I worked with someone who owned a piece of land on a mountain here in Washington. He discovered after not visiting it for several years that someone had built a house on it. The title company that was used when the home builder received a loan to build had to pay out the damages. My workmate laughed all the way to the bank.
They ruined her land. So not only should they knock down and remove their mistake but they need to compensate her for damaging her property, lawyers fees & court cost, the increase in taxes and for her time plus pain & suffering for having to deal with this ridiculous negligence.
Hawaii is part of America. What we have learned since 2016 is if the crook is a billionnaire, then don't even bother. Laws don't applied to them. They have absolute imminity about everything.
How the F*** can the developer say they used their “best efforts” to build on the correct piece of property when at the same time also admitting to not hiring a surveyor.
@@jpnewman1688 No, it did by making the whole world against 'muricans, which is why now you cannot go as tourist to many parts of the world or you'll be kos. All so the US would end up like any other 3rd world country. 😂
I think that disbarring the lawyer might cut down on these. Kind of like how disbarring Jack Thompson drastically cut down on "video games caused this violence!" lawsuits
Personally I think she now owns that house built on her land so she should simply rent it out and use the house as an investment property...They cant demolish it or move it without her consent its on her land.
@@user-vk4el9oy6m If she accepts the house, she will lose the lawsuit. Because the home will benefit her. Have the developer remove the house. Make the land as it was. Sue for damages to her lot. That would be the way to go.
@@user-vk4el9oy6m she doesn't want a house, she wants a retreat. She should get alot. The developer has to undo everything they did. they might bargain with her to leave utilities there, if she wants it. They might try to bargain to modify the building to fit her dreams, but the court can not order that. she can demand that they put back plants on the land, to be a natural state as well. or the monetary equivalent. that would be expensive, because she would demand the plant be of certain age and height ahd health. She wants to make a retreat, she wants it to look natural, and not newly planted. She could sue for lost of use of land. That might be harder, since she wasnt using it, but it is possible. I just enjoy nature, and they took it from me. Maybe she can argue it delays construction of her dream . so they have to pay rent. which the value is hard to find. Then increase costs for what they did, like increase taxes, I would add malicious prosecution, because there is no way they not know they were guilty.
@@user-vk4el9oy6m I'm sure she could but she had other intentions for that plot and renting out a house isn't as easy as it sounds. Particularly when she's in a different state a rather long flight away, she would have to hire someone to actually care and look after the house for the renter.
Not only did they build on the wrong lot, they bulldozed plants/trees she may have wanted to keep. They need to remove the house and return the land to how it originally was.
@@pattiwackerastroglider9758 There has been a case where they had to pay to source a comparable replacement. I believe that you can also be compensated heavily to offset the damages. So no you can pay an arm and a leg to buy and move a 30 year old tree but you will also likely be responsible if that new old tree dies.
don't know if you were paying attention to the video but at the beginning it was stated that when the developer bought the land they wanted to buy back this woman's parcel so they could make a matching housing community. She said no. Then she found out a house was built on her land and they offered to buy it again and she said no.
She should do three things. 1) File criminal complaints against the Developer and the Builder for Criminal Trespass and Vandalism. 2) Sue them for damages. 3) She should get an eviction order.
Not only should the builder have to pay to have the house demolished or moved, but have to make the property fully restored to the condition before they started. As well as pay the added cost
If someone takes you to court and they lose, it should be mandatory for them to pay all your legal fees. Why should someone be out of pocket for thousands defending themselves when they were not guilty.
That's how it works in the rest of the Western world, you sue someone & lose you pay all legal costs & so it stops people launching frivolous lawsuit's. USA is different thanks to the 'America Rule' both sides have to pay their own legal costs regardless of outcome. This allows for abuse by the rich, you want their land well file frivolous lawsuit's drown them in legal fee's, force them to sell. Exactly what happened to that old lady in Hawaii recently when a developer falsely claimed part of her land & sued her. Thankfully she got financial help after her plight went viral & the developer's dastardly plans to bankrupt her & force a sale failed.
@@Furiouspenguin27 Perhaps, but that's exactly the OPs point. The innocent party shouldn't have to invest more time, money, energy, and aggravation into pursuing compensation for such ridiculousness - it should be automatic.
@@marilynnjefferson8525 I can see it now : "Oops. Now how in the world did that match get dropped and not be noticed? Such careless squatters, And, gee, no phones connected to the house. A shame my cell phone battery is dead. Well, I guess I will walk over to the fire department building and report the fire. The building is only 14.98 miles away. A lovely day for a walk, isn't it? Sure am glad those squatters got out in time......."
Unfortunately, the natural vegetation and energy are already destroyed. I've been through this, so I feel her pain. I hope her case works out in her favor. I had a corrupt judge, in a corrupt state, with a corrupt attorney, and I was locked down in the military under deployment orders. I didn't have a prayer to fight back, and they knew it. I lost everything. I hope Hawaii helps her. It's good that her story made the news.
I agree. They should decide if she wants the house on the property, if not, tear it down. The developer/builders will have to take the loss. They did not do a title search. That should be the first thing they do and their responsibility. Plus they should be responsible for any increased taxes or insurances for the home now being on the property.
I would guess it is to bully her into selling the land. I hope she wins big of course but I am not sure I could live there after all that evil going on.
I watched a news broadcast on this very case and got a few more details on it. The property lot in question is one of a number of under developed lots on an existing town road. The woman bought the lot in a tax auction sale back in 2019 and didn't do anything to the lot to develop it (well within her right to leave it as is). A company (I believe I heard the name Cal Development but could be mistaken) went in and purchased a number of undeveloped lots in this same area. One of which was the lot right next to the one this woman had purchased. The developer then contracted PJ Construction to build a dozen homes on the lots they purchased. And the error was only discovered when the house that was built on her lot was put up for sale and a deed search discovered it was built on the wrong lot. The developer reached out to the owner offering to trade lots. (The one right next to her own which is where the house should have been built on to begin with.) But she declined the offer. The developer then filed a lawsuit against everybody. They admit their main target is the construction company and in the news broadcast didn't clarify why they also were suing her in the lawsuit. But I suspect they name her in the lawsuit to pressure her to settle, trade lots, and end the fiasco. I suspect probably because if the working relationship between the builder and developer sours, then that will lead to other problems with the remaining 12 homes that were part of the original contract and both companies would see any profit decline as they fight out their disagreements in court. Although the events were from last year, the news broadcast was just from a few days ago so I suspect the lawsuit is a new element to this story. So who ultimately is to blame? Well, I'd argue PJ Construction made the initial error. But the developer should have also followed up and supervised the construction on scattered lots on the same road and subdivision to ensure a mistake like this didn't happen. As to whether a surveyor was used? That I can't say. But based on the layouts of the properties on roads setup in a grid format, I do suspect one probably was used. Somebody (likely the people clearing the lots) didn't realize the survey stakes were to the neighboring lots. Which would explain why the lot next door to hers didn't get cleared. They saw two survey stakes (one on each side of the property) and assumed in correctly they indicated that her lot was the one being cleared. Ultimately it comes down to some poor underpaid smuck didn't check the plans. They just saw survey stakes and started clearing land. At that point, everything else with the construction just followed the initial mistake. Nobody bothered to check that the cleared lots were the right lots.
@@zacharyspencer8321100%, trying to bully them into paying for their mistake. But I suspect they are just wasting even more time and money. The lawyer who filed this lawsuit should be disbarred and the construction company should be shut down.
@@linmal2242The framework for ridiculous things like this was in place long before you got your greasy hands on the word "woke." Those laws and the ones made now come from legislative and executive governing bodies who have been physically and socially isolated from society at large for decades.
I'd say the developer owes her for the increased taxes, the cost of removing the house, the cost of completely restoring the land, ALL legal fees incurred to her so far AND ×2 punitive damages plus interest and inflation on the whole ammount from the second the first developer employee set foot on her land.
And yet the people in charge will avoid this circumstances at all cost $$$$$ they need to also pay her for the time theyve wasted of her life to make calls and what not this is rediculous
this is hawaii. I was told that this crap happens all the time. They pressure people to sell their land. this is part of the reason people are suspicious of Lahaina. and the corruption goes all the way to the governor. I sent the news to my buddy in Hawaii, and they are familiar with the developer and the area.
I am a retired real estate broker from San Jose, California. Very close to where this woman lives. When you are developing vacant land you always hire surveyors. The developer was willfully negligent. This is absolutely ridiculous. She needs a judgment for both actual damages and punitive damages.
