Why is this even going to court? The developer did the wrong thing, not her. She shouldn't be forced to take an adjacent lot. It's her lot, end of story.
The owner of the lot benefits more by it going to court the people suing will be made to restore the lot to its original condition which is why at the end of the video they said it’s going into expensive territory she probably had a few trees they could cost $50000 per tree
I hope that she is successful in SUING the SNOT out of everyone responsible. As a 16 year surveyor who worked for a civil engineer, I can tell you that these things Don’t happen by accident. They tried to steal her land.
I've seen the initial news report of this story before and if I recall correctly, the developer did not even bother to do a survey plan to cut corners.
From what I understand, they didn't use a surveyor, they just counted the lots and say they miscounted. Which is absolutely insane. I remember being on jury duty many years ago and at that time, the technology was down to a matter of like 1/16th of an inch for a surprisingly long distance based on the gear available. It was like that in large part so that if there were any future questions about property lines, they could say with near certainly where the exactly line is and base that on some incredibly precise measurements. They didn't even bother to hire a surveyor for what was probably a one day job.
Yep, it's unclear why the judge didn't just rule in her favor via a summary judgment as there's no controversy over the fact that the developer isn't allowed to build on property they lack authorization to build on and nobody seems to be disagreeing about that detail.
@@stuwest3653 I guess that will be determined by a civil court of law. However, I really can't see a single legal precedent that the contractor would have to support their claim to the land. I know that Hawaii can have some very unique ways of viewing the law, but this would be a stretch for them too.
@@stuwest3653 Interesting you should say this, because Google doesn't support your position. Do you have a specific reference to cite to support the builder being able to take the injured parties land due to their mistake?
@@user-wd4uf2sm5d So here's a thought, she should just move in, and squat in the house thats on her own property...... Love to see them try to evict her from her own property.....
It could also be “undue benefit” or something along that line when you purposely benefit knowingly. Like say you wake up and see people putting a patio in your backyard and doing work. You say awesome free patio and hide in bed. They knock on the door at late afternoon for payment and you say no. You have to stop the work the second you know and it can be put back or finished at a discount. This lady expects to get richer and owns a $500,000 lot of land plus a home so far away with another lot of land. You can hear the BS when she talks about it aligning with her birth charts.
@@philiplubduck6107What are you talking about? She's not trying to keep the house. She wants it removed. She also doesn't have to pay for their mistake.
@@philiplubduck6107 She wants that shoddy home removed from HER property because she didn't give them permission. She needs to be made whole which means remove the freaking house, restore the lot as closely as possible to the way it was before they bulldozed her property and pay all costs and pay her punitive damages. She doesn't want the home and the property is hers whether you like it or not.
@@philiplubduck6107 THAT is NOT how it went down. She only found out about it when a realtor actually "sold" her house, then contacted her because the sale wouldn't go through because the company "selling" the house and lot didn't actually own it - this lady did. The developer, however, had previously attempted to buy her lot from her, but did not disclose that it was because they'd put a house on her lot. She didn't want this lot to put a 3 bedroom house on it - she had other plans. The developer is being slimy about this. Put yourself in HER position. What if you went on vacation and returned to find that someone had converted your garage into a rumpus room, then sued you for not moving into the house next door?
“We’ve tried to come to a reasonable conclusion"? Let me translate corporate speak for everyone……”we think she should be forced to do what best suits our company.”
This is so stupid. The developer is fully at fault and should take total responsibility. It's hard to believe they are trying to do anything other than apologize in embarrassment.
@@user-wd4uf2sm5d HI been upside-down and backwards for years!!!!! Do not be surprised by the judges decision if it goes against the homeowner. The developer attorneys will convince the judge that they offered her in the Aloha Spirit the parcel next door and the judge gonna agree that aloha spirit in this case wind - lol!!! HI is backwards gang!!!
This is the times of where people will push back when they're wrong. We see it with former and current politicians. Now business owners don't accept any responsibilities for anything. She should sue for distress caused by this builder.
The Developers knew what he was doing and built the house there because it was just a better lot then the other lots and figure out, he could force the owner to trade for a less desirable lot. What a scam!
