Judge Grants Order to Tear Down House Built on Wrong Lot

Remember the story out of Hawaii?
www.lehtoslaw.com

[@zeta802]

I am so glad that woman was not bullied off of her property. I’m so glad that she won. Good for her.

[@patfromamboy]

They should have given her an extremely sweet deal to buy the home to avoid losing more money. It’s all they could do. Suing her was rotten.

[@advil000]

I am too, but since she is seeking the most extreme remedy... she will also have to go after them for massive damages. So she is not even quite to the half way point of this nightmare yet. While "the principle of the thing" is all well and good and she has every right to do whatever she wants here and is justified in doing so... if I was in her shoes I'd have been seeking a MASSIVE settlement the included leaving the house on the lot and me being "righteously pissed" and demand a big payout (probably equal to the original property value, plus the entire maximum value of the house, plus court fees). The reason is there is every possibility that if it drags on long enough whatever money or insurance the developer had will run out and it'll just be "that's it sorry they're bankrupt." You need to think about the best outcome for yourself, not just how much you can get back at who wronged you. That's not all there is to it.

[@lauraelliott6909]

​@@patfromamboyShe wasn't interested in the house.

[@patfromamboy]

@@lauraelliott6909 I don’t blame her at all especially if she had a dream house she wanted to build. I was curious if they could have worked something out instead of tearing it down so they both could have done better than tearing it down. They should be more careful next time. It was her property.

[@JBFromOZ]

@@advil000

[@kerwynbrat5771]

We have 45 acres in the mountains. We live on the property which is heavily forested. I don't often walk the back property line. One day I hiked up and found a house newly built on our land. Oh yes, the courts had it torn down. The other peoples lawyer didn't even try to come to a settlement with us. He just wanted the land and argued that since the house was there for 3 months and we didn't notice, then we gave up the rights to our property. The judge laughed him out of court and ordered the house torn down within 30 days AND ordered the land made whole again. They had cut down dozens of trees, bulldozed a road partially on our land and partially on national park land. It was a cluster F. But we won.

[@blairhoughton7918]

3 months = laughable. But several years (number depends on where) = Adverse Possession, and they get the land and you get to build a new fence.

[@robertrooney50]

You gotta love lawyers. After 3 months he wants adverse possession. In Hawaii it takes 20 years to attach adverse possession to real property. And the lawyer knows it.

[@jishani1]

@@blairhoughton7918 that's where the stand your ground laws come into play because they're on your property.

[@blairhoughton7918]

@@jishani1 Stand your ground laws don't apply to finding a house on your land. They apply to murdering people and getting away with it.

[@Playingwithproxies]

@@jishani1castle doctrine not stand your ground. Stand your ground laws deal with public areas.

[@lowermichigan4437]

They had the audacity to sue the victim. They deserve what they get

[@nodak81]

That's what's wrong with this country. A lawsuit where a perpetrator is suing the victim should never even make it to the court. Should be immediately cited as an intimidation tactic and they should be brought up on charges.

[@johngacsi7000]

❤❤❤❤❤ !!!!!! .

[@slanwar]

Hoping the person they are suing doesn't have the money to hire a lawyer, here in NJ a good 10k to get a lawyer. That's the reason big companies always bullie small ones because they have the money to hire lawyers.

[@martinswiney2192]

Just imagine when she does build on her property. They are gonna be such great neighbors. Backyard barbecues and a few drinks. Knife fights.

[@bjmccann1]

😡🤬😡🤬​@@slanwar

[@MossyMozart]

I read where this woman, Ms Reynolds, carefully chose her lot because of the view, all the gorgeous mature plants that grew on it, and some kind of esoteric criteria that was significant to her. That has all been destroyed by that builder who cleared the lot and built a cheap spec house with a big price tag. --------- I am so happy that things are going her way and there was no foolish obstacle that prevented justice.

[@herewegoagainrv1363]

I remember reading that as well. It will be very interesting to see how her separate lawsuit for damages turns out. She deserves to prevail and be compensated. The truly unfortunate part is that even with proper compensation, the damage cannot be entirely undone. 😢

[@DairelFoleur]

@@herewegoagainrv1363 Friend of mine who owned a private camp ground had a very mature pine tree damaged by a car that ran off the road. Not too bad of an accident but the tree had to be taken down. She hired an arborist and the quote to replace the pine tree was in the neighborhood of $200,000. All covered by the driver's insurance. That is just one tree. Imagine having to replace an entire lot of trees and vegetation.

[@squoctopus]

A cheap spec house that the developer didn't permit or build to local regulations. Hmmm, how did that happen? You'd think if he thought he was building legally he'd done it right, wouldn't you?

[@jebsmith323]

@@DairelFoleur Oh. I really hope the landowner knew to do this. I can only imagine the loss of the wonderful native vegetation in Hawaii.

[@fade.2.black.ffd8ff]

The argue would be also to sue for loss of mature wildlife, plants, lichins, mycelium and minerals due to concrete foundations being put down and the building and utilities

[@Recovering_Californian]

If this builder wasn't doing surveys to save a small amount of money then you know the homes being built are garbage.

[@82ndAbnVet]

Even scarier, you know he doesn't have the money to pay for all of this, especially if he's pinching pennies to save a few hundred bucks!

[@woodsrdr]

One minor correction...this is Hawaii so the homes would be rubbish.

[@Recovering_Californian]

@@82ndAbnVet You're probably right. Too many contractors/builders depend on the next project's deposit to carry them through their current project.

[@MonkeyJedi99]

@@Recovering_Californian How dare you criticize Ponzi Construction, LLC??? (sarcasm)

[@jonathanjones3126]

​@@82ndAbnVetpretty much any home built in the last 30 years is trash

[@richallen8742]

I own 41.5 acres in Michigan. Land is rural and all homes are on well and septic in our township. I pull in the drive after work and the neighbors are installing a new septic field. Problem is they are 100% on my land. What really pisses me off is he knows he is on my land. I confront him and he says I have no room on my land and this is the only place I could put it. It is an engineered field and is quite large. Approximately a 60x60 area. He says I am going to the township and ask for a variance and there will be nothing you can do about it. He says - You have plenty of land and it really shouldn’t be a problem. I said before you get that variance I’ll be calling the police and having you charged with trespassing. The beauty of calling the police was we had the land surveyed about 6 months prior and stakes were still outlining our property and we had also had the surveyors drawing. The police said without that proof of property lines it would have been a civil matter and up to the courts, but because we had the survey in our hands he was screwed. He had to remove what he had installed which was about 90% of the field. I would say about 10K in labor and materials. The only work that remained when I caught him was basically covering the field. We still do not speak and that was 6 years ago. He didn’t understand that’s what’s mine is mine…and that it’s not what’s yours is mine!

[@klee88029]

Good for you. The arrogance of so many people these days is incomprehensible. 👍🧓

[@rodneymiddleton9624]

People will try anything these days. Good for you!

[@mikewright7007]

Awesome I am glad you won without going to court.

[@peterallen4605]

I've got trespassers too that claim the "you've got so much land, this really doesn't impinge on you" defense. I politely listen, then tell them to get off of my property and don't come back as I will be filing suit for any future incursions. Normally that works. Had one person who returned to tear down a no trespassing sign that was blocking the trail he used. Three days later, there were four no trespassing signs in it's place. He seems to have gotten the picture.

[@andrewfidel2220]

Lol, getting a variance doesn't give you the right to someone else's property! Where do people come up with these thoughts?!? A variance relieves you from restrictions in the code that would normally stop you from doing something on your OWN property, and being granted a variance almost always requires the consent of any neighbors who would be impacted by the variance (at least it does in Ohio, I've been granted and have accepted variance from neighbors in multiple jurisdictions here).

[@berthenderson1932]

Just make sure that they don't tear down the house three blocks over!

[@BritInvLvr]

😂😂😂

[@megnotmegan1966]

Ikr? Seriously I’d be worried they’d destroy the wrong one 😮

[@Iowan515]

😂😂😂😂

[@RudesMom]

That's why another company will be doing the demolition. 😂

[@BarafuAlbino]

I think right now these builders are the least possible to do this mistake, of all the builders in USA.

[@jimonthebeachinkona]

This house is just down the road. Glad to see judge Kim pass down a reasonable ruling.

[@Slightlysalty1]

Is the house nice? They should be allowed to move it to another lot. Seems such a waste to tear it down but they get what’s coming I suppose.

[@horsemumbler1]

​@@Slightlysalty1 Did you pay no attention to the video? The house was not built to code, the builders were blatantly cutting corners, then the place was trashed and declared a hazard. It was a predatory and unlawful piece of fraud meant to scam somebody out of money as soon as a suckered could Be found to offload it to. It's really kind of disgusting sewing hiw obsessed so many people are in the comments over preserving an illegal heath hazard... for no better reason than criminals wasted time and materials to construct it? You really ahould rethink your values in this situation.

[@Julieb615]

@@Slightlysalty1 If it's concrete blocks built on a poured concrete slab foundation, there is no way to move it intact. I assumed if it was moveable that would have already happened. Chances are if the builder was eager to save a few hundred $ by not doing a survey then the house is likely poorly built and not worth keeping to have to pay $3600 a year in additional taxes.

