Property owner stunned after $500,000 house built on wrong lot: ‘Are you kidding me?’
Property owner stunned after $500,000 house built on wrong lot: ‘Are you kidding me?’
The Title Company has to be sweating bullets right now. It's their whole job to prevent problems like this.
This crap happens (not that at it should and you're correct). I know someone in construction. They leaned a property that the title company just... didn't see the lien? Property was sold, The lien wasn't bonded off or anything either.
It got resolved but man, that would have been a mess. I think at that point the new homeowner is on the hook, and would need to get their due by going after the title company?
Yep, I have a good friend that ran into this issue on his home he bought 20 years ago. After 5 years of living in the home and making payments on it, it was finally discovered that there was no clear title to the property going back 60 years..............
It took another 2 years to clean it all up, but it required the township, county, and a state agency to get involved to make a couple of problems "just go away".
Title insurance.
If you are buying property, you can get insurance against this exact issue. If the title is found to be incorrect or a lien is on the property then the insurance company has to deal with it.
It's hilarious u think these shady developers hired a title company 🤣🤣🤣
If that house had a mortgage then the lending bank almost certainly required the use of one. If it had a construction loan it too probably required a title search and certification.
An attorney for PJ’s Construction said the developers didn’t want to hire surveyors.
they would have had a title company when they bought the land. Building a house on a plot they didn't own after that doesn't involve a title company. It was surveyors they apparently cheaped out on.
The Title Company did their job. They were the ones that caught the error.
Reynold’s attorney said they offered to swap her their lot right next door or sell her the house at a discount. But she has refused both offers. “It would set a dangerous precedent if you could go onto someone else’s land, build anything you want, and then sue that individual for the value of it,” DiPasquale said.
Good for her.
I'd also tell them to fuck off. The only reasonable option would be giving her the house (which she is now paying taxes on and requires work to make it usable because of the shit) or to bulldoze the thing (or uproot the house and move it; whatever gets it off the property) and get the lot back to its prior state.
Keaau Development Partnership sued PJ’s Construction, the architect, the prior property owner’s family, and the county, which approved the permits.
They also sued Reynolds.
The developer knows they fucked up and are hoping one of the people they are suing is poor enough or dumb enough to cave so they can recoup some of the massive legal cost they are looking at. Also suing the kids of a dead person is a little fucked up. Like "Hey sorry that your dad died but we can't sue him so we'll sue you instead."
The only reasonable option would be giving her the house
No need. The house is already hers if the laws over there work as they do where I live. Anything somebody else builds on your land becomes your ownership automatically. The developer knows this and tries to bully and cajole her into getting his money back or at least cut some of the losses.
The still vacant three-bedroom, two-bath house on a 1-acre lot in Puna’s Hawaiian Paradise Park is worth about $500,000. But it could cost a lot of people more than that as they head to court to sort it out.
Wow. A house is cheaper in Hawaii than it is in SoCal?
The housemate of my mother just sold her mother's house in Orange County. 2 bedroom and 1 bath, so smaller, for over $1 million.
Well, sure, if you don't own the land it's built on. :)
Unless you are a native Hawaiian, you can only lease the land for 100 years. Further, the cost of living in HI is way way higher than SoCal because everything has to be imported.
Source: ex-Navy who lived there and used to crash open houses in diamond head for snacks when he was poor.
Unless you are a native Hawaiian, you can only lease the land for 100 years.
That doesn't sound right. IIRC, one of the biggest reasons why Guam and the Marianas don't want to become states is that "land ownership only for natives" rules aren't allowed under statehood (for the same reason segregating against black people isn't allowed anymore, even though the circumstances aren't the same), but that ship has long since sailed for Hawaii.
Hawaii makes up for in fuel costs, power costs, food costs, etc etc.
Puna is a rural area, not comparable to Orange County.
Did you look up paradise park on maps? It's not close to any big city. Look further out from cities in California and you'll see similar prices, but of course you won't be as close to the ocean, but I guess in Hawaii you're always close to the ocean.
There are very few high paying jobs in Hawaii, and everything else costs twice as much. Even $500,000 is more than most locals can afford. Also, this isn't beach property.
That's the physical structure, not the land.
The fuck are they even suing Reynolds for? They fucked up; why does she have to pay for their fuck up?
They're just suing everyone and hoping some of it sticks.
Yup. It's a pretty classic legal move. They are obligated to do their due diligence for their client, and that sometimes means lawsuits that they know they won't win.
Reynold’s attorney said they offered to swap her their lot right next door or sell her the house at a discount.
But she has refused both offers.
“It would set a dangerous precedent if you could go onto someone else’s land, build anything you want, and then sue that individual for the value of it,” DiPasquale said.
Good call.
Pay up capitalist fucks
Imagine thinking she’s gonna get her land back IN AMERICA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Depends on the Lawyer and her money. Good enough of either and the developer is fucked since the title is sound.