@@Ryarios a poster that LIVES THERE pointed out some of the lots are actually UNBUILDABLE, flood, bad micro climate, whereas THIS LOT is a premium quality location inotherwords, it's surprising but land can vary extremely just on the same slope. that can result in tens of thousands of dollars in differences.
Possibly, although it's more likely due to incompetence. We'll have to see how things turn out, but the developer shouldn't win this as they had precisely no right to build on that land.
So here's what should happen, the developer removes the house, and restores the lot to its original condition, prior to any works taking place. The developer must pay all the landowners legal fees, must compensate the land owner for any time lost at work, and should pay $1 million dollars punitive for not complying with her rightful demands, and as a deterent for future. The Judge must be disbarred for failure to use basic commmonsense and dismiss such a frivolous lawsuit.
What I see is a trial run for the rich and powerful to start 'accidentally" building on any lot they want to steal and forcing the owner to take an unwanted plot.
The judge has to hear the case brought…whether they think it’s a load of bull or not… I’m sure there’s legal presidents from both sides being used…. Here in Spain the police tell you to shoot people on your land, but move the bodies to a different county so they “don’t get the paperwork”, but if you feel guilty, tell them you were walking your dog & found a body. Totally word for word as they don’t investigate non Spanish murders unless the consulate contacts them
They are suing her for their mistake? Is this for real? She should charge them for rent for using her property or the developer should offer to just give her the house. If not they need to remove the house off her lot.
The landowner lives in California. The developer was probably gambling that she'd miss the court date or wouldn't want to pay for a trip to Hawaii to appear in court, and they would win their lawsuit by default.
For this to go to court is absolutely ridiculous. She needs to countersue to for putting something there she didn't want. Have them tear it down and sue for emotional damage for this whole fiasco.
Failure to perform due diligence is not a "mistake". And it doesn't matter if the lots are identical at the atomic level, it' wasn't theirs to build on and she doesn't have to agree to a swap.
Is that your answer to EVERYTHING?? All that does is make lawyers rich, more work, and no guarantee you'll solve any problem. Simplistic, and very "after the fact".
It's very simple, they should restore her lot to the condition it was in before they unlawfully occupied it and built on it. That means demolish the building and plant mature trees on the site to restore it to the condition it was in. That's why they went to court, they want to avoid the cost of rectifying their negligent error.
That's exactly what she asked for when the error came to her attention. She just wants her lot in it's original condition. This is completely reasonable. Besides the developers should have insurance to cover their errors. In no way should this woman have to be drug through the court system and incur the stress and attorneys fees.
Exactly. Even if it was a genuine mistake, if you set the precedent that it was okay and the landowner can be built off of their own property, there will be many more cases coming in hot that are not mistakes at all.
She needs to counter-sue and claim compensation for all the grief and stress that they have caused her, on a jury trial. She stands to get a lot of money because the developers have acted in a bad way.
This doesn't pass the smell test. How is all I got. HER property, PERIOD! They screwed up. Someone better be checking the Judge's financials to even contemplate this Lawsuit.
Would people STOP SAYING the developer ACCIDENTALLY built on her lot. Prior to the house being built, the developer had tried to buy the lot from her, and she refused. it was DELIBERATE. I reckon that he thought if he just builds the house anyway, some easy judge is going to be nice to him and forcibly remove her from ownership of that land, and force her to accept whatever settlement the developer wants. THIS WAS DELIBERATE ! Plus we have deliberate theft and vandalism of 100-year-old trees from her land. Trees that she especially wanted to be there, for her particular use of the land. Triple damages wouldn't even come close to what this woman deserves.
Would people STOP SAYING the developer ACCIDENTALLY built on her lot. Prior to the house being built, the developer had tried to buy the lot from her, and she refused. it was DELIBERATE. I reckon that he thought if he just builds the house anyway, some easy judge is going to be nice to him and forcibly remove her from ownership of that land, and force her to accept whatever settlement the developer wants. THIS WAS DELIBERATE ! Plus we have deliberate theft and vandalism of 100-year-old trees from her land. Trees that she especially wanted to be there, for her particular use of the land. Triple damages wouldn't even come close to what this woman deserves.
