Why is this even going to court? The developer did the wrong thing, not her. She shouldn't be forced to take an adjacent lot. It's her lot, end of story.
The owner of the lot benefits more by it going to court the people suing will be made to restore the lot to its original condition which is why at the end of the video they said it’s going into expensive territory she probably had a few trees they could cost $50000 per tree
“We’ve tried to come to a reasonable conclusion"? Let me translate corporate speak for everyone……”we think she should be forced to do what best suits our company.”
@@stuwest3653 I guess that will be determined by a civil court of law. However, I really can't see a single legal precedent that the contractor would have to support their claim to the land. I know that Hawaii can have some very unique ways of viewing the law, but this would be a stretch for them too.
@@stuwest3653 Interesting you should say this, because Google doesn't support your position. Do you have a specific reference to cite to support the builder being able to take the injured parties land due to their mistake?
I hope that she is successful in SUING the SNOT out of everyone responsible. As a 16 year surveyor who worked for a civil engineer, I can tell you that these things Don’t happen by accident. They tried to steal her land.
I've seen the initial news report of this story before and if I recall correctly, the developer did not even bother to do a survey plan to cut corners.
From what I understand, they didn't use a surveyor, they just counted the lots and say they miscounted. Which is absolutely insane. I remember being on jury duty many years ago and at that time, the technology was down to a matter of like 1/16th of an inch for a surprisingly long distance based on the gear available. It was like that in large part so that if there were any future questions about property lines, they could say with near certainly where the exactly line is and base that on some incredibly precise measurements. They didn't even bother to hire a surveyor for what was probably a one day job.
nonsense. it's identical to dozens of lots surrounding her home. the developer wasn't the one that made the mistake and built there, that was the contractor.
@@jimbeam-ru1my Uh really? WHO TOLD the contractor "we want a house built right here"???? Builders/Contractors do NOT just drive up to an unknown parcel, and start construction. Further, WHO APPROVED a BUILDING PERMIT for that parcel??
@@Luckyrider1958 from your questions it's obvious you don't understand construction. the developer gave the contractor with a plat map showing the lot location, the contractor measured wrong and wound up on the lot next to the right lot. it happens The inspector just asks the contractor if he's at the right place when he gets there and he takes his word for it. There is no formal legal process that takes place to make sure it's the right lot at any point in construction until the home is sold and it goes into escrow.
This happened to my Grandpa. A Mall was built on his lot. He had a 2 acre lot. The Mall Builder / Owners said they would give him "Fair Market Value". My Grandpa said "No thanks. I'm your new partner." They ended up paying him 7 times what the land was worth. It was still a deal. I wish this woman all the luck in the world.
Yep, it's unclear why the judge didn't just rule in her favor via a summary judgment as there's no controversy over the fact that the developer isn't allowed to build on property they lack authorization to build on and nobody seems to be disagreeing about that detail.
"She doesn’t need to explain why she wanted her lot. " Yes she does. If someone hands you a suitcase with a million dollars in it and signs something giving you ownership but later realizes that it was the wrong suitcase and he thought he was giving you your luggage, he can sue you for unjust enrichment to get the million bucks back. That's the legal principle at play here- the developer is saying she is benefitting from unjust enrichment and accepting an identical lot next door would fully correct her losses.
@@user-wd4uf2sm5d So here's a thought, she should just move in, and squat in the house thats on her own property...... Love to see them try to evict her from her own property.....
For this to go to court is absolutely ridiculous. She needs to countersue to for putting something there she didn't want. Have them tear it down and sue for emotional damage for this whole fiasco.
The judge might be trying to establish precedent against developers. This probably isn't the first time a developer has done this, but maybe the first time their victim didn't roll over.
Compromise? This isn't the landowner's problem. It isn't her responsibility to compromise. It's the developer's problem. They need to repair and fix to the owner's specifications, ie, restore what they damaged.
This is so stupid. The developer is fully at fault and should take total responsibility. It's hard to believe they are trying to do anything other than apologize in embarrassment.
@@user-wd4uf2sm5d HI been upside-down and backwards for years!!!!! Do not be surprised by the judges decision if it goes against the homeowner. The developer attorneys will convince the judge that they offered her in the Aloha Spirit the parcel next door and the judge gonna agree that aloha spirit in this case wind - lol!!! HI is backwards gang!!!