[@ALLOFTHEBOOST]

​@@Slightlysalty1 it looks nice. But on concrete slab. So no chance.

[@chasm9557]

@@ALLOFTHEBOOST When I worked construction, we did have a couple jobs where the block foundation of an old home was failing. The solution was jacking the house, removing the blocks, and pouring a modern foundation. In theory, I can see how it would be possible to transport that house somewhere else, but not in a financially reasonable way and there's no way that you wouldn't have tons of cracked sheetrock seams everywhere, especially in the corners of the rooms.

[@Shilakamea]

This woman stated that the developer tried to force her to sell the lot to them before they even built the house and she said no because she already had plans for it. Then they "accidentally" built on this lot which was highly desired and offered to trade her a significantly less desirable lot. Then sued to get full ownership of the lot. They deserve what they got.

[@captainjimolchs]

Assuming what you say is true, it only serves to establish that real estate is unique.

[@arribaficationwineho32]

I have read that she had a good lot and they wanted it. They cut a lot of her trees or bushes

[@kimmieb2u]

100%!!!!! Glad for her!!!!

[@captainjimolchs]

@@sophiesnuffy2563 She has cross/counter complained. She has been awarded attorney fees. A hearing/trial is scheduled for late July to determine damages.

[@captainjimolchs]

@@sophiesnuffy2563 Not what you said previously, inconsistent with the theme of this thread and of no advantage to her. Further, it is unlikely that the developer has or needs a license. He buys real estate; improves it and sells it. He's a house flipper. Lots of people do that,

[@jnanadams9756]

Applause for the woman standing up for her rights.

[@skillethead15]

And shame on this incompetent builder who screwed up and tried to pass the burden onto the property owner.

[@joeashbubemma]

She's stupid. She could have negotiated and got the house and all that work for PENNIES on the dollar, then rent the house out until she's ready to build what she wants. Just to rip and roll a 1 acre lot costs $30K now, it used to be $2-3K before the scamdemic. If she's smart, she'll do that and use the court order as leverage. I'd offer them $10K for them to walk away, it'll cost them more to tear it down.

[@brusso456]

they just increased her property taxes by $3600 a year.

[@bodhi1462]

Yea, YOU GO GIRL!

[@lensmanicfeleven1847]

...but STUPID that SHE Had to....

[@karenstein8261]

Let me see if I can follow the arguments: - I buy some land - You accidentally build a house on my lot - I ask you to take your house off my land - You say that’s too much work, too expensive, and I should buy the house from you - I say “no deal” - You sue me, claiming I’m being unreasonable. Did I miss something?

[@advena996]

That is correct.

[@FillInLastName]

Can I have your address? 😂😂😂😂😂😂

[@DaveBigDawg]

The builder wanted to trade lots with her Give her the lot he was supposed to build on

[@IanHobday]

*ONE SENTENCE SUMMARY:* A house was mistakenly built on a woman's property in Hawaii, leading to a court order for its removal and ensuing legal battles. *TOP 10 IMPORTANT POINTS:* 1. A woman found an unauthorized house built on her Hawaii property. 2. The house was constructed due to a miscalculation using telephone poles. 3. Legal battles ensued, with multiple parties suing each other. 4. The court ruled the house must be removed from the woman's property. 5. The property owner received significantly higher tax bills due to the unauthorized construction. 6. Squatters occupied the house, causing safety concerns. 7. The court ordered an independent company to demolish the house. 8. The construction violated building laws and lacked proper permits. 9. The woman was awarded attorney fees and costs. 10. The court scheduled a trial to address further damages. *TAKEAWAYS:* 1. Always conduct proper surveys before construction to avoid legal issues. 2. Unauthorized construction can lead to significant financial and legal repercussions. 3. Courts recognize the unique value of individual properties. 4. Legal ownership and property rights are strictly enforced. 5. Ensuring compliance with building regulations is crucial.

[@Alastriona]

Put that way that it likes someone washing your windshield at a traffic light without permission then demanding payment writ large.

[@Brian-uy2tj]

Can you imagine what a horrible precedent it would be if the judge ruled for the builder. Builders wouldn't care if they owned the property anymore, they would build on any lot they liked and then force the actual owner to sell it to them. What a horrible situation that would be.

[@peerschulz2029]

investors could just buy cheap land in bumfuck nowhere and build in THE most desireable places in the area and then just force the real owner out by going "well, land is land..." making an absolute killing in the process. I guess companies like Blackrock may soon start lobbying to make this legal...

[@Brian-uy2tj]

@@peerschulz2029

[@strawberrylotlizard]

That's kind of what the Hawaii govt did after the fire

[@justicedemocrat9357]

There's already precedent for this case going back hundreds of years WTF are you talking about?

[@Xadov]

@@justicedemocrat9357precedent hasn’t stopped certain activist Supreme Court justices from overturning Roe v Wade. 100% if this case were to make it to the Supreme Court, they would rule in favor of the developer

[@calebfielding6352]

"he found the lot by counting telephone poles" Is an example of how saving money cost you a lot of money. Sometimes you cannot afford to be cheap.

[@piewhackit2me]

As my mother used to say and a favorite quote of hers ‘strangled a camel to save a gnats ass’.

[@Navschannel3908]

My mom used to ask me "if you don't have time to do it right the first time, where do you imagine getting time to do it again?" I think that sort of applies here as well.

[@seanlevoy9446]

I build houses. The absolute first thing I do is have the lot staked by a surveyor.

[@barryhoneycutt3894]

Agreed; never heard of a Contractor doing something that stupid, that cost him over Half a Million bucks for a $500.00 survey, counting telephone poles, how did this nut job Contractor get his License ?? here in Texas they do not play that, the Inspector's Office Checks and you must submit a Survey to the City or County. smh

[@rinkevichjm]

@@barryhoneycutt3894more than likely there was an original surveyor of the tracts and he might have had in his original contract low cost options to place markers IAW with survey.

[@admantiom1848]

I am a surveyor for the past 30 years. And never ever heard anything like this before. A developer counting telephone poles; and building houses. this one's for the books.

[@LaughingTerry]

The same thing happened in Connecticut not too long ago. Same outcome too.

[@MissLibertarian]

Im no expert on Hawaii, but it has a climate and architecture that relies on breezes, and the style may look easy (hurricanes and earthquakes, and environmental regulation argue differently). Somebody who watched too many DIY and flipping shows appears to got ahead of themselves, and none of the adults stopped them in time.

[@JayAdams-ml5jf]

Yes, it is one for the books. The Law Books, lol.

[@katisugarbaker7349]

It’s Hawaii.

[@brianvogt8125]

I guess you're infering that telephone poles are not recognised Survey Marks in USA, and that property Titles are not described in terms of telephone poles either. That wouldn't fly in Australia, either.

[@gazzas123]

It happened in Australia a builder built a house on the wrong block and when the owner of the block who only visited his block on rare occasions saw the house on his block just changed the locks and moved in. The courts ruled that he now owned the house as well. The person who paid for the building had to sue the builder for the cost.

[@JamesTK]

Yep and since it’s on their land and the builder was trespassing… it’s their house. Can’t claim trespass on land that isn’t yours

[@chrisAgoodwin]

Did he get any money ? Without having signed a contract for building a house ?

[@kenw1248]

In Australia what is attached to the land comes with the land.

[@divahc1]

When and where did it happen?

[@ThatRedhedd]

That land owner scored big time! 🙌🏼

[@dchall8]

I used to make original digital maps for an appraisal district in Texas. Thus I saw things for the first time that owners were often unaware of. As I was drawing maps in my own neighborhood I found a house built half on a lot they did not own. What happened was they bought 2 lots and ended up putting the house in the middle of the two, except they missed. They bought lots 3 and 4 but built the house centered on lots 2 and 3. Everyone was friendly enough about the error, and they agreed to clear the title by trading lot 2 for lot 4 with a couple of warranty deeds.

[@tommorgan1291]

How nice to find a despute resolved in a win win manner!

[@flylikeabeetv]

That sounds like the plot of an episode of a sitcom 😂

[@tommorgan1291]

@@flylikeabeetv Ha! Your right

[@Crayonberry1212]

That's a good option if you don't start out by suing the owner of lot 2 to get it from them 😆

[@frankdeboer1347]

They compounded their first mistake by suing the victim thus making her more unwilling to agree to any future settlement. Ridiculous!

[@SmallSpoonBrigade]

I think they had determined that she wouldn't settle for less than the property being returned to the way it was, or at least as close as possible.

[@erichusmann5145]

@@SmallSpoonBrigade And now she's got a court order for that, at company expense. Which means she's already effectively won, and can best stick it to them by refusing a settlement for anything other than the order.

[@isilder]

No they wanted to it solved cheap, not offer Reynolds any profit...now the builder can offer something to get reynolds to sell the land.

[@doom4067]

I saw one comment that they took everyone to court in an effort to get it resolved faster. Otherwise they'd have to wait for their victim to come the case. Their victim lives in California.