@@KiwiCatherineJemma Like I said, a way to take her property. It hard to believe someone could be that stupid to not know where the house was suppose to be built. You have to call out locates before you dig.
Compromise? This isn't the landowner's problem. It isn't her responsibility to compromise. It's the developer's problem. They need to repair and fix to the owner's specifications, ie, restore what they damaged.
Imagine if these developers won and it set a precedent for other developers to think they can take whatever plot of land they wanted by building on it when the owner isn't looking and then suing to force the owner to accept a different plot of land.
This case will set a precedent for any similar cases in the future. Imagine if developers just start building houses wherever they want, and then say, oh, it was a mistake!
How did the developer get a building permit and how did they put in utilities without authorization from the land owner? What county clerk missed that this is the wrong land owner?
How dare they force another lot on her! They're trying to avoid addtional expenses to remove the house. They admitted fault, fix it on your expense. I hope they're insurance gets non-renewed, and I hope she counter sues.
developer builds house on wrong lot ( she got a huge TAX increase) and the developer sues her .....this is what our country has come to ...unbelievable
A mistake is delivering a package to the wrong address. Getting the permits, getting building plans, hiring a construction company and building a house on the wrong lot is not a 'mistake." They want that lot, and when she wouldn't just roll over and trade it for the lot next door, they had to take her to court and sue her into bankruptcy.
@@carolynmerrick6377 They 100% did this on purpose so it would go to court and set a new precedent that would give them and pretty much every other developer carte blanche authority to pull these shenanigans in the future.
Another example of a 2 tiered justice system, if they force her to settle by switching lots or any other offer. A rich developer screwed up, land on any Hawaiin island is big bucks. This isn't an immenient domain case, and the only one whos going to benifit is the big company who failed to do due diligence and have it surveyed before they built on a large project.
I really don’t see how she wouldn’t be entitled to have them pay to have the house demolished, pay her attorney’s fees, and compensate her for the time they occupied her property.
The builders don't WANT to rectify the situation. They want to keep the house that they built on the nicer lot so they can sell it for a lot more money. That's why they made this "mistake" in the first place. The plan was to buy a cheap lot, build on the expensive lot, then say "whoops! Our mistake. Here, let's trade" then they the nicer lot for the price of a cheaper one. They figured that she would cave in and play ball with them. Because she hasn't done that, they sued her in order to pressure her into an out of court settlement and take the lot that they want to stick her with. When that fails, they will resort to the usual "legal" stuff: Defamation, intimidation, misinformation, and filing so many injunctions and other legal requests that it will force her into bankruptcy, while they get richer. That's how the American justice system works in this day and age.
Because there are so many stupid technicalities and loopholes with the the law now, it makes more sense to be a criminal. Steal whatever you want and then just say it's yours because the owner wasn't touching it. Things are backwards and stupid now.
The company that was in charge of building the house on her property should be required to tear it down and pay her several hundred thousand dollars for her trouble
All of HPP Subdivision is filled with Micro-ecosystems, making each location, each lot, unique in it's zonal climate. There's a rise and fall effect of the land fomation that makes for subtle rainfall differences. Part of HPP is closer to the ocean making some lots filled with "sea air" (higher in sodium making plant growth limited or needy). There are some lots that are heavily wooded and even "non-buildable" due to routine flooding. She had a terrific lot someone is trying to turn into their own cash cow and they likely expect her to settle for some crappy, "leftovers" lot. I live on my HPP land and so do my children. Are we now needing to worry someone will show up with demolition equipment to build a house to replace ours? Then demand we give them title? The decision on this case could mean all of our privately-owned lands are in jeopardy of contractor take-over. 😢 Plus, there is a history of such situations in the court system, especially within the RICO office. An efficient judge would review those prior cases. If that judge saw what I've seen in those cases, the decision will be one that blows back the steam from that illicit contractor. Let's just hope the judge isn't a corporate lackey.
great points; shows the "incentive" for the builder to try to "grab" a more marketable lot, and since she's an out of towner, thought she'd settle and get a lot dumped on her that appeared to be similar, but in actually perhaps not even buildable. Have to wonder if the contractor or his buddies HAVE a lot like that, like me selling moose pasture in Manitoba to someone living in Florida.