And why do you think Hawaiian law permits some private party to do what amounts to eminent domain? Here is actual Hawaiian law: §708-815 Simple trespass. (1) A person commits the offense of simple trespass if the person knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in or upon premises. (2) Simple trespass is a violation. And how about counsel fees? §607-14.5 Attorneys' fees and costs in civil actions. (a) In any civil action in this State where a party seeks money damages or injunctive relief, or both, against another party, and the case is subsequently decided, the court may, as it deems just, assess against either party, whether or not the party was a prevailing party, and enter as part of its order, for which execution may issue, a reasonable sum for attorneys' fees and costs, in an amount to be determined by the court upon a specific finding that all or a portion of the party's claim or defense was frivolous as provided in subsection (b). (b) In determining the award of attorneys' fees and costs and the amounts to be awarded, the court must find in writing that all or a portion of the claims or defenses made by the party are frivolous and are not reasonably supported by the facts and the law in the civil action. In determining whether claims or defenses are frivolous, the court may consider whether the party alleging that the claims or defenses are frivolous had submitted to the party asserting the claims or defenses a request for their withdrawal as provided in subsection (c). If the court determines that only a portion of the claims or defenses made by the party are frivolous, the court shall determine a reasonable sum for attorneys' fees and costs in relation to the frivolous claims or defenses. (c) A party alleging that claims or defenses are frivolous may submit to the party asserting the claims or defenses a request for withdrawal of the frivolous claims or defenses, in writing, identifying those claims or defenses and the reasons they are believed to be frivolous. If the party withdraws the frivolous claims or defenses within a reasonable length of time, the court shall not award attorneys' fees and costs based on those claims or defenses under this section. @@p12423073
@@p12423073"The woman is a relationship coach from Concord, California." 1:25 They could still live close to the woman despite the incident happening in Hawaii.
So the developer did not get a surveyor before construction started and is trying to bully her into selling them the land? This developer must be from New Jersey.
I was astonished to discover that Michigan does not require surveys when property changes owners. Had one done (first professional survey ever on family farm). Property line runs right thru my neighbors garage. I offered to give him the land. He SUED me, demanding not just that land but a new property line running south on my 40 acres, which would have given him about 5 more acres. I ended up giving him $1,000 to just quit. I'm sure his attorney cost more than that. Mine did.
I work in survey/real estate a lot and the number of people who absolutely refuse to pay for a surveyor is astonishing. There's currently an old man in my county who's been splitting lots off his old family farm and selling them, but some of them are more than 100 feet away from where he says they are. He finally had a survey done after he'd already sold half of them and a neighbor doing something similar just happened to have a survey done a few months later, and the two surveys have 200+ feet of overlap in some places, and to make matters worse the surveyors didn't catch that somehow, so it's turned into a giant cluster.
@@veramae4098I would have delayed the case as much as possible to cost them more money and then sued them for the cost of my lawyer so I had a lien on their property. But I’m also willing to spend money on being the bigger ass.
@@mur6822 listen to the beginning they offered to buy the empty lot. Then she got the call from a real estate agent saying that they accidentally built on her property.
My neighbor had this exact problem in Mar Vista California. She bought half of a lot and contracted with the bank to build a house on it. She said to the contractor that she thought it was the other half but they told her no she was wrong. So they put the house on the wrong lot. This meant that the bank didn’t complete the contract they signed. They were going to have to build another house on her lot. So the bank contacted the land owners who lived out of town and were unaware there was a house on their property. So the bank bought the lot and sold it to my friend for pennies if she would settle for it instead of building another house. She did and built a second house years later and had a rental next door for her retirement income later.
@@Nebulore 😭 you don’t want a landlord buy your own house then very simple. Not everyone is looking to screw everyone. You should be mad at companies like Blackstone. She not the one buying entire neighborhoods to rent out
If the judge doesn't immediately bounce this out of court and award the woman money to cover her legal expenses plus emotional distress, the Hawaiian justice system is beyond redeemable. Also, she should have the right to either keep the house standing and use as she sees fit or pay someone to demolish it and send them the bill.
She does not want the house. She wanted an empty lot for retreats or something. They offered to swap lots, but that is nonsense. She deserves the lot that is hers and no one else has any right to ask or demand she help them out by switching lots. They need to offer her way more and even then, she still has the right to say no. If she ultimately wants to stick it to them, she has every right. It is ridiculous that no one has been criminally charged.
@@_PatrickO Maybe something fair is to see how much her land was worth just before their blunder, double or triple it and give her that amount of cash plus a lot of her choice. It would cost them so much to restore her lot to its original condition that they'd be better off buying it at a very inflated price.
@@toxicpsion I agree and it should be her decision. But maybe getting a free lot and a very nice profit on her original lot might make it a little more palatable for her, leaves her with more than enough money to make the wellness retreat she really wanted. If that's unacceptable to her then yes, demolish the house and return the lot to its original condition at the idiot developers cost.
As an ex-land surveyor, ALWAYS HIRE A SURVEYOR if you're gonna build...!!! Not hiring a land surveyor can, and usually will cost you a ton of money...!!!
My response to the original phone call from the realtor would have been, “Did I give you permission to sell a house on my property? No, then I suggest you give the money back to the buyers and stop trying to sell my property.”
The attorney for the developer who filed the unjust enrichment lawsuit should be disbarred for filing a suit that is completely antithetical to a justice system and is a BLATANT attempt at weaponizing the court process against a victim.
It's an interesting question, whose fault it is that the obnoxious suit was filed. We'd also have to have a thorough conversation on where the line goes, if such a thing were to be implemented. I don't think there are many lawsuits that are deemed wholly acceptable by both parties. In (almost) every case, someone wins and someone loses. The loser can't always be disbarred. I think the major issue causing this is the american rules of lawyer fees. If you had to pay the opponent's fees upon losing, these kinds of lawsuits would head way down really fast.
Yeah, a threat of being disbarred for filing a suit would destroy our legal system. You have to have the right to file it without consequence, even if a judge laughs it out immediately, otherwise lawyers would refuse to take legitimate cases over fear that their opponent would try to take their job over claims it's was "ridiculous" and there'd be even less justice than what little is left in America.
@@tarrantwolf This is, on its face, frivolous. There's no merit, its obvious there's no merit, the case meets none of the requirements for unjust enrichment, and its the lawyers _job_ to know and understand that. The lawyer is failing himself, his practice, his client, the defendant, and the judicial system. There's a level at which negligence and incompetence demands action, and this is _clearly_ past that line. Failure to sanction or even disbar the lawyer in this will destroy the legal system in this nation, way more than failure to act ever could.
It's a negotiating tactic. "Roll over, or we keep suing, and you'll rack up more in legal fees and travel expenses than you can afford to pay." Some lawsuits amount to legalized extortion.
@@ThatOpalGuy It is easy to blame capitalism, but what is your alternative? The government controls everything? "We assigned a builder to build a house. A mistake was made and the home was built on the lot we reserved for your project. You will be assigned a different available lot. Case closed."
The problem is developers turn every thing into individual LLC's they may be able to disolve the LLC and walk away. Its all designed to avoid major liability.
@@mikehathaway2842 That doesn't really work if you've actually harmed someone and they have losses to incur. It might work if you go bankrupt but not if you have actual losses and they have the money to pay for it.
Right now, she should not only have that house removed, her property restored, and her taxes paid for the time she's had to deal with this mess, including lawyer fees.
It will be impossible for the land to be restored, at least during any of our lifetimes. The lady bought it for a natural retreat-- meditating in the middle of an empty dirt lot is not the same.
Also, punitive damages. If this goes to a jury trial, and she asks for punitive damages, and I was on the jury, I would agree to make the damages so high that it would literally make everyone who took part in filing the lawsuit against her heads spin. A lesson needs taught to the developer so hard that it not only deters them (and others like them) from not doing their job, but also filing such a frivolous lawsuit when they mess up this hard.
Also, probably graded the property, tore up palms and other natural vegetation. Yikes 😖 Can't believe they want to pay lawyers instead of paying to move the home & restore her property.
It's always the developer. Nobody *accidentally* builds a house on someone else's land. It's the developer trying to steal the land by lawfare. There's always a lowball offer to settle; less than the value of the land, but high enough to make going through the costly legal process not seem worth it.
That was their first tactic. The second tactic is to sue force and hope she accepts an arbitrated agreement to let them do what they have already done. Either way, they win.