Lol? She literally will. You don't understand America clearly
You think the company has money and says lol no never
But you don't understand the lawyer who wants that fuckin money. The company made the mistake, they're at fault there is no more discussion on it. Now it is up to the lawyer to milk it for all that it is worth.
That's the capitalism in there baby.
Sucks having to pay a lawyer to write up the dismissal motion, but it's not like you're getting anywhere in court with someone you have no fucking contract with.
She'd have hired a lawyer for the "damages" on her "mediation retreat" anyway.
Edit: I'd imagine Hawaiian locals don't have much sympathy for this absent California landlady complaining about property taxes and squatters btw
Not surprised but Steve Lehto did a video on this.
https://piped.video/watch?v=B1_A_3hKI-g
If anyone wants a practiceing attorney's take.
$500k? Where I live that would be a cardboard box
That's just the house, not the land. That's also a very rural area of a rural island. There are very few high paying jobs on that island, and even fewer in that area. Everything else on the islands costs twice as much as you pay.
I will preface this with this warning because I know in advance this will be a hot take
I think she's being unreasonable. No if ands or buts, I agree with the company that is suing her, this does not mean that I agree that they should have built the house in the first place; because it was not their property. However, they have tried multiple times to reach a resolution with her that would help both sides, she has turned down every offer so far stating she didn't want the house there in the first place.
This is a reasonable response, however let's go over what she's turned down so far:
This would be 100% understandable if it weren't for the fact that it is very clear that this was not their intention and also not what they are doing, they are suing the discounted value of it because they know they fucked up.
I agree with the company accusation, she is trying to take advantage of what was a mistake, if she truly felt the way that she feels she would bulldoze the lot or be trying to work with the company to have them pay for bulldozed costs, neither of which have been publically stated(not that the company would agree with bulldozing it). She wants to take advantage of this mistake and get a free 500,000 house out of it. I will be interested how this plays out in court, I'm not a lawyer but I hard disagree with this case being an open shut case like the practicing attorney video posted in another comment.
edit: to save people asking me for the eighth time the same question, yes I understand she has no obligation to propose a solution, but the fact that she has not done so also indicates towards the intent.
Nope she has every right. Trying to make things right doesn't make things right, don't fuck up and if you do especially as a company pay the fuck up.
I also dislike that her not wanting a property against her zodiac sign is supposed to suggest craziness. If someone said they didn't want a house near a cemetery or pork factory for religious reasons we don't question it, if anything we understand that. Let her have that space too all religions are goofy as fuck.
The zodiac sign thing sounds like an attempt at making her sound crazy. The company should have done better due diligence on such an important thing.
I'm not sure if you're saying that I'm suggesting that it's crazy or if you're just stating it so I'm responding, I'm not saying that it's crazy one way or the other I'm just stating what she gave as the reason for it
I think we can both agree that the valid outcome of this will be that the property will be bulldozed but the fact that she hasn't suggested is herself suggest that she might want the house there she just doesn't want to pay for it.
The development company is suing everybody, including the children of the dead guy who sold her the land, and she's the unreasonable party?
However, they have tried multiple times to reach a resolution with her that would help both sides, she has turned down every offer so far stating she didn’t want the house there in the first place.
She's not under any obligation to do so.
This was a business transaction, that was handled poorly. The onus is on the company selling the product.
Don't purchase victim blame.
I'm not purchasing victim blame I'm stating that they've acknowledged they fucked up they've tried to fix it she has not stated she wants it bulldozed nor has she accepted any of the Alternatives that they did.
Being as she was informed of this mistake last year, she has had ample time to either propose a solution on her end or accept a solution on their end she has done neither. Which is why I led to my conclusion that she's trying to get a $500,000 house for no cost
They have sued her because she's not being cooperative in any form, and then when she remained being non-cooperative they sued everyone else involved to make it so the legal system decides if she's being unreasonable or not
I think you’re approaching it a bit wrong. Even though it was a mistake, her property was altered without her permission. It was altered in a way that potentially made it more valuable, potentially could cause some headaches, etc. The cost of the materials is now a sunk cost for the builder, whether or not they can convince her to give them money.
So with that as the starting point, I think it is unreasonable to ask her to give any concessions. That is, she should not be forced to pay anything, and she should not be expected to give us her plot of land for a different one. The only outcomes the builder can reasonably expect are that they walk away losing the building costs, or that they walk away losing the building costs AND the demolition/restoration costs. They are better off if she wants a free house versus getting her clear land back.
Now, if she wanted to offer the builders some amount of money, that would be very gracious of her. I’m going to take a wild guess that a random sloppy real estate developer that sues others for their own mistakes isn’t seen as the most worthy of a gift of tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars.
She doesn't want the house, she has no obligation to pay for it or be given an adjacent lot. She is the one that should be sueing instead. She has every right to be made whole at the developers expense.
What I mean by that, is that since she doesn't want the house the developer is on the hook to demolish it and restore the land to its former condition.
Taking then adjacent land may not even be equitable. It could be less desirable, more difficult to build on, have different drainage, inaccessible without going through an easement. Any number of things.
