There's a whole class in law school back when I went, on Remedies. What you learn is that it's impossible to ever make people 'whole' and you have to allow money to fill in the gaps. Yeah, I know it stinks and that's why after I graduated I went into another line of business. 70 now and don't regret that choice.
Great great GREAT NEWS…. Thank to that Judge for making THE RIGHT Decision. Now first step first is get the house down. Don’t try to make any noise wait till the house comes down and do whatever you want after that.
@@Charly-in-the-808 This was done by contractors, not squatters. There are plenty of squatters in the Puna district, and they do not build nice houses.
@@SnijtraM So making a mistake now makes them thugs? This is exactly what the last man interviewed is talking about. You make a mistake, now you're a criminal! This is just a mistake. A very costly mistake, but a mistake nonetheless. There should be a better solution than destroying a $300'000 home.
One could argue this is an example situation where the land owner couldn't be made whole no matter what happens.That property is forever different than it was and almost certainly can't be fully restored. In those cases the court usually just forces one party to give the other a bunch of money. Even if they remove the house there is still the issue of all of the vegetation that was there before is now gone, the lot being leveled, and I think I even saw a report discussing how there is now a bunch of albizia when there wasn't before they built that house.
@@jilbertb The contractor should be serving time after restoring the property. Are we saying no laws were broken? The property owner needs to be praised for being patient. I would have given the contractor two options the day I was made a where of someone doing this to me. The contractor to remove the house the following day or it is going to be bulldozed.
Maybe it would have gone better if the construction company didnt try to sue the owner right from the start. Is there a better solution sure, but in no way was it the land owners fault.
@sammydavis991 None of the compensation offered included her getting the lot back in the same condition it was in prior to construction. She doesn't have to take compensation that does not make her whole.
@@sammydavis991 And for that they made it even worst for themselves, by suing the land owner. They should compensate her for all the trees they cut down.
I have read about the wrong house being demolished. Something like the same address on 14th Avenue not 14th St. I feel for anyone whose job does not have 'Edit Undo.'
The builder is supposed to get a surveyor to confirm the lot - and skipped that step. The builder also sued the land owner when the land owner refused to sell the land.
1:40 This guy would be singing a different tune if it were on HIS lot. Not only should the house be razed, the lot should be returned to its original condition.
The court ruled that it is not possible to restore the land to it's previous condition. So if this construction company doesn't wise up and come to a settlement with this property owner, I'd expect another lawsuit.
Their behavior after their mistake was egregious. I find it hard to believe that it was a mistake and not an attempt to steal the land or defraud the land owner.
Do we know it was just a mistake? How can we be sure that it was not an attempt to steal her land? At the very least, they turned the mistake into a legal theft plot.
The way I see is it was the developer 's scheme to take over the plot. It was not a mistake. The owner of the plot where the house was built was negligent. They should have complained about the construction early on. Where were they when the construction began ?
@@DuangRungsaengchan Oh, please. Nobody would intentionally attempt this strategy from the outset. The odds of it failing are greater than the odds of it succeeding (look at the outcome, they lost everything, after fronting the money$300,000 for construction several years ago, that is not an unforeseeable, low probability outcome) About the only way they could "steal" the house lot would be by adverse possession. In Hawaii that would mean that they would have to live there for 20 years, without anyone noticing that a house was on their lot. The chances of that succeeding are tiny. Even if they were to prevail in court (unlikely) and get awarded ownership of the parcel, they would *still* have to pay the owner market value. it ain't like a judge is going to give them her lot for free. That's the *best* case they could hope for: To have their $300,000 dollars tied up for a year or two while they fight in court, have to pay hundreds of thousands in attorney fees, and *still* have to buy the lot from her. That's the *best* case, and an unlikely one. More likely is that they lose the $300,000, and lose the case ... as is what happened.
Given how craven the Developer and Contractor were about the whole thing, absolutely the correct decision. They actually wanted to sue the property owner for betterment! Really!
The geniuses ruined her dream. The owner should have asked the court to give her the house free and clear. She could have sold the property and looked for another slice of paradise.
This is the only answer. Otherwise, developers would be given a green light to build on any lot they chose for their profit. It's her land and that is that. She gets to say what is done to it.
The developer counted telephone poles instead of surveying the lots? I’d laugh if this weren’t such a seriously grievous breach of a professional code of ethics. Not only does the house have to be removed, the homeowner should sue the developer for court costs, upsetting the original foundation of the lot and aggravation.
The contractor should have to restore the lot, replant the same trees etc.. or offer the house at no cost and the victim should have been able to choose which it was. Taxes on that house would be high, but she appeared to have her own spiritual beliefs about the land. She was the victim here, any contractor in the world should have known better
You can't restore the lot to its previous condition. It was an undeveloped lot. Now, do I think the lady should sell the lot and receive damages, sure. But she feels a certain way and it's all up to her.
She should also get paid for all the stress and problems going to court. She should be made whole again. She did nothing wrong, so she should not have to suffer any loss. Notice the reporter didn't say the name of the company???? Friend or family of the reporter????
I'm happy she won, and there is no solution to save that house from a complete tear down, unless the builder wants to move it to the next lot. But they might f uck that up.