The contractor should have to pay to move the home to the correct lot. The lot owner should sue for emotional distress and attorney fees. This is like being billed for something you didn't order and it was shipped to your address by mistake. We got a ton of stuff that the previous homeowner (we bought the home 9 years ago) ordered online and did not update their address. The company wanted us to ship the items to the former owner. We told them to come get the items but they live a thousand miles away.
@@boringopr4369 Yep, it is all Trump's fault. TDS is strong in this one. Maybe you should sue him for not paying rent for the space he occupies in your brain.
Thank you Mr Lehto. Your take was exactly what mine was when I saw this elsewhere. To make the landowner whole, the developer should pay not just her added financial burdens but also for removal of the house AND restoration of her land. She bought the property with the connection to her zodiac sign and I am sure she would build in similar accordance. Which is her right.
Steve - please keep this story and any updates on a front burner. I'm sure that many, many of us want to see the end result of this ridiculous lawsuit.
I watched the video on this. The lot was covered in a lush jungle prior to the build. The developer literally bulldozed the entire lot into a rectangle of dirt. Just that part of the story tells me she will get a pretty big settlement.
Even if the house is bulldozed, that won’t replace the beautiful foliage that had covered the property prior to the unwanted house being built. I saw pictures of the property before the house was built, and it was extraordinarily beautiful. Now the lot is ugly!
I can’t believe there are so many of these type of cases over the last several years or better. You’re right. This is as frivolous of a case I’ve heard of yet.
@@stanwardoshiro Good for you, keep it that way! HOAs are something even Germans look down upon as an unnecessary bureaucreatic hellscape of injustice and we are usually sticklers for rules and regulations!
Wasting all her money on attorney is clearly the objective, in the interest of forcing her to settle and probably sell. Yeah, that lawyer, and the company, should be sanctioned.
The developer most likely broke a number of regulations leading to building on the wrong plot. Getting rid of squatters is almost as bad as having to pay extra taxes.
Tell them they have 30 days to remove it and salvage whatever they can, after 30 days it will be buldozed and a bill will be sent for the full clean up.
This lady has a big problem. If this developer was so bad that they hired incompetent surveyors AND incompetent lawyers, chances are they will go out of business before she can get paid.
She's not the problem! She didn't do anything wrong ! She never agreed or asked for any of this and doesn't have to accept their carelessness. They need to remove the home, put the property back to its original state and pay all lawyer fees and property increases She incurred because of this as well as damages for stress.
Problem is she might lose the case then it would cost her hundreds of thousands of dollars. Technically she does not own the house🤷♂️. I had a lady next door to me have lumber removed from my porch because she claimed dirt was splashing onto her property from it. Then she wanted me to pay a $100 to her because that's how much it cost to hire someone to remove my new lumber from my porch!!!! I went to court and lost and the judge made me pay her the $100 plus the $200 I lost from the cost of the lumber🤬🙄. Never underestimate a judge's decision because they are not always right
She didn't have the cash to build her women's retreat, so she might not have the money to demolish the house and restore the land to code. She would have to hire lawyers to recover the costs of doing so as well.
@@willschultz5452do you know the laws for real? I know in Texas should would own the house. I can also tell you most states banks require landowners to sign a document giving them the right of trespass for removal should it come to it.
So, the developer knew, in advance, that she owned that plot and even reached out to her to try and purchase the land from her. @1:52 But then somehow, afterwards, claimed ignorance of where the house had been built? I may not be an attorney but I have stayed in a few Holiday Inn Expresses.
If the developer built the house on that lot on purpose, that would be malicious and not just negligent. I suspect doing this on purpose would be considered a crime and not merely a civil matter.
Yes, almost as though they deliberately built the house, thinking,'If I build on this lot which she won't sell to us, she will be forced to sell to use'
EXACTLY my thought. The person that bought it should get their money back from the developer & or the seller, and as for them, tough shit, you just gave her a house, free.
Nope. That house isn't free. It'll raise her property taxes, and it's ALREADY full of squatters that'll be almost impossible to EVER get rid of. Also, some people have really strong feelings about the flow, look, and feel of their home!
Here is what is truly said my Brother. You don't want to be judge which is why you would make a perfect judge. You have the knowledge experience and mindset to dispense real justice and give honest fulfilling judgments that are in line with the constitution and everything our legal system is supposed to stand for.
A house I used to own, I can home from work one day and a guy starts yelling at me from a neighbor's house, "How do you like you new gutters?" I'm like what? Huh? I looked at my house and indeed, brand new rain gutters installed. He says, "No charge" "My crew went to the wrong house." I said thank you. That was the end of it.
Glad it worked for you. I live in a hurricane area and do not want gutters because they blow off so easily. If someone installed gutters on my house, it would cost a bit to remove them and repair the damage.
@@raygrooms1736 Yeah, I could've made a big deal out of it but chose not to. It added value to the house which was sold. I no longer live there so it does not matter now.
@@Tim.Stotelmeyer.2984Since it would be an existing property before the creation of the HOA it would not be automatically subject to the HOA, not that the HOA couldn't file a fake lien but there would be a paper trail.
Steve, could the developer be guilty criminally of attempting fraud for entering into a contract to sell a property they knew they had no ownership of?
The builder has to pay the home owner not the land owner. He made the mistake, not her. I smdll fraud all the way around. Then sell the home to make back the money. SMH 😮
How were permits issued? Before the foundation is poured, it must be inspected. I forget what lot numbers were said, but if they were supposed to build on lot 114, the inspector should be inspecting lot 114, and notice this is lot 115. The building authority is guilty also. She needs to sue them.
That's what i was wondering, Don't they have to put in a septic/hook up to sewer/get power connected? These things do require an inspector to come out don't they? I know where I am at they do. But then again, maybe they were on solar, and the toilet backing up could be because they forgot to hook up to a sewage disposal unit.
The lots are identically sized and shaped. They are laid out along a long unpaved street in the forest. The inspector drove until he reached the pole #, saw the cleared lot and inspected that site. There are no individual mailboxes with addresses. Inspector should've had a plot map, checked which side of the pole the correct lot was on and caught the mistake. So should've the developer and the construction company, and they were first. The inspector's error is understandable, if not entirely forgivable. The other two parties' negligence is unforgivable b/c they had the basic duty to KNOW who owned which lot. Bulldozer operators only clear between marker flags at property pins. They don't survey. Whoever authorized clearing and marked the property set this in motion. It's their eff- up. This is why title searches and surveys are done every time land changes hands. Good idea when building in a forest, too.
Think about the precedent this would set if the developer wins. Build a house on someone else's land without their permission then take them to court and force them to pay for it.
Technically, under Kelo v. New London, since the house is assessed higher than the vacant lot for tax purposes, the developer could work through the town/county, take the lot under Eminent Domain, and pay the owner the original assessed value of the property- take it or leave it. (Yeah, there are supposed to be independent appraisals, etc., but this is the real world.)
@@ostlandr It makes me wonder if this wasn't the original plan. Real estate law can get pretty dirty. She didn't want to bargain, so they may have cooked this up if some weasel said it was possible. If she can't afford to pay a lawyer, then they could win if they kept delaying the game.
That's exactly what I thought, if they win, you could be on vacation and somebody sweeps in, knocks your house down, and when you get back? Here is 70k for the old house "sorry" we're now gonna build a 700k house here, now go away!
Yep if this works for the developer I'm going to cash out my 401 & start looking for some land I like then just build a house on it & then when the land owner finds out I'll just sue him & call it a day lol
This happened to my parents. If they had just asked for an easement it would have been fine since it was an old classmate of my Mom’s. Then the woman kept trying to talk to Mom but Dad wouldn’t let her since Mom had dementia by then.
This case is like a Lehto's Law bingo card. My question is if any trees on the property were removed, which would add a square for tree law. Absolutely unreal.
A couple of new channels have shown video of the lot before all this happened. Tons of trees and vegetation. She's going to get a massive pay day when this is all done with.
Restore the land also. The building site was made ready to be a building site. infrastructure, like plumbing and electric service installed. I might counter suits to builder, developer, county and state. Also the dogs, rats and cats trespassing.