[@snorgardark1908]

It was more having what is going to happen, happen. Everyone was sued and let the courts sort it out. Not all suits are the plaintiff trying to screw over the defendants. There was a case in the news a while back "aunt sues nephew for hugging her". What it was she was knock over and hurt her leg. Her medical insurance refused to pay saying her brothers home owner insurance needed to pay. She needed the courts to say who was at fault so they can then go after insurance for refusing pay. She was never going to force her nephew to pay anything and just needed the "disput" of who was at fault settled so she can go after the insurance companies.

[@DaveBigDawg]

I'm glad the builder wasn't able to bully the lady and the courts made the right decision Hopefully he grants the lady that the builder pays all court costs and lawyer costs

[@nextbizzy]

He covers the court costs in the video... The builder has to pay. She can also sue for damages when the house is removed.

[@kimstarck284]

and all the property taxes she had to pay for a house that was not hers!

[@arresthillary9502]

and emotional distress

[@lucialuciferion6720]

And all the trees that were removed to make way for the house. I remember from the previous video the land had emotional value.

[@kenmore01]

@@kimstarck284 And, restoration of the old tax rate. I didn't hear if the court addressed that.

[@EvilTwin559]

There was a story on reddit about a man that came home from WW II to find out his childhood friend had passed away. The problem was his friend was alive and well completing his military service. The mayor of their home town had declared his friend legally dead in order to seize the land and sell it to developers. The look on the mayor's face when this marine marched into city hall to kick a** and take names. The mayor was convicted, the developers had to remove the homes and the property was restored to its original state.

[@kaseyboles30]

There are some pretty strong laws on the books protecting those serving in the military and their homes. Don't know how the laws were back then, but the public sentiment in favor of the troops seems to have been something not to screw with. I suspect the criminal conviction was only the start of the mayors issues.

[@reubensandwich9249]

If it was on reddit, it was probably fake.

[@ninjalectualx]

The laws only protect WHITE veterans. Black WWII veterans weren't given the same advantages

[@82ndAbnVet]

@@reubensandwich9249 No way! If it's on the internet, it has to be true! You're not allowed to lie on the internet!

[@AP-gb3eh]

That is Justice. A rare commodity these days.

[@suzannemetze1584]

Been following this case. Congratulations to Ms. Reynolds for her victory. She was living in the upper 48 and had no idea this was happening on her property in Hawaii. How dare this developer try to literally steal her property and sue HER. So happy she is getting justice. I hope you continue to follow the story through until the very end. Something tells me it's not over...

[@The_Geezus]

Did you mean lower 48 or have I missed a major change in our relationship with Canada?

[@lensmanicfeleven1847]

...SAD She had to Hire an Attorney.....

[@BigBuck3ts]

@@The_Geezusyou didn’t hear. We annexed Canada and divided its provinces into 48 new states.

[@The_Geezus]

@@BigBuck3ts Big, if true! 😂

[@joshuahudson2170]

Expected ruling; expect the next hearing to be in bankruptcy court.

[@aaadamt964]

Do what? Are you saying the company will file bankruptcy to avoid removing the house? Or they'll go broke removing it and restoring the property?

[@Tathanic]

@@aaadamt964 declare bankruptcy, reopen new company & go back to work ez

[@CAPFlyer]

@@Tathanic Not how it works.

[@aaadamt964]

@@Tathanic that's what I meant. I just worded it terribly.

[@soremekun]

That is a series of expensive errors.

[@pigalottafattenton5003]

I worked with a woman that got a house for free like this. They told the builders they were on the wrong property and showed prior surveys. They continued building saying she was wrong. They let the house be built. One good lawyer later they have a free house, builder ate the cost and built a new house in the correct place.

[@amck72]

Well damn that's great lol

[@mplsmark222]

I hope the house in the Hawaii case is not torn down. However, the woman that owns the lot should not give in. To me, best case would be for her to take ownership of the house, if she wants it. Otherwise, tear it down or move it, remove the other installations and restore to original condition.

[@tenchimuyo69]

@@mplsmark222 It seems likely to be torn down. They mentioned the natural flora being destroyed, but she wanted that flora to be there for religious reasons.

[@mplsmark222]

@@tenchimuyo69 yes, I remember hearing that in a previous report. It is just such a waste of resources to destroy the house. But I agree the owner should have every right to demand the property to be restored to its original condition. I hope she gets back to that, and put all this behind her.

[@reb1225]

@@mplsmark222 Why is the best case for the property owner to take possession of the house or tear it down?! You do know that houses are built "on" foundations, which means houses can be lifted off the foundation and moved. That would be the best case.

[@Pgresham3]

Great judgment. Always get a survey, even if you're just putting in a fence. We learned that the hard way and it cost us $3000 to fix it. At least we discovered it right away and fixed it at our cost because it was our mistske. The unmitigated gaul of the builders to sue this woman is unbelievable. So glad the court sees it that way, too.

[@ccrider77]

As a previous land surveyor, I can say that an accurate property survey is not something you want to cut costs on...

[@johnmcleodvii]

When selling a house, I've pointed to the corner markers on the property. The surveyor still checked that they were in the expected location (they were). I saved them a bit of trouble locating them.

[@richdobbs6595]

As an outside observer, I discount your opinion since you are an obviously biased party. OTOH, in this case, I think you are correct despite being a previous land surveyor.

[@SymPlayTon]

I 100% agree. A problem today is that surveyors are not available everywhere. Some places are booked 12 months out.

[@beepbop6697]

Would assume IF it was surveyed, and the surveyor screwed up, it would be the surveyor company on the hook for all damages?

[@SymPlayTon]

@beepbop6697 with that large of an error yes the surveyor would have been liable. In general the surveyors are allowed a margin of error. Typically in the 1:10,000 range. So if the parameter is 10,000 ft they can reasonably expect to be an inch off.

[@nondanelson9553]

Sounds like she was blessed to have a judge with integrity.

[@FrankPark-mo4mq]

and common sense.

[@Tinbender-zr4jd]

A judge with integrity - a rare thing today.

[@rickss69]

Taking that a bit far. This should be the expectation and reality period, not a hopeful wish.

[@jasondominick5773]

​@rickss69 sad fact is that doesn't always happen. Laziness, corruption, and prejudices exist in humans, and many don't check biases when doing their job.

[@okiejohn3925]

The fact that they didn't have legal permits means the city/county/state was on her side too...that helps sway a judge.

[@mileshigh1321]

Two Douche Canoes didn't do a survey, then when she found out they built the house and wanted it gone, they sued her! Glad she won!

[@johnanon658]

She had better now counter sue for all the hassell, legal fees, stress

[@SmallSpoonBrigade]

A $50 surveyor's wheel likely would have identified the lot being off as well. They didn't do even the bare minimum of effort to get it right and they deserve far worse than this.

[@mrbob4u495]

@@johnanon658 Already approved by the court. Next stop, restitution.

[@doom4067]

@johnanon658 she did counter she. The courts aren't going to take the time to hear the same case twice of they don't have to.

[@KNByam]

@@johnanon658 That's automatic. The company that made the mistake are idio!s. They should've taken the loss and take the steps, instead they compounded their monetary losses by going to court.

[@kellyappel3015]

A few years ago, in Sioux Falls, there was a house being renovated in an established neighborhood. The owner was a doctor and apparently wanted the biggest house in the neighborhood. Work began and soon it became clear that zoning laws were not being followed. The house grew in size to the point where it infringed on their neighbors. Early into the process, notices were served to the contractor, who I'm sure communicated them to the owner, but work progressed. Eventually it wound up in court and the judge decided that the house either had to be brought back into compliance or tore down. It was tore down.

[@kevinhall7612]

Given that her taxes went up, it would seem that the tax assessor counted the telephone poles correctly.

[@outforbeer]

True, but once a house is built. It’s easier to not get mixed up over an empty land all around it

[@chiefschillaxn1781]

Some type of logical fallacy here and jumping to false conclusions.

[@Legion-xq8eo]

@@chiefschillaxn1781or it was a joke and someone’s taking it to seriously

[@off2theright]

Find the person who was stealing telephone poles and everybody can sue him.

[@deadpolymers3416]

The taxes went up on her property, when it should’ve gone up on the neighbors property. The tax district had the lots right, but the builder didn’t.

[@garygemmell3488]

From December of 1971 to about July of 1972 my mother and us four kids lived on my grandfathers inactive 400 acre farm in northern Michigan. I did not really appreciate the uniqueness of the place back then. The property was carved out of a forest and my grandfather had planted pine trees along the 1/3 mile long driveway to the farmhouse to keep snow drifts off the drive. We called it "The Lane". The 400 acres was not all farmland, so any land that had not been farmed was still forest. One thing is patently clear. If someone had come in and started tearing up trees that they had no right to tear up, they would forever change the look of the land. They might be able to replant the trees, but it would literally take a lifetime for the land to be restored to it's natural state. This lady deserves every penny she squeeze from these developers.

[@kevinmach730]

Is it Schrute Farms, by chance?