How did anybody win she won nothing the developers didn't really lose either they have enough money to recoup from the mistake meanwhile she gets an empty lot again big deal yay what a win
@@AGotti-lj6on Court said she could still sue for damages. Her property tax went up considering there was a new house up plus the demolition will leave a hole in the ground. This lawsuit was initiated by the developer trying to take over her land. They even tried to make it look like her ownership was fake and bully her.
While moving a house is expensive, it likely could have been resolved for cheaper in the end if the developer actually moved the house to the lot they owned during the whole time the case was in court. Especially if the point was to build a house there in the first place.
It is awful to tear down a perfectly good house. But the contractor absolutely should be responsible for either moving it or tearing it down. They were the ones that screwed up. There should also be damages paid for the number of days she hasn’t been able to use HER property and extra compensation for their behavior throughout this whole fiasco.
yeah, a punitive component, not a judgement that removes the house. I suspect the land will be a giant mud pit from the equipment used to remove the house and the property will be full of garbage and other remnants
You do not build an almost million dollar house by mistake on the wrong lot. This contractor thought they could bully this lot owner out of their lot. Stop making it look like a mistake.
Seriously. It wasn’t about counting telephone poles that screwed them up. There is a series of inspectors and surveyors who all would have known the address of the property they were working on, as a matter of course, unless they were paid to look the other way or not show up at all.
That is the dumbest comment I have read in YT in some time. It was a simple mistake that was never caught. Most inspectors don’t question that a house is built on the wrong site and a lot of property owners don’t check on vacant lots they own. And why would the contractor want to take her property? People like you just don’t trust anyone and it has ruined your life.
I was stationed in Hawaii from 90-92; it was freaking expensive back then. Most beautiful rainbows I've ever seen and lots of awesome land and beaches, but $300k is _reasonable._ Since you didn't pay attention, these are _rare_ undeveloped lots. Just like where you live used to be wild nature before construction came along, so is this place.
The word “mistake” is thrown around a lot in this article. 16 years of surveying taught me that a misplaced fence or a few feet of driveway is either an easily rectified “mistake” or a civil litigation nightmare. This event was because of egregious world-class incompetence or a deliberate attempt at property theft. It’s telling that the builder tried to sue the property owner right off the bat.
That one guy who said that it's terrible to tear down the house; well, I guess he thinks the owner should have been appeased by agreeing to switch lots. The owner had no idea about the house that was built on her land. She was essentially told by the developer that SHE had to do their bidding or else. Glad sanity prevails. She's owed big time for being forced to defend herself and protect her property.
The contractor is reasonable for all of this mess. The county does not check ownership of the land, their responsibility is to inspect the new home period. If given bad info by the builder it's not the county's fault.
Inspectors don't know parcel lot numbers. They go to a given address which is different then a parcel or lot number. It's strictly on the developer 100%.
1:33 Litigious society. He really did want her to buy the house from him didn't he? Now where is he going to find trees to replace the ones they demolished?
1:33 - Bad take. This guy completely misses the point. This is not a product of a "litigious society". If the landowner never wanted a house on her lot, there shouldn't be a house on her lot. Why should she now have to now deal with the consequences of someone else's mistake?
So let me get this straight they go in they remove the house they restore the land. She says not good enough they come in and do it again, she says no that’s not the way I remember it. Of course this has to go to court. exclusive the fact the builder was hoping to come to an agreement with her.
@@jeffreybryan5591 No, both the builder and the developer were both hoping that she could come to some agreement that would allow them to not lose their shirt. But she wasn’t open to anything. Their bad luck.
@@neilkurzman4907 she is under absolutely no obligation to be open to ANY ideas for that land that aren't her own. That's like me cutting your hair while you sleep and insisting you're unreasonable and not open to my ideas on how i cut it, and i send you the bill
@@littlegoobie Why does everyone gotta come up with a bad analogy. Yeah she was under no obligation. But the matter went to court so she had the hire law lawyer, and go to court. It’s like she had a legal matter and had to hire a lawyer
I'm curious what better solution our commenter had. She wants her property back like it was. She absolutely has that right, as would any of us who own land that someone else squats and builds on.
The way things stand is that this court order still allows her to sue for monetary damages, which she definitely should because she would win easily. It puts so much leverage on her side that it behooves the developer to now try to offer a settlement agreement to the lady to essentially pay her and leave the house there. Of course, if they reach any settlement that differs from the court order, it will have to be presented back to the court and the judge has the discretion of accepting it or not. Either way, the writing is on the wall for the Developer. They’re mistake and really their behavior in suing the woman has backfired spectacularly on them.
@@AJXOXO-vz1pn the best move for that idiot builder is to walk away and leave the house as it is to the ladies in lieu of other damages. She could sell everything and look for another piece of land. Given the situation and where they are on the matter, this is the only win/win for the two parties. The judge should make that one of the options.
@@littlegoobie that “best move” for the idiot builder to offer to the homeowner to leave the house as hers is not an option for that builder anymore, unless the builder and the property owner agree to that and re-present that agreement to the judge. The lady is under no obligation to keep the house on her land, and the judge has already ordered the builder to demolish it. Even after demolishing and removing the house, the lady can still sue to money damages for the builder essentially taking away her land for the time period that she could not use it because of the house being there.
It opens the door to a dangerous precedent if they settle, she's right to hold her ground. I can see developpers building on the wrong lot on purpose in the future and settling out of court.
Considering the reason she bought that particular lot was due to the natural vegetation and "vibe" of the land, the developer should be made to restore it as much as possible.