This is the times of where people will push back when they're wrong. We see it with former and current politicians. Now business owners don't accept any responsibilities for anything. She should sue for distress caused by this builder.
So here's what should happen, the developer removes the house, and restores the lot to its original condition, prior to any works taking place. The developer must pay all the landowners legal fees, must compensate the land owner for any time lost at work, and should pay $1 million dollars punitive for not complying with her rightful demands, and as a deterent for future. The Judge must be disbarred for failure to use basic commmonsense and dismiss such a frivolous lawsuit.
What I see is a trial run for the rich and powerful to start 'accidentally" building on any lot they want to steal and forcing the owner to take an unwanted plot.
The judge has to hear the case brought…whether they think it’s a load of bull or not… I’m sure there’s legal presidents from both sides being used…. Here in Spain the police tell you to shoot people on your land, but move the bodies to a different county so they “don’t get the paperwork”, but if you feel guilty, tell them you were walking your dog & found a body. Totally word for word as they don’t investigate non Spanish murders unless the consulate contacts them
It could also be “undue benefit” or something along that line when you purposely benefit knowingly. Like say you wake up and see people putting a patio in your backyard and doing work. You say awesome free patio and hide in bed. They knock on the door at late afternoon for payment and you say no. You have to stop the work the second you know and it can be put back or finished at a discount. This lady expects to get richer and owns a $500,000 lot of land plus a home so far away with another lot of land. You can hear the BS when she talks about it aligning with her birth charts.
@@philiplubduck6107What are you talking about? She's not trying to keep the house. She wants it removed. She also doesn't have to pay for their mistake.
@@philiplubduck6107 She wants that shoddy home removed from HER property because she didn't give them permission. She needs to be made whole which means remove the freaking house, restore the lot as closely as possible to the way it was before they bulldozed her property and pay all costs and pay her punitive damages. She doesn't want the home and the property is hers whether you like it or not.
@@philiplubduck6107 THAT is NOT how it went down. She only found out about it when a realtor actually "sold" her house, then contacted her because the sale wouldn't go through because the company "selling" the house and lot didn't actually own it - this lady did. The developer, however, had previously attempted to buy her lot from her, but did not disclose that it was because they'd put a house on her lot. She didn't want this lot to put a 3 bedroom house on it - she had other plans. The developer is being slimy about this. Put yourself in HER position. What if you went on vacation and returned to find that someone had converted your garage into a rumpus room, then sued you for not moving into the house next door?
Is that your answer to EVERYTHING?? All that does is make lawyers rich, more work, and no guarantee you'll solve any problem. Simplistic, and very "after the fact".
The report that I have had is that order would result in a bankrupt developer. Unfortunately the situation has been allowed to deteriorate and the house is now worthless. It still must be torn down. The landowner wants the trees restored. If the developer is permitted to develop additional lots (my understanding is the developer doesn't own them) enough money might appear to actually do the demolition and put the trees back, but that will take a long time.
@@skygazer858 Licensed: verified. Bonded: unknown, but I'd be surprised if the bond can cover both the restoration and the rebuilding the house where it belongs. Insured: I have *never* seen a wrong lot case get handled by builder's insurance and I've looked at a lot of them. There's the appearance of this is excluded from insurance as a standard term on builders insurance.
The Developers knew what he was doing and built the house there because it was just a better lot then the other lots and figure out, he could force the owner to trade for a less desirable lot. What a scam!
@@Ryarios a poster that LIVES THERE pointed out some of the lots are actually UNBUILDABLE, flood, bad micro climate, whereas THIS LOT is a premium quality location inotherwords, it's surprising but land can vary extremely just on the same slope. that can result in tens of thousands of dollars in differences.
Possibly, although it's more likely due to incompetence. We'll have to see how things turn out, but the developer shouldn't win this as they had precisely no right to build on that land.
Exactly. Even if it was a genuine mistake, if you set the precedent that it was okay and the landowner can be built off of their own property, there will be many more cases coming in hot that are not mistakes at all.