Unfortunately, if you saw the video she took of that land back in 2018.... There is NO WAY they can replicate that "rain forest" type situation to it's full glory ....NO WAY They have "forever" changed that property, there is no going "back" to what it was....it wasn't simply some trees...it was jungle-forest like, unfortunately that is now LOST Especially when one considers the lots "around" her have since been "developed" as homes....the entire look and feel is GONE. (And in fairness, it'd probably have been impossible for her to maintain the "rain forest" of ONE acre when/if all the adjacent land 🙄 got developed, it would have likely been unsustainable .... However, she may have been able to 'save' a few exotic features....but what she had would not have been able to "survive" the modernization built, all around her. To a degree, her taxes were likely to go up anyway because obviously homes, roads/etc were built on previous more useful land ....that isn't where her 1 acre is now.... Not saying she wasn't/isn't effed....just saying the "improvements" in the area raises all taxes and can change somebody's formerly "farm land" into a desirable housing tract...whether that person wanted to participate or not...the land's tax value absolutely increases, house or not....once there ARE houses and roads that "22k acre" is absolutely worth more either way
She needs to be paid restitution for these sources of damage. -Value to remove the house -Value to restore the property to its original state -Monetary sum to cover time and emotional damages -Court costs -an extra bit for being jerks to the victim -Value of tax increases for the next 20 years
How many lawyers with a conscience are jumping to represent this woman for a percent of the damages... this is too obvious. Or is it when people can twist the legal system.
@@friorast999 Maybe it's a hail mary. Or a numbers game: For every one of you who has a lawyer in another state, there could be two people who don't have one.
In NYS we have exactly the opposite thanks to treasonous democrats. You can break US law and enter the country illegally and in NYS be given a driver's license which IS BENEFITING from their initial criminal act. Oh, and NYS has a "Motor Voter Law". Hmmm maybe Motor Voter is the reason.
Sounds like a bunch of people want to be liable for this woman's legal fees!!! Especially when you admit that you built the house on the wrong property!!!
The lawyer that filed this should be sanctioned
And put to work removing the house and restoring the land.
@@johannesnoneoftheabove9957 without assistance or power equipment.
Said sanction should include many hours of community service and a requirement for additional education all to be done before any further work.
@@ArticWolfv Armed only with a spoon. A plastic spoon...
Disbarred.
The builders illegally stole her property, then tried to commit fraud by selling the property, and then did a SLAP lawsuit.
I just looked that up! Interesting strategy but you seem to be absolutely right.
Sounds like this already happened to the natives.
Could it be argued they stole the property? I would think it would rather be a case of fraud, like someone trying to sell property they don't own.
Minor correction: the developers, not the builders (who were hired by the developers, and are claiming that the developers refused to hire a surveyor)
I worked with someone who owned a piece of land on a mountain here in Washington. He discovered after not visiting it for several years that someone had built a house on it. The title company that was used when the home builder received a loan to build had to pay out the damages. My workmate laughed all the way to the bank.
They ruined her land. So not only should they knock down and remove their mistake but they need to compensate her for damaging her property, lawyers fees & court cost, the increase in taxes and for her time plus pain & suffering for having to deal with this ridiculous negligence.
this is the type of logic that is missing in the case!
Yes please.
They need to remove the house and put land back to the way it was. Builder has zero rights here.
That and also reimburse her for all costs accrued during this fiasco.
Hawaii is part of America. What we have learned since 2016 is if the crook is a billionnaire, then don't even bother. Laws don't applied to them. They have absolute imminity about everything.
@redcat4321 She can simply deny access to the property and keep the house. Why demolish it?
@@harpitapShe wants to build a women healing retreat there. That’s why she wants to demolish it
@@harpitap because then she would be benefitting from it. to not benefit they would need to remove or demolish it.
How the F*** can the developer say they used their “best efforts” to build on the correct piece of property when at the same time also admitting to not hiring a surveyor.
AND previously offering to buy it from her........he knew.
"We eyeballed it, and it felt right."
When your best efforts are a result of stupidity.
I believe this is what they call talking out of both sides of your mouth.
Not a good commercial for the developer, anybody catch the name?
Lawsuit bullying should be a criminal charge.
So you think 🇺🇸 became a superpower by being NICE?? 😂😂
@@jpnewman1688 No, it did by making the whole world against 'muricans, which is why now you cannot go as tourist to many parts of the world or you'll be kos. All so the US would end up like any other 3rd world country. 😂
It is, SLAPP lawsuit
I think that disbarring the lawyer might cut down on these. Kind of like how disbarring Jack Thompson drastically cut down on "video games caused this violence!" lawsuits
🤷♂️ Very easy counter suit. She's lucky.
She needs to sue them for the increased tax liability.
and that's just the start
Personally I think she now owns that house built on her land so she should simply rent it out and use the house as an investment property...They cant demolish it or move it without her consent its on her land.
@@user-vk4el9oy6m If she accepts the house, she will lose the lawsuit. Because the home will benefit her. Have the developer remove the house. Make the land as it was. Sue for damages to her lot. That would be the way to go.
@@user-vk4el9oy6m she doesn't want a house, she wants a retreat.
She should get alot. The developer has to undo everything they did. they might bargain with her to leave utilities there, if she wants it. They might try to bargain to modify the building to fit her dreams, but the court can not order that.
she can demand that they put back plants on the land, to be a natural state as well. or the monetary equivalent. that would be expensive, because she would demand the plant be of certain age and height ahd health. She wants to make a retreat, she wants it to look natural, and not newly planted. She could sue for lost of use of land. That might be harder, since she wasnt using it, but it is possible. I just enjoy nature, and they took it from me. Maybe she can argue it delays construction of her dream . so they have to pay rent. which the value is hard to find.
Then increase costs for what they did, like increase taxes, I would add malicious prosecution, because there is no way they not know they were guilty.
@@user-vk4el9oy6m I'm sure she could but she had other intentions for that plot and renting out a house isn't as easy as it sounds. Particularly when she's in a different state a rather long flight away, she would have to hire someone to actually care and look after the house for the renter.
Not only did they build on the wrong lot, they bulldozed plants/trees she may have wanted to keep. They need to remove the house and return the land to how it originally was.
It takes thirty years to grow a thirty year old tree.
@@pattiwackerastroglider9758 There has been a case where they had to pay to source a comparable replacement. I believe that you can also be compensated heavily to offset the damages. So no you can pay an arm and a leg to buy and move a 30 year old tree but you will also likely be responsible if that new old tree dies.
@@pattiwackerastroglider9758 there are places where you can buy 30 year old trees.
@@volundrfrey896correct and I bet they cost a fortune too . Make them pay
I read an article about this where the natural plants were part of the reason she got that plot. And they removed them.
The fact that the developer offered to buy it indicates they knew she owned it.
She'll file a countersuit, and her attorneys will subpoena every damn record regarding this property, including mail, email, and orders to build.
It's as if you understood the basic point of the video, but somehow still have no clue when they found out they had built on the lot she owned.
don't know if you were paying attention to the video but at the beginning it was stated that when the developer bought the land they wanted to buy back this woman's parcel so they could make a matching housing community. She said no. Then she found out a house was built on her land and they offered to buy it again and she said no.
@@suedenim9208 It's as if you didn't pay attention to the facts at the beginning of the video.
@@zacharyspencer8321actually discovery will still happen with the developer suit. So she'll know then.
She should do three things. 1) File criminal complaints against the Developer and the Builder for Criminal Trespass and Vandalism. 2) Sue them for damages. 3) She should get an eviction order.
Agree, but this is Hawaii.
That's really not how the law works. The courts would have either told them to mediate a solution, or for the developer to remove the house.
@@donwyoming1936yet wouldn't it take filing an action to get the courts to decide anything?
Its not criminal trespass.
Unless she has posted signage and fences.
But the rest seems correct.
Not only remove the house but restore the land to it's previous condition. Send any increased property tax bills to the developer.
Not only should the builder have to pay to have the house demolished or moved, but have to make the property fully restored to the condition before they started. As well as pay the added cost
The property owner is lucky to have enough money to pay for legal costs and outlast the people trying to take away her land.
If someone takes you to court and they lose, it should be mandatory for them to pay all your legal fees. Why should someone be out of pocket for thousands defending themselves when they were not guilty.
That's how it works in the rest of the Western world, you sue someone & lose you pay all legal costs & so it stops people launching frivolous lawsuit's. USA is different thanks to the 'America Rule' both sides have to pay their own legal costs regardless of outcome. This allows for abuse by the rich, you want their land well file frivolous lawsuit's drown them in legal fee's, force them to sell. Exactly what happened to that old lady in Hawaii recently when a developer falsely claimed part of her land & sued her. Thankfully she got financial help after her plight went viral & the developer's dastardly plans to bankrupt her & force a sale failed.