If I were the land owner, I might contemplate getting the house structure for free, BUT, it is too ugly for me. For the same money they could have built an attractive house.
@@jilbertb Certainly possible to move it...just expensive (probably too expensive). We live in southern California, where almost all homes are built on slabs. Every so often, a slab house will be moved; it usually takes inserting steel beams low into the framing, to stabilize the structure. Usually only used for historic homes. Almost always cheaper to tear down and rebuild.
This is Hawaii. Land of beaches and mountains. It's probably not worth it to have a house moving business there. I was there from 90-92 and I don't recall any.
I had my land cut of trees, and the logger had taken a neighbors tree. In my state, you must pay 4x what the lumber cost would bring. Ask the logger how much that tree was worth. Sent a check to my neighbor, 4x the value with a note that the tree we talked about being dangerous was taken down. Knowing she loved money, she cashed it! Future legal problems are gone.🎉
I live in the country and any thinking person has what they think is their property surveyed. My neighbors did that before they put in the fence posts on the property line.
Holding their feet in the fire and requiring them to replant with native plants and trees seems only fair. Drawing the line at smaller trees being sufficient is reasonable. All of her legal fees should be paid immediately.
Problem is, she didn’t want to have to pay the annual property taxes on it with the improved structure . Without it they are in the thousands,with it, the tens of thousands.
@@alleny2971- so sell the property and then buy an empty lot and pocket the difference. Just destroying it makes no sense at all. What can you do with an empty 1 acre lot besides building a house on it?
@@1wheeldrive751depending on the zoning, lots. She might have built rentals, a two or three story, opened a business, produced a small farming co-op, waited until cannabis becomes legal, constructed a warehouse etc. The issue is, the owner did not want that house built on her land. Period.
Former long term resident, I can assure you that this isn't the first time somebody built a house on the wrong lot in the notorious Puna divisions. There are well over 10,000 lots on 1, 2, or 3 acre grids on a strip of land that runs from the ocean to the edge of Hawaii Volcanoes NP. Long, perfectly straight roads with hundreds of indistinct lots, not reliably staked, if at all, which is why people give directions in terms of telephone poles. It's very common, and poles are the only landmarks that are clearly identified by metal numbers nailed onto them. It's a workable place to "try start looking here" for the exact location of a property. There are many alternative ways to locate these lots exactly, but sometimes you have to go on "best evidence", which is NOT good enough when you're dumping so much money into a proper speculation house. Duh, GOOF! Only question is damages to owner.
This seems like as a good a resolution as possible. She can't get back her time and energy, but hopefully the land will be cleaned up properly and she can move on.
Unless made to restore to original condition there will be piles of refuse and construction debrisc on the lot left by the demolition sticking it to the owner
That is your opinion. What if she wanted to farm the lot? It is a huge waste of materials, for sure. But it’s not the land owner’s fault. The developer counted telephone poles to survey the plot. Do you know how lunatic that was?
@@jilbertb you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. My dad moved a house to a newly poured foundation in our backyard. Concrete slab foundation.
I don't know. Moving a house built on a slab is certainly possible, but it seems like an expensive proposition (probably only feasible if the house is historical/iconic, or finished with top-grade materials). Seems like you'd have to unpin it from the slab, and insert steel beams to stabilize the walls, etc. The developers own the lot next door...certainly less expensive to move it just that distance (though still a pricey option).
Thank God that house is finally being torn down! These land grabs have been going on for years of trying to steal people's land in this scheme. They should also have to pay to reclaim that lot for that lady that they tried to steal the land from.
If the lot it's supposed to be is right next to this lot, why don't they just move the house instead of tearing it down? Seems like it'd cost a lot less for those idiotic developers. Or maybe they just really wanted her lot and were hoping that they could coerce it from her.
because it has a septic system and rain catchment system attached to it and they scrapped the soil to make the ground level the ground so violated that it will never be the same ever again
This is the correct decision! Otherwise developers will build wherever they want figuring it will be ok. And this is stealing! Plain and simple. Shame on the developer and construction company for being greedy by not paying for a survey. How stupid of a business decision is this? Very stupid! What idiots.
Let's not forget the real estate developer that made the mistake tried to sue the poor land owner (who never wanted the house on her property to begin with) even though they were in the wrong from the start. I am glad she is finally getting some justice here.
I am glad the judge made the right decision, but I also wonder (I am sure it was detailed in the trial) how long did the construction go on after she became aware of the house was being built?
They approved the plans for a house on a certain designated lot. They don't look at the lot, they just verify that the lot number belonged to the applicant. The inspector drove to the building site, surrounded by vacant lots. Why would he notice it was the adjacent lot being built upon when he had certified plans for a surveyed lot?
The biggest mistake of the developer was not building the house on the wrong lot. It was the fact that the developer tried to sue the owner! I'd be P!seed too, if someone built a house on my property, then sued me to try to get the property...
That makes zero sense. If it were built on the right lot to start with there'd be no reason to sue the owner of an adjacent vacant lot. The first mistake paved a path for other mistakes including trying to sue
I built my first house as a contractor in 1987. It was 1920 s/f and looked similar to the one in the video. Contract price? $67,900 on the owner's lot.
If the contractor and developer were "smart" - which they have amply proven that they are not - then they should have just made a deal with the landowner to gift the house to her. That way, they would not have had to go to the expense (and embarrassment) of tearing down/removing the house. Further, given that the house will now be torn down and removed, then the contractor and developer should be required to restore the property to the same condition in which they found it.
