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

[SammyChevelleTypeS3]

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

It makes one wonder ...... HOW? WHY? It sounds so stupid and such a collosal screw up it feels you almost had to try to make such a blunder with so many companies involved when it comes to property and real estate transactions etc....

 

[alarmguy]

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

This brings up another question. If it was sold title insurance should make the new homeowner whole.
I don’t see how the builder can be suing if somebody else already bought the house

 

[Hall]

Couple bits I read in another version of this story:

An attorney for PJ’s Construction told Hawaii News Now the developer didn’t want to hire surveyors.

Seems every judge that gets this case should point to that and say "you screwed up".

Reynolds rejected the developer’s offer for a neighboring lot of equal size and value, according to court documents. Most of the lots in jungle-like Hawaiian Paradise Park are identical, noted Peter Olson, an attorney representing the developer.

“My client believes she’s trying to exploit PJ Construction’s mistake in order to get money from my client and the other parties,” Olson told The Associated Press Wednesday of her rejecting an offer for an identical lot.

The gall of that attorney.... Nowhere have I read that the woman that owns the property initiate anything. She should respond with "remove the structure and return the property to the condition it was before building" just to prove she wants NOTHING extra.

 

[SC Maintenance]

Couple bits I read in another version of this story:



Seems every judge that gets this case should point to that and say "you screwed up".


The gall of that attorney.... Nowhere have I read that the woman that owns the property initiate anything. She should respond with "remove the structure and return the property to the condition it was before building" just to prove she wants NOTHING extra.

They owe this woman lots extra for the time and trouble they have caused. In the end they should have to pay all kinds of extra for all the time the lady's lot was unusable.

 

[wag123]

The reason that a civil lawsuit plaintiff sues everyone in sight is a legal concept called "joint and several liability".

Joint and Several Liability: Definition, Example, State Limits

Joint and several liability is legal lingo for a responsibility that is shared by multiple parties. A wronged party may sue any or all of them.

www.investopedia.com

 

[SC Maintenance]

The reason that a civil lawsuit plaintiff sues everyone in sight is a legal concept called "joint and several liability".

Joint and Several Liability: Definition, Example, State Limits

Joint and several liability is legal lingo for a responsibility that is shared by multiple parties. A wronged party may sue any or all of them.

www.investopedia.com

Except the owner is the victim, not a party to any of the developers damages.

 

[wag123]

Except the owner is the victim, not a party to any of the developers damages.

Plaintiffs will include victims as well. I have seen it myself, and this is an example.
The victim should get a good attorney and counter sue for damages herself. She should also include everyone in sight, just like the developer is doing.

 

[SC Maintenance]

Plaintiffs will include victims as well. I have seen it myself, and this is an example.
The victim should get a good attorney and counter sue for damages herself. She should also include everyone in sight, just like the developer is doing.

And this completely describes what is wrong with our civil (in)justice system.

 

[BMWTurboDzl]

This brings up another question. If it was sold title insurance should make the new homeowner whole.
I don’t see how the builder can be suing if somebody else already bought the house

Perhaps the closing attorney somehow messed up and proceeds are stuck in escrow

 

[ZX11Rebel]

It’s the Woman’s fault for buying the property in the first place! If Werner trucking can be sued for getting hit head on by an out of control driver crossing the centerline, then this is inline with the new “Liability” line of thought

 

[PandaBear]

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

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

We have some out of town lawyers suing small business owners for some accessibility (wheelchair) violation hoping to settle for several thousands instead of going to court. This kind of bullying tactic has won that lawyers lots of money. Most small business owners would just give in despite having proofs that their properties are compliance.

 

[BMWTurboDzl]

This brings up another question. If it was sold title insurance should make the new homeowner whole.
I don’t see how the builder can be suing if somebody else already bought the house

@SC Maintenance gave me a laugh an I think it's because I didn't provide any details. I read in another article that an agent informed the woman that the house was sold. Now I don't know if that means a closed sale or contract taken.

I was trying to think of a situation where that the developer thought they could sue which is why I threw out an error by the closing attorney where la sale closed but didn't find the money transfer was halted once the error was found. That scenario seems even more unlikely now that I've thought about it.

 

[SC Maintenance]

@SC Maintenance gave me a laugh an I think it's because I didn't provide any details. I read in another article that an agent informed the woman that the house was sold. Now I don't know if that means a closed sale or contract taken.

I was trying to think of a situation where that the developer thought they could sue which is why I threw out an error by the closing attorney where la sale closed but didn't find the money transfer was halted once the error was found. That scenario seems even more unlikely now that I've thought about it.