Yeah. Would people STOP SAYING the developer ACCIDENTALLY built on her lot. Prior to the house being built, the developer had tried to buy the lot from her, and she refused. it was DELIBERATE. I reckon that he thought if he just builds the house anyway, some easy judge is going to be nice to him and forcibly remove her from ownership of that land, and force her to accept whatever settlement the developer wants. THIS WAS DELIBERATE ! Plus we have deliberate theft and vandalism of 100-year-old trees from her land. Trees that she especially wanted to be there, for her particular use of the land. Triple damages wouldn't even come close to what this woman deserves.
@@KiwiCatherineJemma if they already tried to buy the lot and were refused, then that kills their "we got the wrong lot" argument. I hope her attorney mentions that little fact.
^^^^^ It just doesn't matter. No justification is needed. It was her lot, someone built an unauthorized building on it, she should just start renting it out!! Free House!!! Wheeeeee!
It does not matter why she bought that lot. All that matters is someone else built a house she does not want or asked to be built on that lot. Developer needs to remove the house and restore the lot to what it looked like before.
No one should just assume that the developer made a mistake. How would we know? the judge should send a clear message by making the developer pay fully and overly for the 'mistake' it had made.
Lot belongs to the lady. People come along and build a house on the lot she owned. Sounds like a free gift to me. Since the developer did not build on the lot he was SUPPOSED to use, he owes somebody a new house. Why? Because he just gave the one he built away. The lot owner should formally trespass the developer and all of his subsidiaries and subcontractors. She should rent out the house and take the profit!!!
It’s the developers liability and fault, she’s done nothing wrong! If she doesn’t want a different lot, she should not be forced to change lots, it is her right to keep the one she chose and purchased. She should either get to keep the house for free or the developers should be held liable and responsible for removing it or tearing it down if she doesn’t want it.
Something similar happened to my parents. In our case, the developer fixed the issue by trading lots. We went from a small corner lot to a much larger lot at the back of a cul-de-sac. What we lost was time. They had to start our house again from zero. All in all it worked out well for us. This lady is getting screwed in her deal.
If anything other than a complete ruling in her favor including her attorney fees & travel cost to appear. The judge would need to be reviewed. Should be already for not throwing the case out.
They should offer her 2 lots but I doubt they would do that because it seems they just don't want to lose the money they put into that house. Pilau developer. They should be named.
She has every right to just keep her lot of land. I dont care what her reasoning is for not wanting to trade/sell it....the bottom line is that she should not be forced to trade/sell it.
The developer needs to remove the building and return her land back to it's original state. The developer also needs to compensate her for the uses of HER land and any legal fees that she has incurred from the developers MISTAKE.
Developer SCREWED up and refuses to do the right thing;...MOVE the house and restore the lot to its previous condition, instead they persecute the owner with frivoloyus litigating, now they can pay damages, emotional distress to the owner in addidtion to removing their "mistake" from her property...!
So, a developer can feign ignorance, take whatever lot they like best, then sue the owner to acquire the improved lot? I don't think so, if it were my property! I would bulldoze it and send the bill to the contractor!
This really should be simple. The owner owns the land. She wishes to retain it. She has that right. The developer has no right to that land. He had no right to build on it. He is in the wrong. He needs to be forced to return that land to the point before development. That should be the ruling. He should not have had the standing to sue. Only she has any standing to sue. The developers case should be dismissed without cause. She then needs to sue for reinstatement of the land accordingly, plus the costs in this case and her one. She should easily win. It’s not up for debate or negotiation.
anyone ever heard of the 4th amendment?? This needed to have been dismissed with prejudice upon the first hearing. The developer can not force someone to take something they don't want. Yes I personally feel this is about more money on both sides, however, It was her land to do with what she pleased. Who is the developer ???
I hope she WINS BIG TIME! Not only did they build this house, but the stripped the land of the plants that were there. This is why she bought that lot. On top of buying the lot, she is also paying increased taxes on the lot now because of the house being built on it.
They should disclose the name of the developer and cancel them to the point they pay it up and also be out of business because if they did this to her imagine how many they did it.
