had other issues with the builder that were covered under his warranty, and he wasn't happy about fixing them at his expense.) The neighbor offered to purchase the piece of property in question; however, that would have dropped our amount of land below the threshold to have a septic system on our property (it's a rural area with no public sewer or water). We would have had to apply for a variance with no guarantee of getting it, and our property value would have taken a hit, naturally. Plus, I wanted what I paid for.
Your neighbor expected you to take the risk of your house being unlivable (no septic) just so they didn't have to move a driveway? And they would get more property and you less? Wow, are they selfish. I would have sued them too.
In Berkeley,Ca. There’s a company called Urban Ore, they sell eclectic stuff but they also sell items from demolished houses ie. Windows,doors,cabinets,shower stalls and bathtubs . They recycle just about anything from demolition houses including wiring and plumbing fixtures and resell them. Maybe they should do that to the house seeing that it’s brand new. Hold an “Estate Sale “ to local diy people who need “new” items but can’t afford them. Dismantle the house not demolish it they can recoup some of their losses.
I worked in construction for a lot of years. I remember one slimy builder who thought he could get away with pouring a foundation within the property easement. The inspector called him on it and made him tear out the foundation. Taught the jerk a lesson.
There was a house that was built in my old home town. The house looked too large for the lot. Way too close to the property lines. I don't know what happened. But within about 15 months after it was built it was torn down. Nice looking house but it didn't match the neighborhood.
I bought a house in Michigan in the 1980's, that was a Sears, Roebuck and Co Kit home built in 1917. The very first thing I did was had a local lawyer (he was also a judge) to check for any leans or taxes owed. Second was to pay for a city survey and got the property lines checked. Then I spent the funds to restore the house. Time consuming, but better safe than sorry...
Right. Counting telephone poles is just how you calculate relative speed as you run down the mountain without brakes. (Hot Rod Lincoln, and CW McCall "Wolf Crick Pass")
Steve, there is another problem. I know that location, if not that specific lot. The last lava flow for most of that area was 100 to 300 years ago, the natural surface is solid,, I mean solid basalt lava. And on each lot the lava rolled, or flowed, domed and tubed,,, the lots are highly individualistic, and the vegetation is commensurately highly individualistic. There are two normal treatments to those lots when building. One is leave it in its natural state and build mostly, on the surface. Preserving the natural roll and flow of the surface as much as possible. A house can be 40 feet from the road and absolutely unseen because of the vegetation. We are talking rain forest 100 to 500 inches of rain per year, Beautiful, impressive, impassible. The second way the lots are treated for development is by ripping the land. It REQUIRES just about the largest bulldozer you can imagine with a single or double tooth that can reach down into the basalt lava and rip the stone from the ground. There is no scraping of the surface, there is no corollary you and I in Michigan are familiar with,, They must plow the stone surface to a depth of about 3 feet, destroying the loops and swirls of the lava flow, the fantastic shapes and rolls and ropes of frozen black stone. Then the angular block are bulldozed approximately flat and crushed down by the 80 tons of the bulldozer. After the lot is ripped then crushed cinder lava is brought in to smooth the surface and plant grass. Septic systems are holes cut deep with crane mounted 1,000 pound jack hammers. If you must dig anything,, you do it with a heavy 10 to 20 pound ice spud. 6 feet long with a 1.5 inch tip,, called an Uh-oh bar. (Uh-oh ya gotta dig?) Brutal, brutal work in 70 to 90 degree heat 70 to 90 percent humidity with rain every day. You welcome the rain because it cools your back, while you break your back. That is why the lot cannot be restored. It is impossible to recreate the fantastic lava swirls and roils, or the lava dome 10 feet tall or the collapsed lava tube forming a rift across the property. I have built there. It ain't easy.
@@dianeladico1769 It is a fantasy sort of place. The ocean surf crashing against a 20 foot tall cliff 1/4 mile to the north and volcanoes that spew molten rock 10 miles the other way. You can hear the roar of either. The lava lights the bottom of the clouds at night. Depending upon your exact location,, the land may be a desert 10 inches of rainfall per year. 40 miles away tropical rain forest with rain nearly every day. Also, imagine that rain forest with streets and 20 percent of the lots built, 80% still natural,, 100 or 200 inches of rain,, and not a single roadside ditch or stream. The rain falls into the cracks of the lava and flows to the seas in under surface lava tubes. Incredible place. (My sisters 'invite me to visit' {Bring your tools.} {Oh, thanks.} Arizona, Texas, Oklahoma, Hawaii, Michigan, New York, Newfoundland. (The last is my second home.)
@@Sailor376also Such beauty-destroying that is a crime against man and Nature. You have a good sampling of vacation spots, er, work sites. Newfoundland is more my speed. Jealous.
@@dianeladico1769 Don't know you. Don't know anything about you,, but,, I have a permit for the Green River in Utah for the 14th of July, the bow seat of the canoe is empty. And available.
Even if their lawyer does ask the lady if there is any way they can get her a different piece of land to avoid having to tear down the house, at this point she's probably going to say no out of sheer spite for the utter nonsense they put her through and quite frankly I wouldn't blame her. My grandmother's house had 3 lots around it that she also owned and she never developed them. One of their neighbors decided to enlarge their house with an addition and they went well on to one of my grandmother's lots. When she told them they jumped straight into suing her in an effort to steal the land. The judge of course ruled with my grandmother and she would not agree to selling them any part of the land under any circumstances at that point because she was so angry with them so they had to tear down what they'd already built. If they had just approached her from the beginning and asked to buy part of one of the lots there's a very good chance she would have sold it to them.
While she had options that I might think would have been preferable, they weren't to her. And since it was her choice to make, good for her that she stuck with the one she wanted rather than get bullied into one she didn't.
@@MichaelCurreyNo. First, she wants her lot. The other one doesn't mean anything to her. Second, they made it hurt, so she should get more than just a trade. Third, they're on the hook for the lot, the house, the demolition, the rehab, and both sides' legal costs. She could hold out for no less than all of that, in cash, without blinking, and have them throw in the other lot for the aggravation.
She said bought that particular lot due to the position of the lot. It sounded like the moon or the planets would be lined right for her with that lot. This information was from another channel.
Developer sueing landowner is as crazy as home robber/invader suing homeowner for falling down the stairs! Rediculous but happens and sometimes liberal judges pick deeper pockets.
My husband is a retired surveyor. I told him about this and he was shocked. He thinks she should go after the city or county for their negligence. It’s just so expensive.
This has been an interesting case. Thank you for sharing. I also just noticed the KLOS sticker with the Mark and Brian show sticker. I loved Mark and Brian. They were the best.
What an extraordinary predicament to have to find oneself in. Something only a wild imagination could conjure up . Such an exhausting long drawn out sad journey until the dust can finally settle on this debacle. I’m sure.