[@Sailor376also]

As I tried to explain in another post. It is far more than regrowing vegetation,, which for there may well be 100 or 200 years. The land itself is a lava flow,, the surface is hard black and in unbelievable waves and swirls, small hills that were semi solid when pushed there. The entire surface is a work of art of frozen ropes and coils and swirls, ripples,, crevasses where tubes have collapsed. It cannot be duplicated or restored, and some lots are incredibly decorated with these features, unique.

[@velvetbees]

I love this story about your grandfather owning and preserving the natural wonder of the property. He must have been quite a guy to do all that. It's people like him who preserve instead of destroy.

[@herranton]

​@@Sailor376also So you know exactly where this property is? Or you are guessing? I somehow doubt a new homeowners association would be permitted to be built in an area you describe.

[@Chef-vg4pu]

And then some…. I would say triple her damages…. To be fair.

[@chelsealeonardbaum23]

This woman was saddled with a home she didn’t want, taxes on that house, insurance, and the cost of maintenance. It wasn’t a windfall, it was a huge burden.

[@Despiser25]

Or people are just bigger arseholes in 2024 than at any other time in American History,.

[@BlackJesus8463]

yeah but she still has them for neighbors though.

[@angrydachshund]

Could they seriously not arrange a swap for lot 115 or 113 or any of the other 197 lots in that immediate area? I will bet you that on judgment day we will see that she was lying when she claimed that lot 114 was somehow so unique that it would justify demolishing a brand new house.

[@PeenWienerstien]

People forget that houses cost more than just the mortgage you pay on it. In a place like Hawaii that could be tens of THOUSANDS of dollars.

[@SouthwestD313]

@@angrydachshund Why should she have to do anything? Who cares if you think she is lying it was her property from the get go and should have the land the way it was before the house.

[@thewitt2890]

The Lawyer that agreed to sue the property owner for the builder should be disbarred.

[@SeedlingNL]

Even scumbags need a good lawyer...

[@xcalibertrekker6693]

The lawyer was just doing his job, i'm sure he knew going in that they had no standing and didn't stand a chance.

[@purplefood1]

@@xcalibertrekker6693 I believe if he was doing his job he wouldn't have taken the case, perhaps i am mistaken or it is not everywhere in the US but lawyers taking intentionally bad cases just to charge fees from idiots is considered unethical.

[@DQ_Mine]

​@@purplefood1 Look at the USA. Look at the world. History. Being unethical doesn't matter. Look how many people vote for t. Half the people in the world don't care about ethics or their fellow humans. It is all about $.

[@trailertrish2587]

You can sue anyone in the US for practically anything. I bet the lawyer warned him that the case was as flimsy as the house he just built but the builder went ahead anyway.

[@travisschrenk1224]

This lady got justice for what happened to her. This is such a good outcome for property owners everywhere

[@brianm4178]

It isn't enough .. she's owed personal damages for what they put her through and thr company needs heavy fines on top of the costs to remove and make whole, not just fix it but pay PENALTIES

[@charlesbutterfield3464]

When the property is scraped, the topsoil is removed. Once the topsoil is removed the property is less suitable for growing plants.

[@CelticBearWoman]

😢

[@reh3884]

The court order says they are responsible for removable and restoration.

[@davidh9638]

If they remove the topsoil, according to the order Steve read they must replace it.

[@howardradford1985]

Here in Florida if you dig anywhere it's nothing but sand after 6 inches

[@SmallSpoonBrigade]

@@reh3884 It's the bit about the actual restoration to the condition it was previously that was denied. But, the case will continue for damages, which will probably be rather extensive, trees are not cheap to replace. The area may not be quite as it was originally, but if she gets a certain number of trees, she probably doesn't have to place them exactly where there were trees, which may be a bit of an upside.

[@MegaSuperfatguy]

The woman should not be concerned at all about it being "wasteful" to tear the house down. The builders obviously were not concerned about surveying or suing her for their mistake.

[@alanjameson8664]

I should think that they could save money by moving the house to their own land. There are companies that specialize in that.

[@kidthorazine]

@@alanjameson8664 How doable that is really depends on the construction of the house, a lot of newer construction can't really be moved.

[@lkd06]

​@@alanjameson8664I don't think the house was as important to them as the land...they thought by sticking a house there they could more easily grab Reynolds lot to add to the parcel they already owned

[@timothydeyoung5653]

The audacity of blame transference by the builders. Sue them for all the emotional harassment

[@skachor]

Why not? Resources are limited, not to mention all the time that was put into building a house that would never be lived in on a property that is now pillaged of its original beauty. It's a damn shame.

[@SeanRohrich-n1b]

Filing a frivolous lawsuit should be a crime.

[@thomasb7347]

Its at least legal malpractice

[@cieloscuro88]

If I recall correctly, in some states it is BUT people can get around this by filing the suit in a different state that does allow frivolous lawsuits to be filed with the intention of buying time or exhausting resources.

[@DanBeech-ht7sw]

Be merciful. He's already got 34 convictions. No need to add more.

[@dgu8193]

@@DanBeech-ht7sw 😂

[@terry7340]

In 2016 I bought a house on an 8000 sq. ft. corner lot in a fully developed subdivision. A knowledgeable friend recommended I get a survey. It seemed unnecessary but for $400 I went with the given advice. It turned out the utility easement encroached on the front corner of the garage. I said “correct the error”. After lots of hoo-hah, the owner, the original developer, and the municipal Utility split the $10K required to move the utilities and provide a modified easement. Cheap insurance. Lesson learned.

[@TheJuanSolid]

You mean you were buying a house right? Seems wrong if after you closed you were able to get all the other parties to pay for the fix.

[@Subangelis]

​@@TheJuanSolid- They still bought the house in 2016. They didn't pay for it until the work was done.

[@TheJuanSolid]

@@Subangelis they said the owner and fully developed (I took as complete). Let's let them speak for themselves, should clear it up fine without any assumptions needed.

[@etougaming2176]

@@TheJuanSolidHow would it seem wrong if they’ve built something on his property that does not belong? Regardless of when it was built does not reverse the damage done to the property by the utilities being built on his property.

[@duanehorton4680]

The easement did not encroach on the garage. Rather, the garage encroached on the easement.

[@hbhb7900]

The builder suing the actual property owner, is the standard entitlement that has taken over so much of this country.

[@silverfeathered1]

*"self-entitlement" "Entitlement" would imply they are acting in the correct manner.

[@Jmamelia]

💯

[@Jmamelia]

​@@silverfeathered1 he's referring to the verb entitled...as on to be entitled versus social security (a noun), an entitlement you are owed and earned.

[@silverfeathered1]

@@Jmamelia Yes. That's the problem. Entitled by itself implies it was bestowed by others. Conversely, self-entitled means you've bestowed it to yourself. "Acting entitled" is not the same as "being entitled".

[@velvetbees]

Exactly my thoughts. All the builder had to do was go to the county courthouse to ask if the property wzs owned by a private citizen or the developer. Or consult a title company to look it up. Counting telepbone poles is ridiculous.

[@NSResponder]

I'm still flabbergasted that the incompetent clowns had the nerve to sue the person they wronged. If I were on that jury when this goes to trial, she'd walk away owning their company.

[@Whoever68]

You mean a company that would be worthless after this debacle?

[@velvetbees]

This is why it is good to post No Trespassing signs on your priperty if it is a vacant lot. She had to sue. If anyone got hurt on that property because of the house, they could have sued her, and that would have made this even more complicated. With No Trespassing signs, in some atates it will deny trespassers the right to sue.

[@blairhoughton7918]

They sued her so the court could take the lot from her. They were hoping nobody would show up and it would be a default judgment.

[@MrCommunistGen]

Too many people would rather double down on a mistake than admit they messed up. And all too often they win, perpetuating the trend. At least that's not happening this time.

[@AnthonyJMendoza-f7i]

@@velvetbees It is a good idea to post your property in any case. People otherwise may wander onto your property and say that they didn't know that it was private property. If one of those people get injured, they may sue you. At least if it is posted, then you can threaten them with criminal trespass.

[@DavidKoppana-iq8jr]

Thanks, Steve. It takes so much gall to sue someone when you yourself had made a vital mistake.

[@callmelittleb]

When I first read about this, the article said the woman bought the property and planned to hold spiritual retreats among the flora and foliage of a tropical paradise. Kind of hard to do when the land was scraped clear, means that she lost her slice of heaven and a business.

[@chrisd1746]

They might not be able to restore it how it was but hopefully she's at least able to get enough money to hire a kickass landscaper to get it back to a somewhat natural state

[@WoodlandT]

I hope she gets a significant judgement for damages at trial

[@celtisafricana4984]

So glad that there's a level-headed judge on this case. I'm 100% on the landowner's side

[@crs1474]

The fact she got a tax bill for the value of the lot PLUS the home value proofs the city AND the developer and house owner knew 100% they were on that ladies lot.

[@showwhite7320]

Uh…I think you're jumping to conclusions.

[@TheRealRedRooster]

Well, it shows that the city/county knew on which lot was build but the home owner didn't get that tax bill, the land/property owner got that...

[@crs1474]

@@showwhite7320 jumping to conclusions? The tax bill is the conclusion and it proves the assessor knew the lot belonged to the land owner which means they knew the house was being built on the wrong lot from the beginning.