The company that mistakenly built the house on the wrong lot was PJ's Construction, a local building outfit that was hired by developer Keaau Development Partnership. The plan was to build 12 homes on parcels that Keaau Development purchased.
The court should immediately rule that the developers must remove the house and return the land to its approximate original state. They should also pay damages and their attorney should face sanctions.
The developers should be made to forfeit any moneys from the building of this house. They built it on the wrong lot. The courts should give the developers a choice. Either give the house to the woman. Or the developers need to remove the home and all other upgrades to the lot and return the lot to the woman in its original state. There is nothing else to consider here. The developer screwed up, not the woman. Offering her a different lot is not the being fair with her. That is her land, her property and they are attempting to steal it from her.
Not a good choice. She doesn't want the house. The developer giving her the house is not an option. They just need to remove the house and restore her land.
Don't be surprised if the ruling on this case favors the builder. I hope that the land owner has the financial ability to take it all the way to the SC. That would be a dangerous precedent set for land/home owners.
@@eileenmcdonald1599 Some people are really into Feng Shui and similar things. Its very important to them. If thats what they believe well they are entitled to that. An example, maybe the lot number has 4 in it. Thats considered a very "bad" number with some people because when pronounced in Cantonese it sounds very similar to "death". Ultimately her reasons dont matter. Its her land and she is entitled to it.
That would be the best outcome, for her to be awarded the house if that is what she wants. If she doesn’t, then it will have to be moved, or destroyed. I would hope a move could be arranged, it’s painful to see the waste of a new structure. I really hope the land owner prevails.
She should be charging the developer rent until he removes the house, she also needs to make sure her land is left as it was before he made the mistake in building on her land.😮😂 who the F**k does he think he is.
I hope she counter sues the developers for mental anguish and her time and effort and false accusations. Private property is just that private! They were trespassing for the whole time it was being built. The developers don’t want the expense of tearing down the trespassing structure and turning the property back to how it was! Typical corporations against the people.
This happened to my Grandpa. A Mall was built on his lot. He had a 2 acre lot. The Mall Builder / Owners said they would give him "Fair Market Value". My Grandpa said "No thanks. I'm your new partner." They ended up paying him 7 times what the land was worth. It was still a deal. I wish this woman all the luck in the world.
I think this sums up just how ridiculous this is: "Oh, I'm sorry I ran over your kids. It was a mistake. I meant to drive on the road, not on the sidewalk. Now those kid's parents should pay for the damage to my car."
Hawaiians own the land by land patent. She only owns color of title but the developers are to blame too. The real culprit is the state who appoints the judges etc… it’s all corrupt. No foreigner owns land here.
Everyone is a foreigner. So called native Hawaiians are from Taiwan mixed with Filipinos and others and like everyone else immigrated from somewhere else. In the end no one owns land but uses it until death separates us from the land that we are simply borrowing.
Why is this even going to court? The developer did the wrong thing, not her. She shouldn't be forced to take an adjacent lot. It's her lot, end of story.
The developer is squatting on her land.
The richer people get preferential treatment in this pos country. Lol, shame if it burned down.
The builder should just pay for a house mover.
developer should be sued for land poaching.
No lot is identical.
How a judge wouldn't dismiss this case before even a single word of an argument is made is crazy. The case shouldn't even have made it to trial!
Seriously this is common sense. It seems like their really is a two tiered justice system in favor of the rich.
The judge is a democrat
The owner of the lot benefits more by it going to court the people suing will be made to restore the lot to its original condition which is why at the end of the video they said it’s going into expensive territory she probably had a few trees they could cost $50000 per tree
Big business have more rights than the peasants
@@anonymous-zn2ivCommon Sense is Not Too Common any longer.
I hope that she is successful in SUING the SNOT out of everyone responsible. As a 16 year surveyor who worked for a civil engineer, I can tell you that these things Don’t happen by accident. They tried to steal her land.
Something shady for sure, I have been in a land surveying for almost 30yrs and you are right this just doesn't happen.
@@brokendad2222 SURELY the permitting, approval and inspection processes there are even more onerous than California’s.
I've seen the initial news report of this story before and if I recall correctly, the developer did not even bother to do a survey plan to cut corners.