This is a weird one... stuff reported a bit jumbled. Here the tldr summary that hopefully makes more sense. Neither party got all they wanted. 0:15 home ordered torn down 1:00 because the permits are not for this lot 1:11 judge denied lot owner's motion to have the lot fully restored to original condition 0:39 lot owner can further sue for damages
It should not require a court order to have a house removed from your own land. You should be able to tear it down and be done with it. And yes, the property absolutely should be restored to the previous condition, that judge is nuts.
I once worked for a telecom contractor. We dug out the ground, formed and installed a 10'x20' concrete pad for some equipment (in 100+ temps in Bakersfield). It took about a week, during which he had us in hotels and paid per diem. Problem was, he went off the unapproved plans, and the approved plans had the pad turned 90 degrees relative to the one we built. Oops. As far as I know, he's no longer in business.
I'd imagine the contractor tried to intimidate the lot owner from the start. Something like saying they have to pay for it anyway or offering the house at a slight discount.
I have been following this case. Great job judge. Absolutely NO Pity for the developer.
they bulldozed the hills on her land and she wants it back the way it was but the judge did not make them restore the land, That's not too "great"
@stclairstclair The judge left the door open for her to Sue again and recoup further damages is what I understood.
@@csps56 Now that is Great!
There's a whole class in law school back when I went, on Remedies. What you learn is that it's impossible to ever make people 'whole' and you have to allow money to fill in the gaps. Yeah, I know it stinks and that's why after I graduated I went into another line of business. 70 now and don't regret that choice.
Great great GREAT NEWS…. Thank to that Judge for making THE RIGHT Decision. Now first step first is get the house down. Don’t try to make any noise wait till the house comes down and do whatever you want after that.
The contractor basically squatted on the land and is now getting evicted.
In summary.
@@garotadagaveayeah, that’s pretty much one sentence will do.
@@Charly-in-the-808 This was done by contractors, not squatters. There are plenty of squatters in the Puna district, and they do not build nice houses.
@@shaggybreeks Why are you sticking up for these thugs?
@@SnijtraM So making a mistake now makes them thugs?
This is exactly what the last man interviewed is talking about. You make a mistake, now you're a criminal!
This is just a mistake. A very costly mistake, but a mistake nonetheless. There should be a better solution than destroying a $300'000 home.
She has not been made whole. They destroyed her property and just demolishing the house will not fix that.
Which is why the judge allowed her the option to pursue damages in court if she wishes.
@@KurtisRupnow
And... they'll just go bankrupt and start a new company....
What are they just gonna leave a big hole behind?
One could argue this is an example situation where the land owner couldn't be made whole no matter what happens.That property is forever different than it was and almost certainly can't be fully restored. In those cases the court usually just forces one party to give the other a bunch of money. Even if they remove the house there is still the issue of all of the vegetation that was there before is now gone, the lot being leveled, and I think I even saw a report discussing how there is now a bunch of albizia when there wasn't before they built that house.
@@jilbertb The contractor should be serving time after restoring the property. Are we saying no laws were broken? The property owner needs to be praised for being patient. I would have given the contractor two options the day I was made a where of someone doing this to me. The contractor to remove the house the following day or it is going to be bulldozed.
Maybe it would have gone better if the construction company didnt try to sue the owner right from the start. Is there a better solution sure, but in no way was it the land owners fault.
They didn’t sue the landowner right from the start. Only after she refused any compensation.
@@sammydavis991and you think they are correct in suing her?
@sammydavis991 None of the compensation offered included her getting the lot back in the same condition it was in prior to construction. She doesn't have to take compensation that does not make her whole.
@@sammydavis991So, they sued the landowner.
@@sammydavis991 And for that they made it even worst for themselves, by suing the land owner. They should compensate her for all the trees they cut down.
How incompetent do you have to be to build a house on the wrong property???
Yeah, apparently Hawaii doesn't have GPS?
Not sure I would trust the builder to build a decent house if he can’t figure out the correct property
I have read about the wrong house being demolished. Something like the same address on 14th Avenue not 14th St. I feel for anyone whose job does not have 'Edit Undo.'
The builder is supposed to get a surveyor to confirm the lot - and skipped that step. The builder also sued the land owner when the land owner refused to sell the land.
Why not exchange lots problem solved ,you don't have to pull down the house ,the question needs to be Asked,
1:40 This guy would be singing a different tune if it were on HIS lot. Not only should the house be razed, the lot should be returned to its original condition.
💯% Absolutely correct on both statements!
and pain and suffering for the monumental hassle
Dude is a moron.
Not to mention that it was THE BUILDERS who sued the property owner to kick this off, not the other way ‘round.
That other resident was a real choad! Her property...no if's ands or butts
The builder/contractor should be required to restore the land to its previous condition.
They are required to restore the land as well. It won't be the same though since a lot of it was old growth.
then its not restored. @ericeven4090
Yeah, they scraped all the existing vegetation off. What you see in the video is what has been growing there since the suit started.
The court ruled that it is not possible to restore the land to it's previous condition. So if this construction company doesn't wise up and come to a settlement with this property owner, I'd expect another lawsuit.
At least remove the septic system and all the pipes that were installed underground.