[@Talkwithtina808]

Hawaii officials and builders are dumb. Living here for 9 years.

[@hauntedshadowslegacy2826]

There's still a chance the city didn't know the lady didn't hire the sleazy developer, just that the house was on her lot.

[@johnbouldin9033]

Thank you for providing such a straight forward presentation of the case and order of the court.

[@shomron0]

Finally a Judge that knows right from wrong!

[@82ndAbnVet]

Even the corrupt judges know right from wrong. They just think that they are above the law.

[@karagi101]

Most judges don’t? I think the vast majority do.

[@gjhripto]

I went through a similar situation in PA when having my home built. I lived out-of-town while having my new home built. When I settled on the home, I noticed via my "eye test" that my front yard seemed smaller than what was laid out on my deed. I had the property surveyed, and it turns out that the builder was incorrect on his assumption of where property lines were. He assumed that property lines followed utility boxes, and the utility boxes were along the property lines dividing lots. Totally untrue, of course. They took out a bunch of mature trees and built the neighbor's home closer to the property line that they had filed with the township, and the neighbor's driveway was quite a bit over onto my property. They refused to do anything about it, and I had to sue to have it removed which, naturally, caused a rift between me and my new neighbor.

[@UnknownWarriorZz]

I’m still pissed at you for suing me Gary.

[@M-Is-For-Margaret]

Because of course your new neighbor thinks everything was all right, and you had go and be anal about what's yours. Glad you got things corrected. Really too bad, you had to sue.

[@MrCharlesEldredge]

I'm sad to hear you were not able to work something out without suing. That would have been ideal. Did anyone try?

[@gjhripto]

@@MrCharlesEldredge Yes, we did try. We simply wanted the driveway moved back over the property line and the trees/landscaping replaced. The builder just flat-out refused, saying he was already losing money and didn't want to lose any more. (We had other issues with the builder that were covered under his warranty, and he wasn't happy about fixing them at his expense.) The neighbor offered to purchase the piece of property in question; however, that would have dropped our amount of land below the threshold to have a septic system on our property (it's a rural area with no public sewer or water). We would have had to apply for a variance with no guarantee of getting it, and our property value would have taken a hit, naturally. Plus, I wanted what I paid for.

[@lizsays3324]

Your neighbor expected you to take the risk of your house being unlivable (no septic) just so they didn't have to move a driveway? And they would get more property and you less? Wow, are they selfish. I would have sued them too.

[@Sailor376also]

Steve, there is another problem. I know that location, if not that specific lot. The last lava flow for most of that area was 100 to 300 years ago, the natural surface is solid,, I mean solid basalt lava. And on each lot the lava rolled, or flowed, domed and tubed,,, the lots are highly individualistic, and the vegetation is commensurately highly individualistic. There are two normal treatments to those lots when building. One is leave it in its natural state and build mostly, on the surface. Preserving the natural roll and flow of the surface as much as possible. A house can be 40 feet from the road and absolutely unseen because of the vegetation. We are talking rain forest 100 to 500 inches of rain per year, Beautiful, impressive, impassible. The second way the lots are treated for development is by ripping the land. It REQUIRES just about the largest bulldozer you can imagine with a single or double tooth that can reach down into the basalt lava and rip the stone from the ground. There is no scraping of the surface, there is no corollary you and I in Michigan are familiar with,, They must plow the stone surface to a depth of about 3 feet, destroying the loops and swirls of the lava flow, the fantastic shapes and rolls and ropes of frozen black stone. Then the angular block are bulldozed approximately flat and crushed down by the 80 tons of the bulldozer. After the lot is ripped then crushed cinder lava is brought in to smooth the surface and plant grass. Septic systems are holes cut deep with crane mounted 1,000 pound jack hammers. If you must dig anything,, you do it with a heavy 10 to 20 pound ice spud. 6 feet long with a 1.5 inch tip,, called an Uh-oh bar. (Uh-oh ya gotta dig?) Brutal, brutal work in 70 to 90 degree heat 70 to 90 percent humidity with rain every day. You welcome the rain because it cools your back, while you break your back. That is why the lot cannot be restored. It is impossible to recreate the fantastic lava swirls and roils, or the lava dome 10 feet tall or the collapsed lava tube forming a rift across the property. I have built there. It ain't easy.

[@dianeladico1769]

Thank you for explaining. That said, I kind of wish I didn't know...that's horrific. Fervently wishing Papa gets her revenge.

[@Sailor376also]

@@dianeladico1769 It is a fantasy sort of place. The ocean surf crashing against a 20 foot tall cliff 1/4 mile to the north and volcanoes that spew molten rock 10 miles the other way. You can hear the roar of either. The lava lights the bottom of the clouds at night. Depending upon your exact location,, the land may be a desert 10 inches of rainfall per year. 40 miles away tropical rain forest with rain nearly every day. Also, imagine that rain forest with streets and 20 percent of the lots built, 80% still natural,, 100 or 200 inches of rain,, and not a single roadside ditch or stream. The rain falls into the cracks of the lava and flows to the seas in under surface lava tubes. Incredible place. (My sisters 'invite me to visit' {Bring your tools.} {Oh, thanks.} Arizona, Texas, Oklahoma, Hawaii, Michigan, New York, Newfoundland. (The last is my second home.)

[@dianeladico1769]

@@Sailor376also Such beauty-destroying that is a crime against man and Nature. You have a good sampling of vacation spots, er, work sites. Newfoundland is more my speed. Jealous.

[@Sailor376also]

@@dianeladico1769 Don't know you. Don't know anything about you,, but,, I have a permit for the Green River in Utah for the 14th of July, the bow seat of the canoe is empty. And available.

[@dianeladico1769]

@@Sailor376also What a lovely offer! If I were able to travel I'd be there. I hope you have the best time.

[@MsLucyJayne]

Glad the property owner was vindicated. If the case had not been found in her favor, it would have set a terrible precedent.

[@Mike-zw7fq]

As I recall. The contractor was trying to claim that Reynolds was unfairly profiting from getting a free house. How Dare she so much as break even on this infringement! How arrogant !

[@bodhi1462]

Lol but they didn't offer to give her the house as far as I know? Did they? How us she "benefiting" by having to pay $4,000 a year in property tax instead of $400? I'm glad she won. So often we hear of bullying, unethical people winning, which is probably why they claimed all the crazy things like her title not being valid, etc.

[@iamgabriel5823]

I worked in construction for a lot of years. I remember one slimy builder who thought he could get away with pouring a foundation within the property easement. The inspector called him on it and made him tear out the foundation. Taught the jerk a lesson.

[@Rhaspun]

There was a house that was built in my old home town. The house looked too large for the lot. Way too close to the property lines. I don't know what happened. But within about 15 months after it was built it was torn down. Nice looking house but it didn't match the neighborhood.

[@violetagarcia2562]

Instead of admitting their mistake and trying to make it right, they sued her while their hands were dirty. They are thinking only of their loss and not the loss they caused Reynolds. They took shortcuts and therefore ate respinsivle for the errors caused by their choice. Thankfully, the judge stopped them bulkying the lady and is in the process of making them correct their mistake. She has no obligation to accept money or a land swap from them. I wouldn't either if I was her, not after they bullied her and sued her for their incompetence.

[@eldridge201]

She should try and sue them for emotional distress that this is all caused her. She deserves way more than just her court costs and attorney fees and everything else paid for. This woman went through a traumatic event due to nothing of her own doing and all because of malicious intent from another party involved. They deserve to be punished and punished harshly. They knew what they were doing but stupidly they doubled down and tried to make it even worse. She deserves way more than what she got.

[@artistjoh]

While their excuse is incompetence, I do not rule out it being a deliberate ploy to take possession of a desirable lot. Their actions in suing Reynolds suggests it was deliberate. If it was an accident they would be attempting to make it right. The law suit suggests malice.

[@lindagroves2668]

Hi, here's a comment from the UK. I'm so glad this woman won her case to get her land back. I could not believe the details when I read about this case, to sue the owner if the land well several words come to mind, are they mental, have they got a screw loose only in the US. I sincerely hope the woman can start to relax once this huge pile of manure is sorted out. Suing the owner of the land!! The people who did this and caused so much upset should be in their knees, but, I worry for her as these types of settlements can go down the sewage pipes and declare Bankruptcy. Wishing all goes well for the property owner. Linda Groves, Dundee, Scotland.

[@missmike3693]

Stop it. There's plenty loose screws in the UK as well. Lol

[@minnowshark]

The developer was just greedy. They tried to cut corners by not paying a few hundred dollars for a surveyor. When they found the mistake, they tried to force the woman to accept another lot instead of removing the house. It is going to cost them probably over a million dollars in the end with building a house, suing other people, and then paying to remove the house. All of this was to save several hundred dollars.

[@laurieleech8681]

Big high end house was being demolished in order to build a bigger higher end house. Instead of demolishing, the building contractor offer it to the local fire brigade to use as fire practise. Both parties were delighted with the arrangement and firefighters even travelled from other parts of the country to take part. Greenies however were not amused.

[@20JK10]

I just find it insane that the builders sued her for their mistake.