It does not matter why she bought that lot. All that matters is someone else built a house she does not want or asked to be built on that lot. Developer needs to remove the house and restore the lot to what it looked like before.
Failure to perform due diligence is not a "mistake". And it doesn't matter if the lots are identical at the atomic level, it' wasn't theirs to build on and she doesn't have to agree to a swap.
It's very simple, they should restore her lot to the condition it was in before they unlawfully occupied it and built on it. That means demolish the building and plant mature trees on the site to restore it to the condition it was in. That's why they went to court, they want to avoid the cost of rectifying their negligent error.
That's exactly what she asked for when the error came to her attention. She just wants her lot in it's original condition. This is completely reasonable. Besides the developers should have insurance to cover their errors. In no way should this woman have to be drug through the court system and incur the stress and attorneys fees.
They are suing her for their mistake? Is this for real? She should charge them for rent for using her property or the developer should offer to just give her the house. If not they need to remove the house off her lot.
The landowner lives in California. The developer was probably gambling that she'd miss the court date or wouldn't want to pay for a trip to Hawaii to appear in court, and they would win their lawsuit by default.
you're missing the whole point. She wants the home and the developer doesn't want to pay to have the home demolished and land returned to original state.
The developer needs to remove the building and return her land back to it's original state. The developer also needs to compensate her for the uses of HER land and any legal fees that she has incurred from the developers MISTAKE.
Would people STOP SAYING the developer ACCIDENTALLY built on her lot. Prior to the house being built, the developer had tried to buy the lot from her, and she refused. it was DELIBERATE. I reckon that he thought if he just builds the house anyway, some easy judge is going to be nice to him and forcibly remove her from ownership of that land, and force her to accept whatever settlement the developer wants. THIS WAS DELIBERATE ! Plus we have deliberate theft and vandalism of 100-year-old trees from her land. Trees that she especially wanted to be there, for her particular use of the land. Triple damages wouldn't even come close to what this woman deserves.
@@KiwiCatherineJemma Like I said, a way to take her property. It hard to believe someone could be that stupid to not know where the house was suppose to be built. You have to call out locates before you dig.
Imagine if these developers won and it set a precedent for other developers to think they can take whatever plot of land they wanted by building on it when the owner isn't looking and then suing to force the owner to accept a different plot of land.
Developer SCREWED up and refuses to do the right thing;...MOVE the house and restore the lot to its previous condition, instead they persecute the owner with frivoloyus litigating, now they can pay damages, emotional distress to the owner in addidtion to removing their "mistake" from her property...!
She needs to counter-sue and claim compensation for all the grief and stress that they have caused her, on a jury trial. She stands to get a lot of money because the developers have acted in a bad way.
How dare they force another lot on her! They're trying to avoid addtional expenses to remove the house. They admitted fault, fix it on your expense. I hope they're insurance gets non-renewed, and I hope she counter sues.
This really should be simple. The owner owns the land. She wishes to retain it. She has that right. The developer has no right to that land. He had no right to build on it. He is in the wrong. He needs to be forced to return that land to the point before development. That should be the ruling. He should not have had the standing to sue. Only she has any standing to sue. The developers case should be dismissed without cause. She then needs to sue for reinstatement of the land accordingly, plus the costs in this case and her one. She should easily win. It’s not up for debate or negotiation.
developer builds house on wrong lot ( she got a huge TAX increase) and the developer sues her .....this is what our country has come to ...unbelievable
I hope she counter sues the developers for mental anguish and her time and effort and false accusations. Private property is just that private! They were trespassing for the whole time it was being built. The developers don’t want the expense of tearing down the trespassing structure and turning the property back to how it was! Typical corporations against the people.
The developer didn't do their due diligence, and now they want to try and make her pay for a house she didn't want. They need to remove it and set it back they way it was. That's the lot she bought and wanted. She not asking for anything other than them to do the right thing and she deserves it.
This case will set a precedent for any similar cases in the future. Imagine if developers just start building houses wherever they want, and then say, oh, it was a mistake!
The court should immediately rule that the developers must remove the house and return the land to its approximate original state. They should also pay damages and their attorney should face sanctions.