This is a common practice in the US.
@@ZuulGatekeeperyou can sue for damages
She can roll their fees into her lawsuit demands.
@@Furiouspenguin27
Perhaps, but that's exactly the OPs point. The innocent party shouldn't have to invest more time, money, energy, and aggravation into pursuing compensation for such ridiculousness - it should be automatic.
The lawyer that filed against her should be disbarred . This should not be happening . Remove the home it’s her land
Yes, and return the property to its prior condition, no matter how difficult or expensive.
@@marilynnjefferson8525 I can see it now : "Oops. Now how in the world did that match get dropped and not be noticed? Such careless squatters, And, gee, no phones connected to the house. A shame my cell phone battery is dead. Well, I guess I will walk over to the fire department building and report the fire. The building is only 14.98 miles away. A lovely day for a walk, isn't it? Sure am glad those squatters got out in time......."
Unfortunately, the natural vegetation and energy are already destroyed. I've been through this, so I feel her pain. I hope her case works out in her favor. I had a corrupt judge, in a corrupt state, with a corrupt attorney, and I was locked down in the military under deployment orders. I didn't have a prayer to fight back, and they knew it. I lost everything. I hope Hawaii helps her. It's good that her story made the news.
I agree. They should decide if she wants the house on the property, if not, tear it down. The developer/builders will have to take the loss. They did not do a title search. That should be the first thing they do and their responsibility. Plus they should be responsible for any increased taxes or insurances for the home now being on the property.
@@deborahhopkinson5243 The energy has been destroyed? This woman was wronged, but that's kooky. 🤣🤣
Their lawsuit is to harass the landowner.
I believe the phrase you're looking for is "to bully the landowner".
I would guess it is to bully her into selling the land. I hope she wins big of course but I am not sure I could live there after all that evil going on.
I watched a news broadcast on this very case and got a few more details on it. The property lot in question is one of a number of under developed lots on an existing town road. The woman bought the lot in a tax auction sale back in 2019 and didn't do anything to the lot to develop it (well within her right to leave it as is). A company (I believe I heard the name Cal Development but could be mistaken) went in and purchased a number of undeveloped lots in this same area. One of which was the lot right next to the one this woman had purchased. The developer then contracted PJ Construction to build a dozen homes on the lots they purchased. And the error was only discovered when the house that was built on her lot was put up for sale and a deed search discovered it was built on the wrong lot.
The developer reached out to the owner offering to trade lots. (The one right next to her own which is where the house should have been built on to begin with.) But she declined the offer. The developer then filed a lawsuit against everybody. They admit their main target is the construction company and in the news broadcast didn't clarify why they also were suing her in the lawsuit. But I suspect they name her in the lawsuit to pressure her to settle, trade lots, and end the fiasco. I suspect probably because if the working relationship between the builder and developer sours, then that will lead to other problems with the remaining 12 homes that were part of the original contract and both companies would see any profit decline as they fight out their disagreements in court.
Although the events were from last year, the news broadcast was just from a few days ago so I suspect the lawsuit is a new element to this story.
So who ultimately is to blame? Well, I'd argue PJ Construction made the initial error. But the developer should have also followed up and supervised the construction on scattered lots on the same road and subdivision to ensure a mistake like this didn't happen. As to whether a surveyor was used? That I can't say. But based on the layouts of the properties on roads setup in a grid format, I do suspect one probably was used. Somebody (likely the people clearing the lots) didn't realize the survey stakes were to the neighboring lots. Which would explain why the lot next door to hers didn't get cleared. They saw two survey stakes (one on each side of the property) and assumed in correctly they indicated that her lot was the one being cleared. Ultimately it comes down to some poor underpaid smuck didn't check the plans. They just saw survey stakes and started clearing land. At that point, everything else with the construction just followed the initial mistake. Nobody bothered to check that the cleared lots were the right lots.
@@zacharyspencer8321100%, trying to bully them into paying for their mistake. But I suspect they are just wasting even more time and money. The lawyer who filed this lawsuit should be disbarred and the construction company should be shut down.
Going ot trial can take a long time. Renting a bulldozer and demolishing the house is quicker. What would they sue her for then ?
Any competent judge should award the house to the land owner and let the people who built the house sue the developer for their money back.
That is reasonable but woke America isn't reasonable anymore.
@@linmal2242The framework for ridiculous things like this was in place long before you got your greasy hands on the word "woke." Those laws and the ones made now come from legislative and executive governing bodies who have been physically and socially isolated from society at large for decades.
She doesn't want it. She wants it removed.
@@linmal2242 "woke america" lmfao. Gtfo of here
@@ohheyemmi To guys like him, everything is the fault of "woke." If he stubs his toe getting out of bed in the morning, he curses "woke."
The developer is attempting to defraud the property owner.
I'd say the developer owes her for the increased taxes, the cost of removing the house, the cost of completely restoring the land, ALL legal fees incurred to her so far AND ×2 punitive damages plus interest and inflation on the whole ammount from the second the first developer employee set foot on her land.
That would be an ideal precedent.
I would double that because of what she has gone through and to send a message to other assholes like this company and their lawyer.
And yet the people in charge will avoid this circumstances at all cost $$$$$ they need to also pay her for the time theyve wasted of her life to make calls and what not this is rediculous
And add past rent value from the second they stepped on the land to the time everything is settled and paid to the land owners complete satisfaction.
If the judge does not force the developer to cover her legal fees, that judge should be removed.
Is one thing we have learned in the last few years. You can't swing a 3 foot stick without hitting a crooked judge. A crooked lawyer, Or politician.
this is hawaii. I was told that this crap happens all the time. They pressure people to sell their land. this is part of the reason people are suspicious of Lahaina. and the corruption goes all the way to the governor. I sent the news to my buddy in Hawaii, and they are familiar with the developer and the area.
Squatters moving into the unwanted home was the icing on the cake!
Icing on the seat . Squatting and missed .
The developer and their lawyer should be arrested for fraud. They belong in prison for 100 years.
Not a bit over the top. Naw, not a bit.
Developer built on the wrong plot and should remove it at no cost to the plot owner.
@@sandiegan3788 And restore the land.
if we do that the prisons would be overcrowded
I am a retired real estate broker from San Jose, California. Very close to where this woman lives. When you are developing vacant land you always hire surveyors. The developer was willfully negligent. This is absolutely ridiculous. She needs a judgment for both actual damages and punitive damages.
It happened in Hawaii, not Bay Area.
@@p12423073The owner lives in the Bay Area.
And why do you think Hawaiian law permits some private party to do what amounts to eminent domain? Here is actual Hawaiian law: §708-815 Simple trespass. (1) A person commits the offense of simple trespass if the person knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in or upon premises.
(2) Simple trespass is a violation.
And how about counsel fees?
§607-14.5 Attorneys' fees and costs in civil actions. (a) In any civil action in this State where a party seeks money damages or injunctive relief, or both, against another party, and the case is subsequently decided, the court may, as it deems just, assess against either party, whether or not the party was a prevailing party, and enter as part of its order, for which execution may issue, a reasonable sum for attorneys' fees and costs, in an amount to be determined by the court upon a specific finding that all or a portion of the party's claim or defense was frivolous as provided in subsection (b).
(b) In determining the award of attorneys' fees and costs and the amounts to be awarded, the court must find in writing that all or a portion of the claims or defenses made by the party are frivolous and are not reasonably supported by the facts and the law in the civil action. In determining whether claims or defenses are frivolous, the court may consider whether the party alleging that the claims or defenses are frivolous had submitted to the party asserting the claims or defenses a request for their withdrawal as provided in subsection (c). If the court determines that only a portion of the claims or defenses made by the party are frivolous, the court shall determine a reasonable sum for attorneys' fees and costs in relation to the frivolous claims or defenses.
(c) A party alleging that claims or defenses are frivolous may submit to the party asserting the claims or defenses a request for withdrawal of the frivolous claims or defenses, in writing, identifying those claims or defenses and the reasons they are believed to be frivolous. If the party withdraws the frivolous claims or defenses within a reasonable length of time, the court shall not award attorneys' fees and costs based on those claims or defenses under this section. @@p12423073
@@p12423073 The woman LIVES in Concord, California which is in the Bay Area. But she ALSO owns an acre of land in Hawaii.
@@p12423073"The woman is a relationship coach from Concord, California." 1:25
They could still live close to the woman despite the incident happening in Hawaii.