[@maurer3d]

Well they sued her to try and force her to sell them the land, so they wouldn't lose money and could just sell the house.

[@jesseblackmore8338]

@@maurer3d Doesn't make it any less insane. Next time they should just own up to the fact that they screwed up big time. Maybe they shouldn't half-ass locating the plot next time.

[@georgesheffield1580]

I don't, with the "developers " around now , they learned at the used car dealership.

[@lkd06]

I don't think it was a mistake...they made it look that way but the way they turned around and sued HER makes me think they wanted the land

[@Obamaistoast2012]

My experience, builders are some of the worst types of people, most are cheapskate and crooked.

[@ElvisUmbrella]

I just helped a friend put up a fence around her property. It was 300’ foot long. She needed a building permit, a survey, then we had to mark were every fence post was going to be and call 811 to mark all the utility’s. Then the people behind her thought her fence would be on her land and they got 90 days to get there property check. The fence had to be set back from the property line and the inspector said it was. She asked for help in January and I filed the building permit in February. Took untill June first to get approval. The other survey Was exactly the same border as the first. But the city still let the other land hold to contest the permit. Took 3 days to put up 300 foot of fence. (I’m not a contractor). Part of the permit was getting the boundary of the property. You can’t cut corners. It’s can bite you later. The survey was 50% of the price of the fence.

[@buggsy5]

When the land owner behind your friend complained to the authorities about the boundary, they should have been required to get a survey within 30 days or so to substantiate their concern. Once the survey did not support their belief, that should have been the end of it. I am surprised that the fence had to be set back from the property line - if the setback was more than about 3 inches. That is because the neighbor could claim after a few decades that you had abandoned that strip of land. Hopefully the permit clearly stated that the fence had to be set back from the boundary.

[@ElvisUmbrella]

@@buggsy5 the north set back was 24” for the underground power line directly under the property line. The east and west were only 3”. +\- so as not to obscure the expensive servey markers she had just paid for. I Realy wasn’t interested in seeing or feeling what it was like to hit underground power line with a powered auger.

[@tissuepaper9962]

​@@ElvisUmbrellamake sure she keeps mowing that 24" and trimming the weeds on the far side of the fence where the setback is only a few inches.

[@dayinthelifeofmycat]

@@tissuepaper9962 Here's the rub on that. The opposing neighbor can prohibit the other neighbor from standing on his land while mowing or trimming that tiny sliver of land. I've been through this! Twice! The first neighbor was so angry about my newly-installed fence that he refused to let me stand on his land in order to trim the grass and weeds growing on the 3" behind it. He called the police on me for trespassing! Then, out of spite, he left the grass and weeds to grow along side of it, and I had no remedy to fix the eyesore. I sold the house and moved to another town and put up another fence at my new property.. When I tried to paint this fence, THAT neighbor called the cops on me and "trespassed" me for standing on his land while trying to paint it. The moral to the story is to paint your fence BEFORE you install it and then put it directly on the property line if the county allows it. That way, your neighbor is responsible for his own yard and you don't have to worry about 3 or so inches of land that you need permission to access.

[@ElvisUmbrella]

@@tissuepaper9962 yes I thought of that too. I put a gate on that side so the easement can be mowed. Thank you for saying that . I’ll show my friend that you agree that she should maintain it and not abandon it. The other yard has more set back according to the man that set the markers. He said the utility have a right to access the power lines. And they put a garage over part of it and he doesn’t see that garage on any of the county documents he’s looking at.

[@rex8255]

I remember this because it wasn't just that she didn't want THAT house there, she didn't want ANY house there.

[@keithbond9423]

And she wanted the jungle to remain which is now gone. It won't be back in her lifetime.

[@Emophiliac2]

That wasn't my recollection. My recollection is that she wanted that particular location due to feng shui or something like that. I think she just wasn't in a position to build on the property yet, but did want only that particular location. Maybe because of her birthday. Anyway, I was waiting for Steve to respond to that.

[@philo-]

@Emophiliac2 She wanted to build a clinic for women. The location was important to her because of the nature surrounding it and the views from the property. Obviously, you can't have a random house where you're planning on building a clinic/business, and they messed up the area in her opinion with the cinstruction. IIRC, She did say some nonsense about the location aligning your chakra or being in phase with the zodiac signs or something like that, but I don't remember exactly what it was. Either way, her intentions are good, and it was still her property and rights bulldozed and then sued over which is unjust.

[@roseother8306]

​@@Emophiliac2and she bought the land for a song...

[@Subangelis]

​@@philo-- The clearcut the lot. There is nothing left standing of her jungle paradise.

[@RAda-bq1zi]

Thanks for the update on this case. Please continue to inform us of final details.

[@NighDarke]

Even if their lawyer does ask the lady if there is any way they can get her a different piece of land to avoid having to tear down the house, at this point she's probably going to say no out of sheer spite for the utter nonsense they put her through and quite frankly I wouldn't blame her. My grandmother's house had 3 lots around it that she also owned and she never developed them. One of their neighbors decided to enlarge their house with an addition and they went well on to one of my grandmother's lots. When she told them they jumped straight into suing her in an effort to steal the land. The judge of course ruled with my grandmother and she would not agree to selling them any part of the land under any circumstances at that point because she was so angry with them so they had to tear down what they'd already built. If they had just approached her from the beginning and asked to buy part of one of the lots there's a very good chance she would have sold it to them.

[@Foggen]

You know it's bad when you get "a 3rd party will demolish and remove the house and you will pay for it" in a PRELIMINARY injuction

[@samfrancisco8095]

Reynolds didn't want them on the property and rightly so. They would probably leave stuff for spite making building a house impossible. They already proved incompetence. I wouldn't either.

[@off2theright]

What law allows the judge to destroy the house? Is that not someone's property? It could be moved. That is the logical resolution.

[@Foggen]

@@off2theright It's not a double wide. You can't just move a regular house.

[@VioletRM]

the law that says you cant build houses on other peoples land without permission

[@bodhi1462]

I was so 😊 to hear this awesome judge say that. I wonder if Hawaii has more ethical judges than the other 49 or she just lucked out in getting an ethical, decisive judge with balls that didn't attempt to "split the baby."

[@nairbvel]

It's actually refreshing to hear about the justice system actually doling out justice instead of just a legal decision. That builder (and possibly their client) sounds shady AF. I just hope that Ms. Reynolds isn't still saddled with the illegally inflated property tax bill.

[@jackroark6928]

maybe I've been watching the wrong videos but I've never seen one with so many in-depth and intelligent comments.

[@UnknownWarriorZz]

Good to see there are still some courts in this country left with common sense and integrity.

[@LisaRent]

My husband is a retired surveyor. I told him about this and he was shocked. He thinks she should go after the city or county for their negligence. It’s just so expensive.

[@aryqpasta]

You got after the city last. If you go after the city first, chances are the judge is lenient on the contractor and you end up with nothing.

[@tommorgan1291]

Agree as there had to be a building permit.

[@Androctonus84]

They did offer to trade lots before they filed suit, but as you said, she wasn't required to, and she refused. Good for her.

[@MichaelCurrey]

Seems like she would have had what she wanted and less headache if she just traded

[@gavinjenkins899]

I think a better deal is to buy the house for 1/4 what it's worth and hey almost-free house! Unless you don't live there.

[@Androctonus84]

While she had options that I might think would have been preferable, they weren't to her. And since it was her choice to make, good for her that she stuck with the one she wanted rather than get bullied into one she didn't.

[@blairhoughton7918]

​@@MichaelCurreyNo. First, she wants her lot. The other one doesn't mean anything to her. Second, they made it hurt, so she should get more than just a trade. Third, they're on the hook for the lot, the house, the demolition, the rehab, and both sides' legal costs. She could hold out for no less than all of that, in cash, without blinking, and have them throw in the other lot for the aggravation.

[@Rhaspun]

She said bought that particular lot due to the position of the lot. It sounded like the moon or the planets would be lined right for her with that lot. This information was from another channel.

[@janicefarmer2387]

I'm so happy she got justice. I built my house in the middle of my acreage and still had my property surveyed 4 different times at different stages.

[@AbcDef-iq4no]

I like the comment in the legal brief which stated that the action of the two parties responsible for the house erroneously being built on the wrong parcel did seriously disturb the peaceful use, enjoyment and possession of Reynold's property. This reminds me of a roommate situation I was in during the early 90s. I had a roommate whose partner owned the house who kept banging on my door wanting to talk to me while I was either sleeping or studying (I was in college at the time) any time he desired. More often than not this occurred after he had been out drinking. One night I had had enough after he barged into my room, and I literally shoved him out of my room and locked my door. He had the nerve to call the cops on me, and I will never forget what one cop told him: "You need to cool your jets. The guy you keep disturbing has a right to peaceful possession."

[@DKNguyen3.1415]

It's wild what kind of people can exist.

[@Votrae]

Absolutely ridiculous. I don't even rely on "counting telephone poles" to track where my car is parked at Lowe's. Unreal.