Plus the developer’s name on blast
From what I understand, they didn't use a surveyor, they just counted the lots and say they miscounted. Which is absolutely insane. I remember being on jury duty many years ago and at that time, the technology was down to a matter of like 1/16th of an inch for a surprisingly long distance based on the gear available. It was like that in large part so that if there were any future questions about property lines, they could say with near certainly where the exactly line is and base that on some incredibly precise measurements.
They didn't even bother to hire a surveyor for what was probably a one day job.
She doesn’t need to explain why she wanted her lot. It’s her property don’t touch it! Case closed!
Yep, it's unclear why the judge didn't just rule in her favor via a summary judgment as there's no controversy over the fact that the developer isn't allowed to build on property they lack authorization to build on and nobody seems to be disagreeing about that detail.
@@SmallSpoonBrigade - wrong judge. Take it to Judge Judy and she'll slap the snot out of them 😂😂😂
WRONG IS WRONG,SHE WANTS THE LOT SHE PURCHASED,PERIOD!
This... It doesn't matter even if it seems identical. You can't force someone for an exchange because of your mistake.
It doesn't work that way, obviously. Or at least it should be.
@@stuwest3653 I guess that will be determined by a civil court of law. However, I really can't see a single legal precedent that the contractor would have to support their claim to the land. I know that Hawaii can have some very unique ways of viewing the law, but this would be a stretch for them too.
@@magician2020 You can't see because you never looked
@@stuwest3653 Interesting you should say this, because Google doesn't support your position. Do you have a specific reference to cite to support the builder being able to take the injured parties land due to their mistake?
This is ridiculous! The ones who made the error are responsible for fixing it! They made an error which is the same as WRONG!!!
Exactly, this shouldn't be taking the courts time. I hope the judge finds in her favor, and orders the house to be demolished and all debris removed.
Nowadays even squatters have more rights than owners.
@@user-wd4uf2sm5d i really heard that bro
@@user-wd4uf2sm5d So here's a thought, she should just move in, and squat in the house thats on her own property...... Love to see them try to evict her from her own property.....
However, common sense should prevail. Not absolute stupidity.
We will soon find out if the judge is corrupt or not?
Apparently. We already know the answer to this question.
It could also be “undue benefit” or something along that line when you purposely benefit knowingly. Like say you wake up and see people putting a patio in your backyard and doing work. You say awesome free patio and hide in bed. They knock on the door at late afternoon for payment and you say no. You have to stop the work the second you know and it can be put back or finished at a discount.
This lady expects to get richer and owns a $500,000 lot of land plus a home so far away with another lot of land. You can hear the BS when she talks about it aligning with her birth charts.
@@philiplubduck6107What are you talking about? She's not trying to keep the house. She wants it removed. She also doesn't have to pay for their mistake.
@@philiplubduck6107 She wants that shoddy home removed from HER property because she didn't give them permission. She needs to be made whole which means remove the freaking house, restore the lot as closely as possible to the way it was before they bulldozed her property and pay all costs and pay her punitive damages. She doesn't want the home and the property is hers whether you like it or not.
@@philiplubduck6107 THAT is NOT how it went down. She only found out about it when a realtor actually "sold" her house, then contacted her because the sale wouldn't go through because the company "selling" the house and lot didn't actually own it - this lady did.
The developer, however, had previously attempted to buy her lot from her, but did not disclose that it was because they'd put a house on her lot.
She didn't want this lot to put a 3 bedroom house on it - she had other plans.
The developer is being slimy about this.
Put yourself in HER position. What if you went on vacation and returned to find that someone had converted your garage into a rumpus room, then sued you for not moving into the house next door?
“We’ve tried to come to a reasonable conclusion"?
Let me translate corporate speak for everyone……”we think she should be forced to do what best suits our company.”
Sieg
This is so stupid. The developer is fully at fault and should take total responsibility. It's hard to believe they are trying to do anything other than apologize in embarrassment.
It’s an upside down world.
A lawsuit is NOT an apology
@@user-wd4uf2sm5d HI been upside-down and backwards for years!!!!! Do not be surprised by the judges decision if it goes against the homeowner. The developer attorneys will convince the judge that they offered her in the Aloha Spirit the parcel next door and the judge gonna agree that aloha spirit in this case wind - lol!!! HI is backwards gang!!!