So the developer did not get a surveyor before construction started and is trying to bully her into selling them the land? This developer must be from New Jersey.
I was astonished to discover that Michigan does not require surveys when property changes owners.
Had one done (first professional survey ever on family farm). Property line runs right thru my neighbors garage.
I offered to give him the land.
He SUED me, demanding not just that land but a new property line running south on my 40 acres, which would have given him about 5 more acres.
I ended up giving him $1,000 to just quit. I'm sure his attorney cost more than that. Mine did.
It's a scam
I work in survey/real estate a lot and the number of people who absolutely refuse to pay for a surveyor is astonishing. There's currently an old man in my county who's been splitting lots off his old family farm and selling them, but some of them are more than 100 feet away from where he says they are. He finally had a survey done after he'd already sold half of them and a neighbor doing something similar just happened to have a survey done a few months later, and the two surveys have 200+ feet of overlap in some places, and to make matters worse the surveyors didn't catch that somehow, so it's turned into a giant cluster.
@@veramae4098I would have delayed the case as much as possible to cost them more money and then sued them for the cost of my lawyer so I had a lien on their property. But I’m also willing to spend money on being the bigger ass.
Why NJ?
If they approached her to buy her land how can they say they built it without knowing it was her's?
They didn't offer to buy until it was built...listen to the beginning.
@@mur6822 listen to the beginning they offered to buy the empty lot. Then she got the call from a real estate agent saying that they accidentally built on her property.
My neighbor had this exact problem in Mar Vista California. She bought half of a lot and contracted with the bank to build a house on it. She said to the contractor that she thought it was the other half but they told her no she was wrong. So they put the house on the wrong lot. This meant that the bank didn’t complete the contract they signed. They were going to have to build another house on her lot. So the bank contacted the land owners who lived out of town and were unaware there was a house on their property. So the bank bought the lot and sold it to my friend for pennies if she would settle for it instead of building another house. She did and built a second house years later and had a rental next door for her retirement income later.
wow so damn lucky good for them.
What a shame that this turned her into the ultimate villain in the end-a landlord.
@@Nebulore 😭 you don’t want a landlord buy your own house then very simple. Not everyone is looking to screw everyone. You should be mad at companies like Blackstone. She not the one buying entire neighborhoods to rent out
If the judge doesn't immediately bounce this out of court and award the woman money to cover her legal expenses plus emotional distress, the Hawaiian justice system is beyond redeemable. Also, she should have the right to either keep the house standing and use as she sees fit or pay someone to demolish it and send them the bill.
She should also be awarded the house for her to choose what she wants to do with it.
She does not want the house. She wanted an empty lot for retreats or something. They offered to swap lots, but that is nonsense. She deserves the lot that is hers and no one else has any right to ask or demand she help them out by switching lots. They need to offer her way more and even then, she still has the right to say no. If she ultimately wants to stick it to them, she has every right.
It is ridiculous that no one has been criminally charged.
@@_PatrickO Maybe something fair is to see how much her land was worth just before their blunder, double or triple it and give her that amount of cash plus a lot of her choice. It would cost them so much to restore her lot to its original condition that they'd be better off buying it at a very inflated price.
@@I.am.Sarah.she already has the lot of her choice, she could demand they return it to as close to previous condition, at their cost.
@@toxicpsion I agree and it should be her decision. But maybe getting a free lot and a very nice profit on her original lot might make it a little more palatable for her, leaves her with more than enough money to make the wellness retreat she really wanted.
If that's unacceptable to her then yes, demolish the house and return the lot to its original condition at the idiot developers cost.
They bulldozed the very things she loved about the land. You can't fix that.
sounds like the builder owes the land owner massive sums
As an ex-land surveyor, ALWAYS HIRE A SURVEYOR if you're gonna build...!!! Not hiring a land surveyor can, and usually will cost you a ton of money...!!!
My response to the original phone call from the realtor would have been, “Did I give you permission to sell a house on my property? No, then I suggest you give the money back to the buyers and stop trying to sell my property.”
The attorney for the developer who filed the unjust enrichment lawsuit should be disbarred for filing a suit that is completely antithetical to a justice system and is a BLATANT attempt at weaponizing the court process against a victim.
It's an interesting question, whose fault it is that the obnoxious suit was filed. We'd also have to have a thorough conversation on where the line goes, if such a thing were to be implemented. I don't think there are many lawsuits that are deemed wholly acceptable by both parties.
In (almost) every case, someone wins and someone loses. The loser can't always be disbarred. I think the major issue causing this is the american rules of lawyer fees. If you had to pay the opponent's fees upon losing, these kinds of lawsuits would head way down really fast.
Yeah, a threat of being disbarred for filing a suit would destroy our legal system. You have to have the right to file it without consequence, even if a judge laughs it out immediately, otherwise lawyers would refuse to take legitimate cases over fear that their opponent would try to take their job over claims it's was "ridiculous" and there'd be even less justice than what little is left in America.
@@tarrantwolf This is, on its face, frivolous. There's no merit, its obvious there's no merit, the case meets none of the requirements for unjust enrichment, and its the lawyers _job_ to know and understand that. The lawyer is failing himself, his practice, his client, the defendant, and the judicial system. There's a level at which negligence and incompetence demands action, and this is _clearly_ past that line. Failure to sanction or even disbar the lawyer in this will destroy the legal system in this nation, way more than failure to act ever could.
@@JesterMotley it's a slippery slope to start going after lawyers
Must be one of Trump's lawyers.
The builder and his lawyer are so incredibly wrong. Their only recourse is a ridiculous lawsuit.
It's a negotiating tactic. "Roll over, or we keep suing, and you'll rack up more in legal fees and travel expenses than you can afford to pay." Some lawsuits amount to legalized extortion.
And once again, America's most dishonest and despicable professionals, lawyers would walk away with more money.
welcome to late stage capitalism
@@ThatOpalGuy It is easy to blame capitalism, but what is your alternative? The government controls everything? "We assigned a builder to build a house. A mistake was made and the home was built on the lot we reserved for your project. You will be assigned a different available lot. Case closed."
@@EinsteinsHair well, that is your fantasy.
The city should not have approved the building permit.
County Permits was not deceived & did not grant permit for wrong lot. Builder followed approved plans with materials delivered to wrong lot.
Boy, it sounds like the lawyers for the construction company do not know the law….and hope that everybody else does not know the law!
She should have ordered the house demolished. Then sent the bad guys the bill.. see how that goes.
Then sued for damages, as the initial condition of the lot was altered without permission.
Demolished AND returned to its pre construction state. Were there trees, a pond, etc?
The problem is developers turn every thing into individual LLC's they may be able to disolve the LLC and walk away. Its all designed to avoid major liability.
I believe it has happened before as I remember it but can't seem to fully recall it. They sued the owner of the land and they lost horribly 😂
@@mikehathaway2842
That doesn't really work if you've actually harmed someone and they have losses to incur. It might work if you go bankrupt but not if you have actual losses and they have the money to pay for it.
Right now, she should not only have that house removed, her property restored, and her taxes paid for the time she's had to deal with this mess, including lawyer fees.
And don't forget, all the stress and emotional grief she has had to put up with, so those damages 3X to compensate.
@Baughbe I don't know about Hawaii but other states have crazy tree laws. I wonder if any were on the property.
Scamabambam
It will be impossible for the land to be restored, at least during any of our lifetimes. The lady bought it for a natural retreat-- meditating in the middle of an empty dirt lot is not the same.
Also, punitive damages. If this goes to a jury trial, and she asks for punitive damages, and I was on the jury, I would agree to make the damages so high that it would literally make everyone who took part in filing the lawsuit against her heads spin. A lesson needs taught to the developer so hard that it not only deters them (and others like them) from not doing their job, but also filing such a frivolous lawsuit when they mess up this hard.
Steve is showing emotion like I have rarely seen in his videos. He seems genuinely upset and down right mad about this. Never piss off a lawyer.
Also, probably graded the property, tore up palms and other natural vegetation. Yikes 😖 Can't believe they want to pay lawyers instead of paying to move the home & restore her property.
The developer should have its business license suspended permanently. The women deserves whatever she is asking for.
Dont want him to go out of business until she gets her money.
That will not be in her favour, developer will declare bankrupcy, and she may be waiting for a while if not forever for your money
Just like the lawyer should have their license to practice revoked.
Agreed !!!!!!!!
You don't need a license to develop real estate.