[@tbelding]

Right. Counting telephone poles is just how you calculate relative speed as you run down the mountain without brakes. (Hot Rod Lincoln, and CW McCall "Wolf Crick Pass")

[@adb888]

Astounding, no one knew it was the wrong lot, EXCEPT for the tax assessor - they knew EXACTLY who to tax after the "improvements" were made...

[@almoemason]

The tax assessor DID NOT KNOW IT WAS THE WRONG LOT --- Don't be stupid. Their office has nothing to do with building permits. They came buy to assess the lot, and found a hose there.

[@thehellyousay]

yeah, curious that ...

[@xonx209]

The friend who told her a new house is on her land also knew. I bet the accessor look at the parcel viewer which has the lot boundary superimposed on a map. Curiously, when they first discovered there's a house on a lot with no building permit, and a lot with a building permit but no house, why didn't they say something?

[@BigCJ]

Money, plain and simple. The DOR or whatever they have in Hawaii doesn't give a crap. Your house has been built without a permit and might be dangerous? Don't care, your property is worth more now. Gimme even more money!

[@herranton]

Nah, there are two parts of the US government that are completely competent. The military and the parts that collect money. The rest are a bunch of fools.

[@SallyShockley]

I just discovered your show, loved it and subscribed. You are restoring my faith in the justice system. Now, you and Michael Popok (Midas Touch on Utube) are my two, favorite, go- to lawyers on the internet to learn about the law. Thank you. Please continue to do what you do. We need more lawyers like you. 👍

[@scottbieber1731]

That's what I was waiting to hear! Recovery of all attorney fees! That's the cherry on top! Good for her 🎉🎉🎉

[@WaywardPondering]

What cracked me up is squatters already moved into the house and caused damage. As if fighting with the builder isn’t enough.

[@kgoblin5084]

Well, on the bright side, this is one instance where getting rid of squatters will be very, very easy; because the house they are squatting in is basically condemned by court order. Even if they are incorrectly treated as legitimate tenants of the house, they will be trespassing on the land :D.

[@Rhaspun]

@@kgoblin5084 Good.

[@tybrady4598]

LOL, counting telephone poles!?! As a retired surveyor, I find that hilarious!

[@randallmedeiros2684]

I’m a local contractor who builds homes in the area and some in that subdivision in particular. I ALWAYS have the property staked prior to proceeding with ANY activity on it. It costs about $700. I see it as a cheap insurance police and insures I place the house in compliance with county setback requirements. Bottom line is someone decided to save a few dollars and its bitten them in the a$$ big time. 🤦

[@Jeff_Pendleton]

Steve, you are 100% right. The court came to the only possible conclusion where justice was truly served. Any other solution would have been a disaster for property rights. Question: could the builder claim bankruptcy and just walk away?

[@peterjeffery8495]

Happened to my late Uncle many years ago, only it was a large development built by a local mobster who illegally gobbled up my Uncles parcel of land and said basically "how ya gonna sue me with two broken legs". My Uncle ended up with $350K after spending a few days searching deeds-titles and transfers going back 50 years. He was followed and threatened but wasn't intimidated. It was all on (very old) paper and he won his case easily. The mobster didn't have a leg to stand on, broken or whole.

[@D-B-Cooper]

Not only did they make a mistake but doubled down and threw more money at it.

[@80bbygrl]

So GLAD the courts found in HER favor!

[@robertbandusky9565]

That survey seems inexpensive now👨‍✈️

[@SmallSpoonBrigade]

They could have just measured the distance out using real measuring tools. It would have been like $50 for the tool and a bit of time to actually walk it off. They were just being lazy. What gets me is that even phone GPS could have told them they were on the wrong plot.

[@jonathanjones3126]

You should always get a property surveyed when, buying/building.

[@MagentaRV]

It would be hilarious if the woman asked the court to have them remove it in a reasonable time frame (30-60 days) and for permission to charge storage and late fees for every day after that. LOL

[@andrewfidel2220]

The court order said she'll get quotes within 60 days and that work should proceed as soon as funds are deposited by the responsible party, should the responsible party not deposit the funds by the date specified by the court they're going to have a lot more to worry about than storage fees, they'll be looking at contempt of court.

[@SmallSpoonBrigade]

She could ask, but would probably annoy the judge in doing so. 30-60 days isn't reasonable without having a contractor lined up with time in the schedule.

[@georgesheffield1580]

Good idea

[@buggsy5]

@@SmallSpoonBrigade She has to provide the names of 3 demolition companies to the judge, who will chose the one to do the work. I am surprised the judge specified demolition without an option to move the house. Maybe the structure is a cheap building on concrete slab that is unsuitable for moving.

[@philsmith2444]

The idea that there’s even an astronomically small chance that Reynolds could lose the lawsuit against her is a perfect example of what’s wrong with our legal system.

[@justinbars]

Sometimes judges will rule against the person if its in the public interest. There is a famous case of a housing division building next to a cattle farm. Once the owners of the houses found out, after they were built, they sued the developers for not being honest with them, and sued the farm to move and won, even though the farm had been there first. The reasoning was, it is much easier to move the farm than the whole housing division. They did make the developer pay all the cost for the farm plus damages however. EDIT: here is the case Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co. they argued the farm was a public nuisance. in general if your interested in property rights and odd cases that have had to be resolved, check out coase theorem

[@maximan4363]

@@justinbars That's insane!!!!!! What did the farm do wrong????? I hope the damages to the farm were in the 10's of not 100's of millions!!!

[@buckdashe2571]

@@justinbarsI can find no record of this “famous case” of the cattle rancher losing his ranch. Or anything similar… Where did this occur or, can you provide some type of reference? Or are you relying on someone else referring to someone else referring to someone else’s BS?

[@buckdashe2571]

And, on the contrary, the result of this lawsuit is a perfect example of what is right with our legal system.

[@justinbars]

@@buckdashe2571 Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co

[@tubedude54]

I'm a surveyor in the state just south of you that starts with an "I"... I was going to say you would not believe how many times a client told me that their realtor said their property goes from power pole to power pole but with what you revealed about your knowledge of surveys at the end I think you 'get' what I'm saying.

[@robertfrench3983]

Steve. The reason the house is being removed is because she purposely picked that lot due to the vegetation. The developer also has used this tactic in the past with other property owners. Previous people were just bought out and moved on. This woman in this case wasn't planning g to build a house and like I said she purchased the property because of its location and plants.

[@doom4067]

Sure chose it because it lined up with birthdays. Asians tend to take that very seriously.

[@lesliepropheter5040]

And when the property is only worth $23,000, the developer gets what he wants on the cheap…

[@beefmalone]

From Google earth, it doesn't look any different than other vacant Lots in the same development. But it's a good argument to make for her to maximize her recovery $

[@Mauirunner]

We live close to this mess. Thanks for covering it in detail. Mahalo

[@Katgirl2024]

I hope the builder loses a LOT of future business over this. They've been TERRIBLE to this poor woman.

[@johnl2727]

He'll file for bankrupcy.

[@kerrystoltz3146]

@@johnl2727and then stand up another LLC

[@AdriennePaige]

He needs to lose his license to operate in the state.

[@jenniferrandolph4115]

Anyone that used this builder should check his work out.🤔

[@johnanderson9735]

I’m glad she won and the judge is ordering the mistake to be corrected and the house is ordered removed!

[@mathieubordeleau150]

One of the point of buying an empty lot compared to a completed house is to have a house build exactly how you want it. So yeah if I where to buy an empty lot and this would happens I would ask the house to be removed even if I'm planing to have one build.

[@almoemason]

I think the telephone poll counter may be on to something .... I did this on my street, I'm getting a much nicer house. All I gotta do is call the locksmith to get the locks changed. --- who knew?

[@combcomclrlsr]

I found the area on Google maps. This is not at all like a typical subdivision. Imagine taking a tropical jungle and selling 1 acre parcels all connected by a few narrow roads. Looks almost rural. Lots of trees. Each lot appears absolutely unique.

[@rosemarykarlsson593]

It’s zoned agricultural & many of the streets are not paved. I lived a few miles away until last year.

[@Mr.Ekshin]

The exact same developer tried to buy her lot several months before they pulled this stunt. And when they were caught building there anyways, they tried to 'trade' her an adjacent lot. I'm willing to bet that one of the lots (hers) has an ocean view, or some other good vista... and the other has none. These kind of things go on with developers more than you think. They will threaten to tie you up in years of litigation if you don't go along with them, and many people simply don't have the time or funds to fight them.

[@cecilgamble9666]

​@@Mr.Ekshin precisely why you should practice using your 2nd amendment and don't be shy about it

[@jdoe6618]

I remember from the first video the lot was "heavily wooded". If there were Koa trees we could be talking 100's of thousands or potentially millions of dollars in lumber.

[@davidh9638]

And even more to replace the mature trees. Maybe they can take them from lot 115.

[@stephaniehowe0973]

They sold that I am sure and kept the money

[@calebb5106]

dont forget all the top soil that was ripped up and removed, and all the brush, grasses, and other species of trees. millions easily, id argue for an easy 10 mil to get everything replaced and returned to original or better condition

[@jordanledoux197]

@@davidh9638 Most trees cannot survive being replanted unless they are very young.