Their behavior after their mistake was egregious. I find it hard to believe that it was a mistake and not an attempt to steal the land or defraud the land owner.
Do we know it was just a mistake? How can we be sure that it was not an attempt to steal her land? At the very least, they turned the mistake into a legal theft plot.
The way I see is it was the developer 's scheme to take over the plot. It was not a mistake. The owner of the plot where the house was built was negligent. They should have complained about the construction early on. Where were they when the construction began ?
@@DuangRungsaengchan Oh, please. Nobody would intentionally attempt this strategy from the outset. The odds of it failing are greater than the odds of it succeeding (look at the outcome, they lost everything, after fronting the money$300,000 for construction several years ago, that is not an unforeseeable, low probability outcome) About the only way they could "steal" the house lot would be by adverse possession. In Hawaii that would mean that they would have to live there for 20 years, without anyone noticing that a house was on their lot. The chances of that succeeding are tiny. Even if they were to prevail in court (unlikely) and get awarded ownership of the parcel, they would *still* have to pay the owner market value. it ain't like a judge is going to give them her lot for free. That's the *best* case they could hope for: To have their $300,000 dollars tied up for a year or two while they fight in court, have to pay hundreds of thousands in attorney fees, and *still* have to buy the lot from her. That's the *best* case, and an unlikely one. More likely is that they lose the $300,000, and lose the case ... as is what happened.
Ikr
@@DuangRungsaengchan
They were out of town when it occurred
Given how craven the Developer and Contractor were about the whole thing, absolutely the correct decision.
They actually wanted to sue the property owner for betterment! Really!
They actual did sue the property owner, that's what this lawsuit was.
Yup this was best example of diplomacy fail, work with people on a solution or work against people this was the result
The geniuses ruined her dream. The owner should have asked the court to give her the house free and clear. She could have sold the property and looked for another slice of paradise.
Craven? They had a screwup costing hundreds of thousands of dollars and hope they could salvage something. That’s not craving that’s called desperate
@@genespell4340
They ruined her dream to build a home on the property? How so
This is the only answer. Otherwise, developers would be given a green light to build on any lot they chose for their profit. It's her land and that is that. She gets to say what is done to it.
The developer counted telephone poles instead of surveying the lots? I’d laugh if this weren’t such a seriously grievous breach of a professional code of ethics. Not only does the house have to be removed, the homeowner should sue the developer for court costs, upsetting the original foundation of the lot and aggravation.
Yes, she has been awarded court costs and there are other parts of this mess still to be sorted out in court.
If he cut corners to save money by not doing a survey, it makes one wonder what other corners he cut to save money.
Counted telephone poles? An invested $500,000 by counting telephone poles?! Oh, they deserve to lose everything for this stupidity alone.
The contractor should have to restore the lot, replant the same trees etc.. or offer the house at no cost and the victim should have been able to choose which it was. Taxes on that house would be high, but she appeared to have her own spiritual beliefs about the land. She was the victim here, any contractor in the world should have known better
She didn’t want the house. She wanted it removed.
Don’t you think it would be cheaper for them to give her the house? they have to pay to demolish it
You can't restore the lot to its previous condition. It was an undeveloped lot.
Now, do I think the lady should sell the lot and receive damages, sure.
But she feels a certain way and it's all up to her.
She should also get paid for all the stress and problems going to court. She should be made whole again. She did nothing wrong, so she should not have to suffer any loss. Notice the reporter didn't say the name of the company???? Friend or family of the reporter????
She will have to re-sue for that.
That developer would be screaming bloody murder if someone built a house on his land.
Finally an update in this case that makes sense.
I'm happy she won, and there is no solution to save that house from a complete tear down, unless the builder wants to move it to the next lot. But they might f uck that up.
How did she win she won and gained nothing there was no win here idiot
How did anybody win she won nothing the developers didn't really lose either they have enough money to recoup from the mistake meanwhile she gets an empty lot again big deal yay what a win
@@AGotti-lj6on Court said she could still sue for damages. Her property tax went up considering there was a new house up plus the demolition will leave a hole in the ground. This lawsuit was initiated by the developer trying to take over her land. They even tried to make it look like her ownership was fake and bully her.
@@AGotti-lj6onshe is going to get something just watch
While moving a house is expensive, it likely could have been resolved for cheaper in the end if the developer actually moved the house to the lot they owned during the whole time the case was in court. Especially if the point was to build a house there in the first place.
It is awful to tear down a perfectly good house. But the contractor absolutely should be responsible for either moving it or tearing it down. They were the ones that screwed up. There should also be damages paid for the number of days she hasn’t been able to use HER property and extra compensation for their behavior throughout this whole fiasco.
yeah, a punitive component, not a judgement that removes the house. I suspect the land will be a giant mud pit from the equipment used to remove the house and the property will be full of garbage and other remnants
You do not build an almost million dollar house by mistake on the wrong lot. This contractor thought they could bully this lot owner out of their lot. Stop making it look like a mistake.
Interesting suggestion.
Seriously. It wasn’t about counting telephone poles that screwed them up. There is a series of inspectors and surveyors who all would have known the address of the property they were working on, as a matter of course, unless they were paid to look the other way or not show up at all.
300k house.
That is the dumbest comment I have read in YT in some time. It was a simple mistake that was never caught. Most inspectors don’t question that a house is built on the wrong site and a lot of property owners don’t check on vacant lots they own. And why would the contractor want to take her property? People like you just don’t trust anyone and it has ruined your life.