A mistake is delivering a package to the wrong address. Getting the permits, getting building plans, hiring a construction company and building a house on the wrong lot is not a 'mistake." They want that lot, and when she wouldn't just roll over and trade it for the lot next door, they had to take her to court and sue her into bankruptcy.
Because there's a house owned by the developer on land owned by someone else. The developer started the lawsuit because they really don't have a choice. Even a loss is better than leaving it hanging.
How did the developer get a building permit and how did they put in utilities without authorization from the land owner? What county clerk missed that this is the wrong land owner?
This doesn't pass the smell test. How is all I got. HER property, PERIOD! They screwed up. Someone better be checking the Judge's financials to even contemplate this Lawsuit.
Would people STOP SAYING the developer ACCIDENTALLY built on her lot. Prior to the house being built, the developer had tried to buy the lot from her, and she refused. it was DELIBERATE. I reckon that he thought if he just builds the house anyway, some easy judge is going to be nice to him and forcibly remove her from ownership of that land, and force her to accept whatever settlement the developer wants. THIS WAS DELIBERATE ! Plus we have deliberate theft and vandalism of 100-year-old trees from her land. Trees that she especially wanted to be there, for her particular use of the land. Triple damages wouldn't even come close to what this woman deserves.
All of HPP Subdivision is filled with Micro-ecosystems, making each location, each lot, unique in it's zonal climate. There's a rise and fall effect of the land fomation that makes for subtle rainfall differences. Part of HPP is closer to the ocean making some lots filled with "sea air" (higher in sodium making plant growth limited or needy). There are some lots that are heavily wooded and even "non-buildable" due to routine flooding. She had a terrific lot someone is trying to turn into their own cash cow and they likely expect her to settle for some crappy, "leftovers" lot. I live on my HPP land and so do my children. Are we now needing to worry someone will show up with demolition equipment to build a house to replace ours? Then demand we give them title? The decision on this case could mean all of our privately-owned lands are in jeopardy of contractor take-over. 😢 Plus, there is a history of such situations in the court system, especially within the RICO office. An efficient judge would review those prior cases. If that judge saw what I've seen in those cases, the decision will be one that blows back the steam from that illicit contractor. Let's just hope the judge isn't a corporate lackey.
great points; shows the "incentive" for the builder to try to "grab" a more marketable lot, and since she's an out of towner, thought she'd settle and get a lot dumped on her that appeared to be similar, but in actually perhaps not even buildable. Have to wonder if the contractor or his buddies HAVE a lot like that, like me selling moose pasture in Manitoba to someone living in Florida.
Yeah. Would people STOP SAYING the developer ACCIDENTALLY built on her lot. Prior to the house being built, the developer had tried to buy the lot from her, and she refused. it was DELIBERATE. I reckon that he thought if he just builds the house anyway, some easy judge is going to be nice to him and forcibly remove her from ownership of that land, and force her to accept whatever settlement the developer wants. THIS WAS DELIBERATE ! Plus we have deliberate theft and vandalism of 100-year-old trees from her land. Trees that she especially wanted to be there, for her particular use of the land. Triple damages wouldn't even come close to what this woman deserves.
@@KiwiCatherineJemma if they already tried to buy the lot and were refused, then that kills their "we got the wrong lot" argument. I hope her attorney mentions that little fact.
^^^^^ It just doesn't matter. No justification is needed. It was her lot, someone built an unauthorized building on it, she should just start renting it out!! Free House!!! Wheeeeee!
Because there are so many stupid technicalities and loopholes with the the law now, it makes more sense to be a criminal. Steal whatever you want and then just say it's yours because the owner wasn't touching it. Things are backwards and stupid now.
I really don’t see how she wouldn’t be entitled to have them pay to have the house demolished, pay her attorney’s fees, and compensate her for the time they occupied her property.
The builders don't WANT to rectify the situation. They want to keep the house that they built on the nicer lot so they can sell it for a lot more money. That's why they made this "mistake" in the first place. The plan was to buy a cheap lot, build on the expensive lot, then say "whoops! Our mistake. Here, let's trade" then they the nicer lot for the price of a cheaper one. They figured that she would cave in and play ball with them. Because she hasn't done that, they sued her in order to pressure her into an out of court settlement and take the lot that they want to stick her with. When that fails, they will resort to the usual "legal" stuff: Defamation, intimidation, misinformation, and filing so many injunctions and other legal requests that it will force her into bankruptcy, while they get richer. That's how the American justice system works in this day and age.