The developers should also be in the hook for the increased property taxes.
By this logic, if a person is driving and looking at their phone, runs a red light and causes an accident, they shouldn't be held responsible if they don't give the person reasonable compensation. It wasn't there intent to cause an accident, it was a mistake. Asking for the property she paid for in the condition she bought it is reasonable.
You are also leaving out the part where she is now paying 10x if not more for property taxes on a house she never wanted and it sounds like the house is damaged due to squatters, something that the developer should have made sure wouldn't happen. That house probably isn't worth what they are offering it to her.
Also, you have no idea what she wants from a 3 minute video. All we know is what the developer offered. She may have asked for the house to be demolished and they said no because it would cost them more money to do so.
By this logic, if a person is driving and looking at their phone, runs a red light and causes an accident, they shouldn’t be held responsible if they don’t give the person reasonable compensation. It wasn’t there intent to cause an accident, it was a mistake. Asking for the property she paid for in the condition she bought it is reasonable.
They would be held responsible, just like the company would be held responsible regardless of the outcome here. If she had sued the company she would win that full force. But the lawsuit isn't for whether the company is at fault or not, the lawsuit is whether she is trying to exploit their mistake for her own personal gain. This article never talks about it but, other articles have the response from PJ Constructions Attorney
“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.
Also, you have no idea what she wants from a 3 minute video. All we know is what the developer offered. She may have asked for the house to be demolished and they said no because it would cost them more money to do so.
I have been reading into it because I have a vested curiosity on it, so I pardon if information is given that isn't in that article. I agree that not all information is on the table, she might have mentioned it and it was not provided in any of the articles I read related to this for some reason.
If she wants the house removed, her land restored and some money to cover her costs that is perfectly in her right. If the company offers her options A, B, and C she is under no obligation to accept them.
I'll not even try to respond to everything you just said, but no; she's not in the wrong here. It's get plot. She doesn't want any other plot only because someone else messed up and built something on her property.
She's should not be expected to comply and move to other land only because the developer doesn't want to face the consequences of their mistakes. What should be done is get the developer take the house down and built it in the right property.
edit: to save people asking me for the eighth time the same question, yes I understand she has no obligation to propose a solution, but the fact that she has not done so also indicates towards the intent.
Intent to do what? Are you trying to suggest she had a hand in this fuck up? Like she swapped signs to the lots loony toons style?
Please tell me what actions she took that caused this incident. It does not matter what the other parties want or think is reasonable, It does not matter that they think she is taking advantage, as they would have to prove she did something or failed to do something to instigate this issue (good luck with that).
Also as pointed out their intention does not even come into play here, neglect in this matter will have the same ruling.
"An attorney for PJ’s Construction said the developers didn’t want to hire surveyors."
Well there's your problem.
The answer here should be simple... the developers pay for demolition, removal of the house, and restore the property back to the condition where they found it.
They've sued everyone instead...
The lady that owns the property, the people who used to own it, a bank, an insurance company, I think a person that lives on another lot, the person who sold them the other lots.
In all likelihood the lawsuits are a stall until they can declare bankruptcy and start a new company.
But they can't just "restore" the property, it was full of mature native trees/plants and for bulldozed.
Also the reason they didn't "need" surveyors, was lots are clearly marked via numbers on telephone poles. They just read the numbers wrong. Which is even worse.
Oh God.....tree law....I never realized how much I missed this.
They couldn't afford surveyors but they can pay lawyers to file a half dozen fraudulent lawsuits?
I hope a judge smacks them.
The restoration part is where everyone involved is totally screwed.
Bold move Jim, let's see if it pays off.
There really should be a law that says a business can't sue someone and declare bankruptcy because it looks like they'll lose.
Until they declare bankruptcy and reorganize as JP's Construction.
Dear dumbass,
Please remove your abandoned property.
Love,
Attorney with the easiest job ever
Surveyors: Actually a really important job because without them nobody knows where the fuck anything actually is in any precise way, nor does anyone actually know they own the land they think they do.
They also offered to “swap” her for the lot next door. F that, they should offer to buy it from her for fair market value
Is that not what they are doing by offering an identical lot next to it that cost the same?
Or just give the property the owner the house for free in exchange for not suing and cut their losses. Would probably be cheaper in the long run, especially counting legal fees.
She doesn't want the house because it balloons the taxes on the property from a few hundred to thousands per year
First: she has a right to be made whole and it’s not her concern what the people who wronged her have to go through to do that.
Second: she never wanted a house. She had a special vision for the space, a space that has now been damaged.
Third: squatters have rights and she may not be able to evict them. Their rights may take precedence over hers here.
Wouldn't the property owner already own the house?
Or they do whatever the property owner wants because it’s their property. They don’t get to decide shit.
Why don't they just pick up the house, and put it over there?
Seriously, I've seen houses being moved on trucks before, would it be faster and cheaper to do that?
It looks like slab on grade construction, there's no moving those. The houses that can be moved are up on posts or over a basement.
The land has permanent damage and no trees genius.