I have read a few articles but none say it was sold - only that it can't be sold and is in some sort of legal limbo.

The developer bought a dozen lots in that sub, and simply sound like they did not do a proper survey and built on the wrong lot. They offered to trade her for the lot next door, or sell the house to her at a discount, and now there claiming she is trying to extort them.

Hopefully the judge accepts the request for summary judgement on her countersuit and this is over by summer and dismisses the developers outright.


This article has a little more detail

$500K Hawaiian home accidentally built on wrong plot overrun by pooping squatters — as developer sues owner

Annaleine “Anne” Reynolds was “shocked” when a $500,000 home was accidentally built on her plot — and the developer slapped her with a lawsuit as the now-vacant home is overrun with poo…

nypost.com

 

[BMWTurboDzl]

I have read a few articles but none say it was sold - only that it can't be sold and is in some sort of legal limbo.

The developer bought a dozen lots in that sub, and simply sound like they did not do a proper survey and built on the wrong lot. They offered to trade her for the lot next door, or sell the house to her at a discount, and now there claiming she is trying to extort them.

Hopefully the judge accepts the request for summary judgement on her countersuit and this is over by summer and dismisses the developers outright.


This article has a little more detail

$500K Hawaiian home accidentally built on wrong plot overrun by pooping squatters — as developer sues owner

Annaleine “Anne” Reynolds was “shocked” when a $500,000 home was accidentally built on her plot — and the developer slapped her with a lawsuit as the now-vacant home is overrun with poo…

nypost.com

I pulled this from the article.

"During that time, a real estate developer had bulldozed the once-vegetation-rich lot to nothing, built a concrete home and sold it to a buyer within just six months — all without Reynolds’ knowledge.

She finally learned about the mistake in June last year, when a real estate broker called and delivered the bad news that he sold the home that was accidentally built on her property for $500,000."

This is what has me confused. What does the broker mean by "sold".?

On an aside my guess is the owner didn't have title insurance which is not uncommon from what I've seen over the years.

 

[zzyzzx]

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

There is a whole TV show where they move houses.

Massive Moves (TV Series 2010– ) ⭐ 5.9 | Documentary

Massive Moves: With Stan Robak, Talia Sargent. Whether it's moving a historic home off of an eroding cliff, or transporting entire houses over mountains and across lakes, no problem is too big for the movers and engineers featured in Massive Moves.

www.imdb.com

 

[zzyzzx]

I have read a few articles but none say it was sold - only that it can't be sold and is in some sort of legal limbo.

The developer bought a dozen lots in that sub, and simply sound like they did not do a proper survey and built on the wrong lot. They offered to trade her for the lot next door, or sell the house to her at a discount, and now there claiming she is trying to extort them.

Hopefully the judge accepts the request for summary judgement on her countersuit and this is over by summer and dismisses the developers outright.


This article has a little more detail

$500K Hawaiian home accidentally built on wrong plot overrun by pooping squatters — as developer sues owner

Annaleine “Anne” Reynolds was “shocked” when a $500,000 home was accidentally built on her plot — and the developer slapped her with a lawsuit as the now-vacant home is overrun with poo…

nypost.com

An attorney for PJ’s Construction told the outlet the developers didn’t want to hire surveyors for the land, where lots are identified by telephone poles.

 

[BMWTurboDzl]

This brings up another question. If it was sold title insurance should make the new homeowner whole.
I don’t see how the builder can be suing if somebody else already bought the house

Assuming the woman had title insurance. Which if should bought w/cash I suspect she did not. I wonder if the attorneys E&O would cover it assuming the sale had closed. My guess is that the sale did not go through and only a contract was taken.

 

[SC Maintenance]

Assuming the woman had title insurance. Which if should bought w/cash I suspect she did not. I wonder if the attorneys E&O would cover it assuming the sale had closed. My guess is that the sale did not go through and only a contract was taken.

Do you mean the title insurance of the lady that owns the land? Why would they have anything to do with it.

I have no idea if the house was sold or not, but all the articles say its the developer that hasn't been paid. So assuming they did sell it, the money has obviously not cleared. So presumably that sale can be undone.

The piece I would really love to know is how they actually found out. I wonder if the closing attorney or even the realtor for whomever was trying to buy it did their job and had it surveyed, and they were the ones that figured it out?

 

[Tharber]

This is why you always pay for a survey and title insurance. There is no excuse for paying for basic peace of mind.

TH

 

[JHZR2]

My thoughts too; it seems to be the norm.

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

This is what makes people do crazy things.

This is very true. A despicable tactic that enables thieving lawyers.