If anything other than a complete ruling in her favor including her attorney fees & travel cost to appear. The judge would need to be reviewed. Should be already for not throwing the case out.
No one should just assume that the developer made a mistake. How would we know? the judge should send a clear message by making the developer pay fully and overly for the 'mistake' it had made.
Lot belongs to the lady. People come along and build a house on the lot she owned. Sounds like a free gift to me. Since the developer did not build on the lot he was SUPPOSED to use, he owes somebody a new house. Why? Because he just gave the one he built away. The lot owner should formally trespass the developer and all of his subsidiaries and subcontractors. She should rent out the house and take the profit!!!
Don't be surprised if the ruling on this case favors the builder. I hope that the land owner has the financial ability to take it all the way to the SC. That would be a dangerous precedent set for land/home owners.
Something similar happened to my parents. In our case, the developer fixed the issue by trading lots. We went from a small corner lot to a much larger lot at the back of a cul-de-sac. What we lost was time. They had to start our house again from zero. All in all it worked out well for us. This lady is getting screwed in her deal.
@@carolynmerrick6377 They 100% did this on purpose so it would go to court and set a new precedent that would give them and pretty much every other developer carte blanche authority to pull these shenanigans in the future.
I think this sums up just how ridiculous this is: "Oh, I'm sorry I ran over your kids. It was a mistake. I meant to drive on the road, not on the sidewalk. Now those kid's parents should pay for the damage to my car."
It’s the developers liability and fault, she’s done nothing wrong! If she doesn’t want a different lot, she should not be forced to change lots, it is her right to keep the one she chose and purchased. She should either get to keep the house for free or the developers should be held liable and responsible for removing it or tearing it down if she doesn’t want it.
The company that was in charge of building the house on her property should be required to tear it down and pay her several hundred thousand dollars for her trouble
If judge allows developer to win, this will set a dangerous precedent for future property owners. Developers will build houses on lots on purpose and just take it to court knowing they can steal that land from them.
She has been damaged by their actions - they need to make her whole again. This lawsuit is straight out bullying. Intentional infliction of emotional distress = punitives!
They should offer her 2 lots but I doubt they would do that because it seems they just don't want to lose the money they put into that house. Pilau developer. They should be named.
She has every right to just keep her lot of land. I dont care what her reasoning is for not wanting to trade/sell it....the bottom line is that she should not be forced to trade/sell it.
Another example of a 2 tiered justice system, if they force her to settle by switching lots or any other offer. A rich developer screwed up, land on any Hawaiin island is big bucks. This isn't an immenient domain case, and the only one whos going to benifit is the big company who failed to do due diligence and have it surveyed before they built on a large project.
IDGAF about her reasons as to why she picked the lot that she own's!! The developer made a huge mistake and needs to remedy the situation by tearing down the home that should have never been built on her property in the first place! Sad that she is having to go to court over the developer's mistake.. Hand's down they should have just torn down their mistake from the get go. You just don't come in, Use a lot that has not been confirmed to be the right lot, build a home then offer her up another lot and expect for her to just suck it up and take it... No it does not work that way!
So, a developer can feign ignorance, take whatever lot they like best, then sue the owner to acquire the improved lot? I don't think so, if it were my property! I would bulldoze it and send the bill to the contractor!
The fact that the builder who screwed up, consume her, just shows so much that is wrong with this country. In any other country that lawsuit will be thrown out, and the builder be told to shut up.
They should disclose the name of the developer and cancel them to the point they pay it up and also be out of business because if they did this to her imagine how many they did it.
Reasonable attempts would be to remove the house and move it to the adjacent lot that she does not want and they tried to swap out with her. She chose her specific lot with certain factors that are important to her and are not necessarily available on the other lots. This is not her mistake, she shouldn't have to compromise.
anyone ever heard of the 4th amendment?? This needed to have been dismissed with prejudice upon the first hearing. The developer can not force someone to take something they don't want. Yes I personally feel this is about more money on both sides, however, It was her land to do with what she pleased. Who is the developer ???