It's always the developer. Nobody *accidentally* builds a house on someone else's land. It's the developer trying to steal the land by lawfare. There's always a lowball offer to settle; less than the value of the land, but high enough to make going through the costly legal process not seem worth it.
"Lawfare", what a sad joke America has become.
Hence the lawsuit. A blatant threat to keep her tied up in court for years, racking up tons of legal fees and travel costs.
That was their first tactic. The second tactic is to sue force and hope she accepts an arbitrated agreement to let them do what they have already done. Either way, they win.
Third tactic will be to threaten to have the county seize it under eminent domain. :(
It is a question, it can be a construction crew mistake, if they had proper paperwork from the developer. Or at least partial blame
The contractor should have to pay to move the home to the correct lot. The lot owner should sue for emotional distress and attorney fees. This is like being billed for something you didn't order and it was shipped to your address by mistake. We got a ton of stuff that the previous homeowner (we bought the home 9 years ago) ordered online and did not update their address. The company wanted us to ship the items to the former owner. We told them to come get the items but they live a thousand miles away.
If it didn't start that way, this has definitely turned into an attempt to scam the property owner.
If it were me, I would contact the local fire department and ask them if they wanted to perform a controlled practice burn.
You'd still need to clean up the debris, but that sounds like a decent start to the job
Absolutely incredible.
Make a mistake and blame it on someone else.
Who knows WHAT judges will do these days.
Sounds like Donald Trump make a mistake blame it on someone else😂🤣🤪
Considering it's California the judge will probably steal her land and charge her for it
@@boringopr4369 And how about that ole' Joe who can't even get a murder victim's name right...lol
@@boringopr4369 Yep, it is all Trump's fault. TDS is strong in this one. Maybe you should sue him for not paying rent for the space he occupies in your brain.
@@PopsSinging getting a murder victim's name wrong isn't illegal.
Steve,,, KEEP US POSTED ON THIS ONE,, I know you will !!This is a good one !!
Thank you Mr Lehto. Your take was exactly what mine was when I saw this elsewhere. To make the landowner whole, the developer should pay not just her added financial burdens but also for removal of the house AND restoration of her land. She bought the property with the connection to her zodiac sign and I am sure she would build in similar accordance. Which is her right.
The lawyer who took this case should have his license pulled.
Steve - please keep this story and any updates on a front burner. I'm sure that many, many of us want to see the end result of this ridiculous lawsuit.
durn tootin we do!
The Developer needs to own THEIR mistake!
First time I have seen you this fired up!
I watched the video on this. The lot was covered in a lush jungle prior to the build. The developer literally bulldozed the entire lot into a rectangle of dirt. Just that part of the story tells me she will get a pretty big settlement.
Should.
Destruction of native vegetation in hawaii is a big deal. Turns it into a criminal act.
Even if the house is bulldozed, that won’t replace the beautiful foliage that had covered the property prior to the unwanted house being built. I saw pictures of the property before the house was built, and it was extraordinarily beautiful. Now the lot is ugly!
If trees were removed, I wonder if she can sue for their value.
@@JimLambier Certainly in other states.
@@JimLambierin another of Steve's videos he talks about the law in one state granting triple the value of a tree for wrongfully removing it.
I can’t believe there are so many of these type of cases over the last several years or better. You’re right. This is as frivolous of a case I’ve heard of yet.
My opinion on what should be done to this developer and their lawyer would surely breech UA-cam’s community guidelines.
Next:
She's behind $47 on her HOA fees to an HOA she never joined, and it's been foreclosed and sold for $1,400.
To a member of the HOA board
No HOA where her lot is at, because I live in the same subdivision and there is no HOA here.
@@stanwardoshiro Good for you, keep it that way! HOAs are something even Germans look down upon as an unnecessary bureaucreatic hellscape of injustice and we are usually sticklers for rules and regulations!
10 $ late on taxes too, so now the HOA and the city will fight who gets tp steal the lot.
@@stanwardoshiro get the needle on your humor meter adjusted
Wasting all her money on attorney is clearly the objective, in the interest of forcing her to settle and probably sell. Yeah, that lawyer, and the company, should be sanctioned.
The builder should move the house to a property that THEIR own. And restore it to its original state.
She should counter-sue the developer for removal of the house AND restoration of the land.
We will need a follow up video!!
Definitely!!❤
CRIMINAL CHARGES for the attempted theft of land and FRAUDULENT claims.
Their efforts to verify the correct lot was woefully incompetent and lacking.
The developer most likely broke a number of regulations leading to building on the wrong plot.
Getting rid of squatters is almost as bad as having to pay extra taxes.
The court should give the landowner the option of compelling the builders to remove the structure and fully remediate the land, and award her costs.
I agree. Get hi-res satellite photos and make them put it back exactly as it was.
Tell them they have 30 days to remove it and salvage whatever they can, after 30 days it will be buldozed and a bill will be sent for the full clean up.
And then the bill will be unpaid and years of litigation ensued while she is out of land and out of money ?
Yup. Maybe not exactly like that.
, but Hawaii will have procedures. Follow them. Get a lawyer.
Plus restoration of property back to the way it was.
I mean it might be cheaper to demolish the house and pay less in taxes. Especially if you can burn it down with the local fire department.
Thanks for sharing this insanity
This lady has a big problem. If this developer was so bad that they hired incompetent surveyors AND incompetent lawyers, chances are they will go out of business before she can get paid.
She's not the problem! She didn't do anything wrong ! She never agreed or asked for any of this and doesn't have to accept their carelessness. They need to remove the home, put the property back to its original state and pay all lawyer fees and property increases She incurred because of this as well as damages for stress.
Just send the bulldozers and take the house down! Its her land! Let them take her to court and lose!
File for an EPA open burning permit, notify the local fire departments that they now have a "practice house" and turn it over to the local FD's!
Problem is she might lose the case then it would cost her hundreds of thousands of dollars. Technically she does not own the house🤷♂️. I had a lady next door to me have lumber removed from my porch because she claimed dirt was splashing onto her property from it. Then she wanted me to pay a $100 to her because that's how much it cost to hire someone to remove my new lumber from my porch!!!! I went to court and lost and the judge made me pay her the $100 plus the $200 I lost from the cost of the lumber🤬🙄. Never underestimate a judge's decision because they are not always right
She didn't have the cash to build her women's retreat, so she might not have the money to demolish the house and restore the land to code. She would have to hire lawyers to recover the costs of doing so as well.
@@willschultz5452do you know the laws for real? I know in Texas should would own the house. I can also tell you most states banks require landowners to sign a document giving them the right of trespass for removal should it come to it.
@@willschultz5452 It sounds like maybe the woman had a very private meeting in chambers with the judge.
"the only thing we're missing is civil asset forfiture and a home owners association." Sweet!
Give it time
You got to sue The Builder, not The land owner! She needs to claim the House now!
Oh no! Their f**k up, they put it right, and compensate her for the stress caused by them.
So, the developer knew, in advance, that she owned that plot and even reached out to her to try and purchase the land from her. @1:52
But then somehow, afterwards, claimed ignorance of where the house had been built?
I may not be an attorney but I have stayed in a few Holiday Inn Expresses.
Yeah. As we said out home, "That dog won't hunt."
If the developer built the house on that lot on purpose, that would be malicious and not just negligent. I suspect doing this on purpose would be considered a crime and not merely a civil matter.
one hand does'nt t always know what the other hand is doing
@@damnwereinatightspot Yeah, it wouldn't be the first time that it was not a malicious mistake. But no matter what it's 5000% their problem.
Yes, almost as though they deliberately built the house, thinking,'If I build on this lot which she won't sell to us, she will be forced to sell to use'
You built a house on my property?
...thanks for the free house.
EXACTLY my thought. The person that bought it should get their money back from the developer & or the seller, and as for them, tough shit, you just gave her a house, free.
Although not really 'free'. I am sure there are tax implications.
Nope. That house isn't free. It'll raise her property taxes, and it's ALREADY full of squatters that'll be almost impossible to EVER get rid of.
Also, some people have really strong feelings about the flow, look, and feel of their home!
Weren't they dealing in stolen property selling a house and land they didn't own? Or at least commit fraud ?
And she didn't want a house... she wanted a healing retreat.
Here is what is truly said my Brother. You don't want to be judge which is why you would make a perfect judge. You have the knowledge experience and mindset to dispense real justice and give honest fulfilling judgments that are in line with the constitution and everything our legal system is supposed to stand for.