Because you have evidence that it was intentional?
Every screwup is a conspiracy theory for you isn’t it?
$300k to build that POS out in the middle of nowhere? Insanity!
What you are maybe forgetting is that a large part of the $300K, is shipping materials from the mainland.
Whatever supplies your local Home Depot sells, just double the price of it. If it's heavy and/or bulky, Triple the price.
I was stationed in Hawaii from 90-92; it was freaking expensive back then. Most beautiful rainbows I've ever seen and lots of awesome land and beaches, but $300k is _reasonable._ Since you didn't pay attention, these are _rare_ undeveloped lots. Just like where you live used to be wild nature before construction came along, so is this place.
hawaii has a very high cost of living, actually the highest in the US by a huge margin.
The word “mistake” is thrown around a lot in this article. 16 years of surveying taught me that a misplaced fence or a few feet of driveway is either an easily rectified “mistake” or a civil litigation nightmare. This event was because of egregious world-class incompetence or a deliberate attempt at property theft. It’s telling that the builder tried to sue the property owner right off the bat.
That one guy who said that it's terrible to tear down the house; well, I guess he thinks the owner should have been appeased by agreeing to switch lots. The owner had no idea about the house that was built on her land. She was essentially told by the developer that SHE had to do their bidding or else. Glad sanity prevails. She's owed big time for being forced to defend herself and protect her property.
More complex than that… county issued a building permit and performed inspections.
Complete incompetence all around.
The contractor is reasonable for all of this mess. The county does not check ownership of the land, their responsibility is to inspect the new home period. If given bad info by the builder it's not the county's fault.
Inspectors don't know parcel lot numbers. They go to a given address which is different then a parcel or lot number. It's strictly on the developer 100%.
1:33 Litigious society. He really did want her to buy the house from him didn't he? Now where is he going to find trees to replace the ones they demolished?
Next door? 🤣
Put back the forest plants to original condition
What forrest..bushes and fields
@@Elena-fe3os There were something like 7 trees the owner wants back.
@@joshuahudson2170 - Yea.............well..................
=
1:33 - Bad take. This guy completely misses the point. This is not a product of a "litigious society". If the landowner never wanted a house on her lot, there shouldn't be a house on her lot. Why should she now have to now deal with the consequences of someone else's mistake?
I think his point was not about her suing the developer, but when the developer tried to sue her
This is what should have happened long before the courts were even involved.
So let me get this straight they go in they remove the house they restore the land. She says not good enough they come in and do it again, she says no that’s not the way I remember it. Of course this has to go to court. exclusive the fact the builder was hoping to come to an agreement with her.
@@neilkurzman4907NO, the incompetent "builder", was hoping that they could MAKE this poor lady succumb to their bullying and it failed.
@@jeffreybryan5591
No, both the builder and the developer were both hoping that she could come to some agreement that would allow them to not lose their shirt. But she wasn’t open to anything. Their bad luck.
@@neilkurzman4907 she is under absolutely no obligation to be open to ANY ideas for that land that aren't her own. That's like me cutting your hair while you sleep and insisting you're unreasonable and not open to my ideas on how i cut it, and i send you the bill
@@littlegoobie
Why does everyone gotta come up with a bad analogy. Yeah she was under no obligation. But the matter went to court so she had the hire law lawyer, and go to court.
It’s like she had a legal matter and had to hire a lawyer
The developer was playing stupid games. He's going to win stupid prize.
What do you mean "going to"? He already won that stupid prize round!!
I'm curious what better solution our commenter had. She wants her property back like it was. She absolutely has that right, as would any of us who own land that someone else squats and builds on.
The news only explained a little. Go figure. Steve lehto has a episode on his channel that gives the whole story if you want the facts.
Maybe news stations should hire lawyers to explain things properly?! 😂
The way things stand is that this court order still allows her to sue for monetary damages, which she definitely should because she would win easily. It puts so much leverage on her side that it behooves the developer to now try to offer a settlement agreement to the lady to essentially pay her and leave the house there. Of course, if they reach any settlement that differs from the court order, it will have to be presented back to the court and the judge has the discretion of accepting it or not. Either way, the writing is on the wall for the Developer. They’re mistake and really their behavior in suing the woman has backfired spectacularly on them.
@@AJXOXO-vz1pn the best move for that idiot builder is to walk away and leave the house as it is to the ladies in lieu of other damages. She could sell everything and look for another piece of land. Given the situation and where they are on the matter, this is the only win/win for the two parties. The judge should make that one of the options.
@@littlegoobie that “best move” for the idiot builder to offer to the homeowner to leave the house as hers is not an option for that builder anymore, unless the builder and the property owner agree to that and re-present that agreement to the judge. The lady is under no obligation to keep the house on her land, and the judge has already ordered the builder to demolish it. Even after demolishing and removing the house, the lady can still sue to money damages for the builder essentially taking away her land for the time period that she could not use it because of the house being there.
How much time would you like them to devote to this during their 30 minute broadcast?
It opens the door to a dangerous precedent if they settle, she's right to hold her ground. I can see developpers building on the wrong lot on purpose in the future and settling out of court.
Considering the reason she bought that particular lot was due to the natural vegetation and "vibe" of the land, the developer should be made to restore it as much as possible.