[@marrysanchez1300]

Mr. Lehto had something similar happen but much more complicated. We bought a parcel on a mountaintop over a lake. There were 4 parcels & because it was up a mountain, there was a requirement to have a cul-de-sac. Seller said he had the property surveyed. We got town approval for our house plans. During construction there were 4 separate occasions where both town & bank inspections were done to assure all was being done as per permits. The house was there for more than 25 years until we learned it was built in the wrong place-it was in the middle of the cul-de-sac! Because our home was essentially built in the middle of a private road our case ended up being a precedent setting ruling. It’s really quite interesting if anyone is interested..I’d love to hear your thoughts! The case is: Guardino v Colangelo et el Copake , New York.

[@Slightlysalty1]

I just read the case. Very interesting! That was the most non-Hostile hostile takeover over of a land 😂

[@Slightlysalty1]

I just read part of the case. Very interesting! That was the most non-Hostile hostile takeover over of a land 😂 Did anyone ever build in the other parcels?

[@marrysanchez1300]

@@Slightlysalty1 yes! All parcels had been sold way before the case went to court. They found out at the same time we did that our house was in the wrong place. They all submitted statements stating they had no problem with our house remaining where it was. It was the new purchaser of the property behind the house that was pushing the issue because if our house was removed he would then have direct access to a country club that was next to our place. He was a big shot from the city who was building a summer house-we were locals in the rural area, working class who had to spend all our savings to pay the legal fees. There was an acre of woods in between the country club & our house that was standing in the way of the new buyers direct access to the club. We owned those woods - he wanted them, and he was willing to push an old local couple, my parents, out of their home to get that land. Our only choice was to claim eminent domain-fortunately we had good local neighbors who had no problem with the house remaining where it was. After 2 year of back & forth & delays between attorneys, (and many dollars later), we won the eminent domain case.

[@Slightlysalty1]

@@marrysanchez1300 I’m glad you won the case. It was the logical choice, which I know isn’t always the outcome when it comes to the law. We all have the same rights, some people just think their rights mean more. 😉 I hope the property stays in your family forever and the city guy never bullies someone into selling the wooded acreage. Just think, law students will read your family’s case or lawyers will use it as defense for another during their careers. The guy who sued and lost should’ve been on the hook for legal fees.

[@marrysanchez1300]

@@Slightlysalty1 thank-you. The best part of winning was the city man was a lawyer & had a real estate Development company called RMF properties. 😂 That was why I thought we never had a chance. Enjoy your day 🙂

[@shadetreemechanicracing22]

A good lawyer is worth every penny.

[@nclaw441]

Especially when the other side has to pay.

[@Ericthelogos]

The lawyer that sued the woman should be disbarred.

[@Joan-u6p]

Nah, he/she was just doing what they were paid to do. HOWEVER, they could've refused the job. Remember though, we ARE talking about attorneys here. Slimy from the gitgo.

[@MicahThomason]

The reason they sued the victim is, shenanigans like that work... A LOT! Judges often come up with crazy, unfair, head scratching rulings... that usually favor the better funded attorney.

[@adamabele785]

Only if he did something that is against ethics rules. This is when he makes false statements, misrepresents the facts, does shady business, does not do dilligence, violates his obligation towards the other party or the court and does damage by doing so.

[@adamabele785]

It is not the lawyer that sues, it was the property developer that sued and he did it by hiring a lawyer. The lawyer has no dog in this fight and brings the case to court, even when he knows the case will probably be lost. Why? Because everybody has the right to bring a case to court and let the judge decide.

[@woodystemms3799]

Given that the development was organized as a *partnership* , dollars to donuts one of those partners is an *attorney* . They probably came up with some oddball cause of action to put in the complaint, and thought that because they were first to file, the owner would either fold, or take another lot in exchange. Unfortunately, it just pissed her off.

[@normanhairston1411]

The reason why "Ceasar's Atlantic City" is "Ceasar's Atlantic City" and not "Ceasar's Palace Atlantic City" is because the good folk at Ceasar's Palace in Las Vegas chose to lead with their lawyers rather than negotiate with a property owner. In New Jersey, there was/is-maybe a law stating that two businesses can not share the same name. There was a guy named Ceasar who owned a barbershop in New Jersey that had previously named his shop "Ceasar's Palace." Rather than buy the name from him, the casino people chose to sue him for the name and lost. After they lost, Ceasar was so mad, he would not sell the name to them at any price.

[@holylandfan3275]

That’s bringing squatting to a whole new level! Good for the lady that she WON!!

[@toomignon]

Can you imagine the absolute chaos if the court allowed the developer to "swap" lots. No property would be safe.

[@almoemason]

You are correct, but in this case if she doesn't work out something like this she's probably not going to have a good ending ... the developer will appeal the ruling and file for bankruptcy long before any money gets deposited for the demolition and will be totally gone before she gets a chance sue for damages. Meanwhile lets hope she can afford to pay the increased property taxes or the county is gonna foreclose and sell her lot to someone else.

[@Haladmer]

@@almoemason Depends on if the court mandate for payment is considered a "secured claim". If so, it'll take priority on repayment from asset liquidation, and because it's court mandated, depending on how the business is structured (dba [sole/partnership] vs llc vs inc, etc...) it 's possible the the court will "pierce cooperate veil" so the owner(s) could also be personally liable to cover any shortages. Meaning they could have all current/future personal income tapped until repayment is complete if they don't have the personal assets to cover the costs. That's on top of any other "secured claim" to be paid out in bankruptcy filings. There is always the option the owner(s) skip town and disappear, but only time will tell how it eventually plays out.

[@immikeurnot]

@@Haladmer They'll just open another LLC and stop using the one they have now. Honestly, the builders have probably already done that.

[@sicsempertyrannis1849]

All the builders I've worked with for a while now form a LLC for every project. No assets, easy to walk away.

[@Haladmer]

@@immikeurnot Very possible, but the ruling is recorded, as are the company owner(s), which is why "piercing the veil" is an option. That would move the repayment to the owner(s)/investors directly. So regardless of if they move to a new llc or not, they personally would be on the hook for the costs. Courts can also place an "earning withholding order" or other creditor liens against their real property. It's a nasty step, but courts can and have done so in the past.

[@skittlemenow]

I hope she gets all or at least most of her legal costs paid for as well.

[@cmorris9494]

In this case the court ruled they have to pay her legal fees.

[@angrydachshund]

Why? She insisted on the outcome that maximizes the losses born by all parties, including herself. This is the sort of behavior that would justify exiling her from our society.

[@robertsmalls3513]

@@angrydachshundYou should be exiled for your ignorance. You want her to pay for somebody else’s mistake?

[@cmorris9494]

@angrydachshund where in the last few videos steve did that she said that

[@Divedown_25]

@@angrydachshund Was it you who counted the telephone poles?

[@BReal-10EC]

"Counting telephone poles" OMG. FWIW- I'm in construction supply/design (since early 90s). This is BY FAR the worst house construction mistake I have heard of (other than terrible construction mansion that was condemned after built and torn down- resulting in massive changes with permitting and inspections in that town).

[@PamelaH_HappyVibes]

Thank you for this update. I had read about this case a long time ago. I’ve worked in Property Management for over 20 years, this was the first time that I have heard about something like this.

[@MissLibertarian]

The tax assessor got it right. What about any (hands clean) mechanics liens? If I recall, they did try to settle, but the owner had a specific desire for that location (including vegetation) because of some spiritual significance, so she was not in a negotiable mood.

[@CKLee-rs4kl]

It would have been so easily avoided if they'd hired a licensed surveyor before digging a single hole; now they've dug themselves a grave.

[@opossumgrylls3275]

Yes and furthermore GPS is a thing. I'd hire a surveyor but I could still approximate somewhat accurately without one. This is silly.

[@winkieblink7625]

They wanted to STEAL her lot. It was no accident.

[@rubble7390]

@@winkieblink7625 I doubt that. They offered the lot next door as an exchange, and if I remember right it's almost identical. They simply screwed up badly, and then doubled down by suing her. If this was just "let's build a house" project, then either lot would be fine. However, the owner has a specific vision for that specific lot, hence her saying no way. Good for her.

[@blairhoughton7918]

​@@opossumgrylls3275 Translating between GPS and old land records isn't always that simple. The nearest survey benchmark could have been dozens of lots away, and itself might be misplaced.

[@buggsy5]

@@blairhoughton7918 Benchmarks are typically placed on features that are not movable - such as rock outcrops or embedded in a sidewalk.

[@Carmen698]

I remember reading an article about this when it first came out. The company did offer her another piece of land, but she didn't want it. They also told her that she could buy the house for 500k. She refused that deal as well. I also read that they had sold the house to someone else. They created a total mess with this one.

[@brentfarvors192]

No. They had a "contract", on the home. No $ changed hands because her name was on the land deed...Bank couldn't create a house deed until the two were jointed...

[@sadjaxx]

So GLAD to hear that this was finally resolved in the only way that makes sense! Move the house if you want it that bad.

[@LordOfTheThreeWorlds]

Excellent. Thanks Mr. Lehto. Great to see common sense and righteous ruling to a most unjust situation.