Lady: Thanks for the house, *bye*
Lawyer who filed this should be disbarred
A house I used to own, I can home from work one day and a guy starts yelling at me from a neighbor's house, "How do you like you new gutters?" I'm like what? Huh? I looked at my house and indeed, brand new rain gutters installed. He says, "No charge" "My crew went to the wrong house." I said thank you. That was the end of it.
That's a nice bonus & it ended well. Glad to hear it 🙂
Talked with a painter painted the wrong house had to repaint it to the previous color then go to the house he was supposed to have painted, next door.
Glad it worked for you. I live in a hurricane area and do not want gutters because they blow off so easily. If someone installed gutters on my house, it would cost a bit to remove them and repair the damage.
@@raygrooms1736 Yeah, I could've made a big deal out of it but chose not to. It added value to the house which was sold. I no longer live there so it does not matter now.
I would tell the builder/developer "Thank you" for building me such a nice house and move in.
Best efforts were appauling. Sue them all.
"The only thing missing from this story is civil asset forfeiture and an HOA... " this has all the makings of a tragic comedy...
The developer probably will setup an HOA and put a lien on her property for not paying fees then foreclose on the lien.
@Tim.Stotelmeyer.2984 As crazy as this case is, an upcoming HSA isn't far fetched!!
Best I can do is an HOA doing civil assent forfeiture, but it's in another county.
@@Tim.Stotelmeyer.2984Since it would be an existing property before the creation of the HOA it would not be automatically subject to the HOA, not that the HOA couldn't file a fake lien but there would be a paper trail.
No HOA in our subdivision (I live in the same subdivision as that lady’s lot).
Steve, could the developer be guilty criminally of attempting fraud for entering into a contract to sell a property they knew they had no ownership of?
The builder has to pay the home owner not the land owner. He made the mistake, not her. I smdll fraud all the way around. Then sell the home to make back the money. SMH 😮
Thank you, it was very important to know that she was about to meditate when she first got the phone call with the news of the build..
How were permits issued? Before the foundation is poured, it must be inspected. I forget what lot numbers were said, but if they were supposed to build on lot 114, the inspector should be inspecting lot 114, and notice this is lot 115. The building authority is guilty also. She needs to sue them.
That's what i was wondering, Don't they have to put in a septic/hook up to sewer/get power connected? These things do require an inspector to come out don't they? I know where I am at they do. But then again, maybe they were on solar, and the toilet backing up could be because they forgot to hook up to a sewage disposal unit.
@@BrewMiester some people on the island build without permits. You have to hunt hard to find fully permitted houses when looking there.
The lots are identically sized and shaped. They are laid out along a long unpaved street in the forest. The inspector drove until he reached the pole #, saw the cleared lot and inspected that site. There are no individual mailboxes with addresses. Inspector should've had a plot map, checked which side of the pole the correct lot was on and caught the mistake. So should've the developer and the construction company, and they were first. The inspector's error is understandable, if not entirely forgivable. The other two parties' negligence is unforgivable b/c they had the basic duty to KNOW who owned which lot. Bulldozer operators only clear between marker flags at property pins. They don't survey. Whoever authorized clearing and marked the property set this in motion. It's their eff- up.
This is why title searches and surveys are done every time land changes hands. Good idea when building in a forest, too.
Think about the precedent this would set if the developer wins. Build a house on someone else's land without their permission then take them to court and force them to pay for it.
Technically, under Kelo v. New London, since the house is assessed higher than the vacant lot for tax purposes, the developer could work through the town/county, take the lot under Eminent Domain, and pay the owner the original assessed value of the property- take it or leave it. (Yeah, there are supposed to be independent appraisals, etc., but this is the real world.)
@@ostlandr It makes me wonder if this wasn't the original plan. Real estate law can get pretty dirty. She didn't want to bargain, so they may have cooked this up if some weasel said it was possible. If she can't afford to pay a lawyer, then they could win if they kept delaying the game.
That's exactly what I thought, if they win, you could be on vacation and somebody sweeps in, knocks your house down, and when you get back? Here is 70k for the old house "sorry" we're now gonna build a 700k house here, now go away!
Yep if this works for the developer I'm going to cash out my 401 & start looking for some land I like then just build a house on it & then when the land owner finds out I'll just sue him & call it a day lol
This happened to my parents. If they had just asked for an easement it would have been fine since it was an old classmate of my Mom’s. Then the woman kept trying to talk to Mom but Dad wouldn’t let her since Mom had dementia by then.
Accidentally? Welcome to America.
This case is like a Lehto's Law bingo card. My question is if any trees on the property were removed, which would add a square for tree law. Absolutely unreal.
Isn't the loss of trees subject to treble compensation to the landowner for the value of the trees involved?
A couple of new channels have shown video of the lot before all this happened. Tons of trees and vegetation. She's going to get a massive pay day when this is all done with.
@@johannesnoneoftheabove9957Depends on local/state laws.
Can't speak for Hawaii but on east coast would be destruction of property count for every tree removed.
Remove the house AND replace all trees and vegetation ?
Restore the land also. The building site was made ready to be a building site. infrastructure, like plumbing and electric service installed. I might counter suits to builder, developer, county and state. Also the dogs, rats and cats trespassing.
Now that the developer has filed a lawsuit against her, she cannot remove the house until all legal and civil issues have been settled.
Unfortunately, if you saw the video she took of that land back in 2018....
There is NO WAY they can replicate that "rain forest" type situation to it's full glory ....NO WAY
They have "forever" changed that property, there is no going "back" to what it was....it wasn't simply some trees...it was jungle-forest like, unfortunately that is now LOST
Especially when one considers the lots "around" her have since been "developed" as homes....the entire look and feel is GONE.
(And in fairness, it'd probably have been impossible for her to maintain the "rain forest" of ONE acre when/if all the adjacent land 🙄 got developed, it would have likely been unsustainable ....
However, she may have been able to 'save' a few exotic features....but what she had would not have been able to "survive" the modernization built, all around her.
To a degree, her taxes were likely to go up anyway because obviously homes, roads/etc were built on previous more useful land ....that isn't where her 1 acre is now....
Not saying she wasn't/isn't effed....just saying the "improvements" in the area raises all taxes and can change somebody's formerly "farm land" into a desirable housing tract...whether that person wanted to participate or not...the land's tax value absolutely increases, house or not....once there ARE houses and roads that "22k acre" is absolutely worth more either way
Only in America does the defendant become the criminal.
untrue
Just proves that lawyers will take any case regardless of the right or wrong. Anything to make a buck..
She needs to be paid restitution for these sources of damage.
-Value to remove the house
-Value to restore the property to its original state
-Monetary sum to cover time and emotional damages
-Court costs
-an extra bit for being jerks to the victim
-Value of tax increases for the next 20 years
Hopefully she didn't rent a car from Hertz to look at the house. She may have gotten an arrest warrant as well.
She now has a house.
She can stop people from walking on her land to removing it. But it might not be the house that she wants.
How many lawyers with a conscience are jumping to represent this woman for a percent of the damages... this is too obvious. Or is it when people can twist the legal system.
Development company sounds shady, lawyer sounds shadier.
I wonder if the company is counting on the woman failing to answer properly, since she lives in another state.
You might be right.
Only the lawyer has to show up.
@@friorast999but it would have to be a lawyer licensed in HI
@@Londubh And? It's not that hard to get a lawyer in another state, Hell I've got three of them and none of them are in the state I live.
@@friorast999 Maybe it's a hail mary. Or a numbers game: For every one of you who has a lawyer in another state, there could be two people who don't have one.
I'd say not just to remove the unauthorized home but to restore the property to how it was before.
The lawyers need to spend 100 hours in law and ethics
The lawsuit is DOA, the law of unclean hands states you cannot profit from your own bad acts. That poor woman has been so wronged!
Not if the judge is on the take it isn't.
In NYS we have exactly the opposite thanks to treasonous democrats. You can break US law and enter the country illegally and in NYS be given a driver's license which IS BENEFITING from their initial criminal act. Oh, and NYS has a "Motor Voter Law". Hmmm maybe Motor Voter is the reason.
I wish that were true.
@@ostlandr =(
Judges on the take? And people argue that money is not the root of all evil...
Sounds like a bunch of people want to be liable for this woman's legal fees!!! Especially when you admit that you built the house on the wrong property!!!
Sounds like someone needs to find the developer's land/house/office and construct a cinderblock outhouse on it, then sue them for unjust enrichment.
if anyone ever questioned the importance of surveyors...