As long as they remove every last bit of concrete, plumbing and housing they brought in, nature will return it soon enough.
Thank goodness, the only just decision the judge could have made😊
I’m shocked that judge Solomon actually grew a pair.
How do you do this with GPS in existence?
Justice Served.
What’s the builder’s name? You think the public would want to know in order to avoid incompetent contractors
If I were the land owner, I might contemplate getting the house structure for free, BUT, it is too ugly for me. For the same money they could have built an attractive house.
It’s Hawaii. They’re Democrat and turn peasant buildings into expensive structures. They hate you and they hate me
So glad this was the outcome. It shouldn't have taken this long for the judge to decide. Although the lot should've been restored.
My grandfather and his father moved houses for a living.
I guess it's a lost art.
No, the houses now are not structurally sound enough to survive moving.
It was built on a slab, can't move those. Need the bottom frame structure for a basement to be lifted onto rails.
We actually had a house moved back in the 90's. Pretty cool.
@@jilbertb Certainly possible to move it...just expensive (probably too expensive). We live in southern California, where almost all homes are built on slabs. Every so often, a slab house will be moved; it usually takes inserting steel beams low into the framing, to stabilize the structure. Usually only used for historic homes. Almost always cheaper to tear down and rebuild.
This is Hawaii. Land of beaches and mountains. It's probably not worth it to have a house moving business there. I was there from 90-92 and I don't recall any.
The developer knew what he was doing! Big win for this lady 🎉
It's about time! They the builder should have to pay all of her legal expenses and damages.
I had my land cut of trees, and the logger had taken a neighbors tree. In my state, you must pay 4x what the lumber cost would bring. Ask the logger how much that tree was worth. Sent a check to my neighbor, 4x the value with a note that the tree we talked about being dangerous was taken down. Knowing she loved money, she cashed it! Future legal problems are gone.🎉
I live in the country and any thinking person has what they think is their property surveyed. My neighbors did that before they put in the fence posts on the property line.
Holding their feet in the fire and requiring them to replant with native plants and trees seems only fair. Drawing the line at smaller trees being sufficient is reasonable. All of her legal fees should be paid immediately.
Yesses!!!! Finally good news👏👏👏👏
Good, now she needs to sue the developer for a frivolous law suit.
The lot owner should have been given the house free and clear.
She didn't want it
Problem is, she didn’t want to have to pay the annual property taxes on it with the improved structure . Without it they are in the thousands,with it, the tens of thousands.
@@alleny2971- so sell the property and then buy an empty lot and pocket the difference. Just destroying it makes no sense at all. What can you do with an empty 1 acre lot besides building a house on it?
@@1wheeldrive751depending on the zoning, lots. She might have built rentals, a two or three story, opened a business, produced a small farming co-op, waited until cannabis becomes legal, constructed a warehouse etc. The issue is, the owner did not want that house built on her land. Period.
@@1wheeldrive751 It's for her to decide and not someone else. If you are a property owner, you would feel the same.
You build a house on my lot and its mine. Fence my property and install no trespassing signs.
Great news, I remember when this first dropped.
I hope the owner can move on peacefully
Amen i thought the judge was bought out by the developer, but it got national attention and the judge had to fold.
Former long term resident, I can assure you that this isn't the first time somebody built a house on the wrong lot in the notorious Puna divisions. There are well over 10,000 lots on 1, 2, or 3 acre grids on a strip of land that runs from the ocean to the edge of Hawaii Volcanoes NP. Long, perfectly straight roads with hundreds of indistinct lots, not reliably staked, if at all, which is why people give directions in terms of telephone poles. It's very common, and poles are the only landmarks that are clearly identified by metal numbers nailed onto them. It's a workable place to "try start looking here" for the exact location of a property. There are many alternative ways to locate these lots exactly, but sometimes you have to go on "best evidence", which is NOT good enough when you're dumping so much money into a proper speculation house. Duh, GOOF! Only question is damages to owner.
properties are survyed using GPS,
so there are coordinates for the property,
and can easily be found with any GPS or smartphone.
About time. Not the owners doing but the developers fault. How in the world can a builder make such a mistake?
Never heard about a house being built on the wrong lot!!!
Kudos to the actual owner of the land. Fight for your rights❤
Escuse me? You tear it down! There's no resolution. You made a mistake, you correct it!
This seems like as a good a resolution as possible. She can't get back her time and energy, but hopefully the land will be cleaned up properly and she can move on.
Took long enough for justice.
Finally, there is resolution!! The contractor/developer screwed up. I'm happy that the real property owner has finally received justice!
Unless made to restore to original condition there will be piles of refuse and construction debrisc on the lot left by the demolition sticking it to the owner
The judge gets to pick the contractor wrecking the house. They will work to HIS satisfaction.
From news coverage, this is happening way too often. There must be more accountability
Does anyone know if this place has a basment and could possibly be moved? Or is it on a slab?
Former land surveyor here; they seriously cocked it up!
Don't trust this developer if they can't even know which lot they own pretty basic but already got it all wrong
Lift it and move to the next lot!! Why waste materials? Poho!
This is the answer
That is your opinion. What if she wanted to farm the lot? It is a huge waste of materials, for sure. But it’s not the land owner’s fault. The developer counted telephone poles to survey the plot. Do you know how lunatic that was?
You can't move a house built on a slab. It needs the floor structure of a house with a basement.
@@jilbertb you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. My dad moved a house to a newly poured foundation in our backyard. Concrete slab foundation.
@@alleny2971 Yes, it can be done. Happens in our area (southern California), though not frequently, as it can be expensive.
The developer initiated the lawsuit. And then lost.
🤔 They probably thought they would keep that part of the land once the women died.
I’ll take it! They can relocate it to my lot. It would probably be cheaper to move it anyway
I don't know. Moving a house built on a slab is certainly possible, but it seems like an expensive proposition (probably only feasible if the house is historical/iconic, or finished with top-grade materials). Seems like you'd have to unpin it from the slab, and insert steel beams to stabilize the walls, etc. The developers own the lot next door...certainly less expensive to move it just that distance (though still a pricey option).
That's the way it should be. Justice served!!!
Thank God that house is finally being torn down! These land grabs have been going on for years of trying to steal people's land in this scheme. They should also have to pay to reclaim that lot for that lady that they tried to steal the land from.
how much more damage will they do to her lot...Criminal builder should be JAILED
If the lot it's supposed to be is right next to this lot, why don't they just move the house instead of tearing it down? Seems like it'd cost a lot less for those idiotic developers. Or maybe they just really wanted her lot and were hoping that they could coerce it from her.
because it has a septic system and rain catchment system attached to it and they scrapped the soil to make the ground level the ground so violated that it will never be the same ever again
She's in the right, but she's also nuts.
This is the correct decision! Otherwise developers will build wherever they want figuring it will be ok. And this is stealing! Plain and simple. Shame on the developer and construction company for being greedy by not paying for a survey. How stupid of a business decision is this? Very stupid! What idiots.
Should have made them restore the lot to original condition also!
you can't after its been dug up and scrapped
Maybe they will learn now to do their job right and not bulldoze over people to make thier own lives easier when they make a huge mistake like that.
I remember this story nice update
Let's not forget the real estate developer that made the mistake tried to sue the poor land owner (who never wanted the house on her property to begin with) even though they were in the wrong from the start. I am glad she is finally getting some justice here.
I am glad the judge made the right decision, but I also wonder (I am sure it was detailed in the trial) how long did the construction go on after she became aware of the house was being built?
KEEP US UPDATED WITH MORE OF THIS STORY ISLAND NEWS!!!!
🎉🎉🎉🎉 Yeah!!! She won!!!!
Finally the judge grows some balls.
Yet, the city building dept. approved the contribution permit and regularly visited for site inspection.
They approved the plans for a house on a certain designated lot. They don't look at the lot, they just verify that the lot number belonged to the applicant. The inspector drove to the building site, surrounded by vacant lots. Why would he notice it was the adjacent lot being built upon when he had certified plans for a surveyed lot?
TMK shows Ag-class for both lots so how were the permits issued in the first place? Not at all versed in Hawaii county codes so what am i missing?
I'm glad she got her property back and the house is being removed. I still believe she should get some compensation for all this.
Fact still remains is that house and the grading of the land was NEVER permitted. That's one of the main reasons it must be taken down.
A how-to on running a company into bankruptcy. Negotiations begin with an apology not hubris and a lawsuit.
That's what you get for trying to save a few bucks on an ILC. How else would you even know where to set back the structure?
yeh well building on the wrong land then trying to sue the land owner to pay for the home what entitled idiots
The biggest mistake of the developer was not building the house on the wrong lot.
It was the fact that the developer tried to sue the owner! I'd be P!seed too, if someone built a house on my property, then sued me to try to get the property...
That makes zero sense. If it were built on the right lot to start with there'd be no reason to sue the owner of an adjacent vacant lot. The first mistake paved a path for other mistakes including trying to sue
Good, the actual homeowner of said property wins!!
I built my first house as a contractor in 1987. It was 1920 s/f and looked similar to the one in the video. Contract price? $67,900 on the owner's lot.
300ķ? It looks more like it cost 30k 😂
If the contractor and developer were "smart" - which they have amply proven that they are not - then they should have just made a deal with the landowner to gift the house to her. That way, they would not have had to go to the expense (and embarrassment) of tearing down/removing the house.
Further, given that the house will now be torn down and removed, then the contractor and developer should be required to restore the property to the same condition in which they found it.
Trying to save few dollars the developer ended up losing half million!
This is a weird one... stuff reported a bit jumbled. Here the tldr summary that hopefully makes more sense. Neither party got all they wanted.
0:15 home ordered torn down
1:00 because the permits are not for this lot
1:11 judge denied lot owner's motion to have the lot fully restored to original condition
0:39 lot owner can further sue for damages
It should not require a court order to have a house removed from your own land. You should be able to tear it down and be done with it. And yes, the property absolutely should be restored to the previous condition, that judge is nuts.
I agree with man who says a better solution can be found.
I once worked for a telecom contractor. We dug out the ground, formed and installed a 10'x20' concrete pad for some equipment (in 100+ temps in Bakersfield). It took about a week, during which he had us in hotels and paid per diem. Problem was, he went off the unapproved plans, and the approved plans had the pad turned 90 degrees relative to the one we built. Oops. As far as I know, he's no longer in business.
I'd imagine the contractor tried to intimidate the lot owner from the start. Something like saying they have to pay for it anyway or offering the house at a slight discount.
Wouldn't it be cheaper to move the house than tear it down and build it new on the correct lot? It's only going across the street, right?