This is the times of where people will push back when they're wrong. We see it with former and current politicians. Now business owners don't accept any responsibilities for anything. She should sue for distress caused by this builder.
@@Rhaspun True. This is the result of Trumpism. He has given people the belief they can get away with anything.
The Developers knew what he was doing and built the house there because it was just a better lot then the other lots and figure out, he could force the owner to trade for a less desirable lot. What a scam!
That would be my first guess too. I wouldn’t be surprised if he didn’t sell the lot twice.
I Sooo suspect you are right.....
@@Ryarios a poster that LIVES THERE pointed out some of the lots are actually UNBUILDABLE, flood, bad micro climate, whereas THIS LOT is a premium quality location inotherwords, it's surprising but land can vary extremely just on the same slope. that can result in tens of thousands of dollars in differences.
Possibly, although it's more likely due to incompetence. We'll have to see how things turn out, but the developer shouldn't win this as they had precisely no right to build on that land.
I doubt a developer would pour all that money into building a house on the wrong lot on the hope they can win in court. More likely a mistake.
It's her land. Rent a Bulldozer. Clear the lot. Deposit the rubble on the proper lot. Send Developer the Bill.
Never never. Have to be patient and refrain from revenge.
❤ 💯
The judge in this case should be audited if the developer wins.
So here's what should happen, the developer removes the house, and restores the lot to its original condition, prior to any works taking place. The developer must pay all the landowners legal fees, must compensate the land owner for any time lost at work, and should pay $1 million dollars punitive for not complying with her rightful demands, and as a deterent for future. The Judge must be disbarred for failure to use basic commmonsense and dismiss such a frivolous lawsuit.
👏❤️👊
What I see is a trial run for the rich and powerful to start 'accidentally" building on any lot they want to steal and forcing the owner to take an unwanted plot.
The judge has to hear the case brought…whether they think it’s a load of bull or not… I’m sure there’s legal presidents from both sides being used…. Here in Spain the police tell you to shoot people on your land, but move the bodies to a different county so they “don’t get the paperwork”, but if you feel guilty, tell them you were walking your dog & found a body. Totally word for word as they don’t investigate non Spanish murders unless the consulate contacts them
@@noneyabizness7288 You vill own nothing, you vill be happy!
@@markhill9275 No one could have cast a better world villain.
They are suing her for their mistake? Is this for real? She should charge them for rent for using her property or the developer should offer to just give her the house. If not they need to remove the house off her lot.
The landowner lives in California. The developer was probably gambling that she'd miss the court date or wouldn't want to pay for a trip to Hawaii to appear in court, and they would win their lawsuit by default.
@@solandri69 Quite possibly, I don't know if there's any ability to claim that expense as part of her expenses if she wins this frivolous suit.
Thought I heard that one reason she picked the lot were the trees.. which are now forever gone. so even if she wins, she still looses. :(
Good idea ,high priced rent and become the sole HOA executive and charge them for everything
Yes it's real like men giving birth
For this to go to court is absolutely ridiculous. She needs to countersue to for putting something there she didn't want. Have them tear it down and sue for emotional damage for this whole fiasco.
Emotional daaamage .... 😁
Failure to perform due diligence is not a "mistake".
And it doesn't matter if the lots are identical at the atomic level, it' wasn't theirs to build on and she doesn't have to agree to a swap.
She should counter sue the other parties , PERIOD !!!!
Is that your answer to EVERYTHING?? All that does is make lawyers rich, more work, and no guarantee you'll solve any problem. Simplistic, and very "after the fact".
She sued them first.
You get taken to court you can counter sue in the same case
In every case? No. In her case? %100!!!
She did file a counter claim.
It's very simple, they should restore her lot to the condition it was in before they unlawfully occupied it and built on it. That means demolish the building and plant mature trees on the site to restore it to the condition it was in. That's why they went to court, they want to avoid the cost of rectifying their negligent error.
They can use a house mover. Since it's on the lot nearby it's not much of a distance.
Are you that delusional that you think this woman actually wants a free house removed from her property and replaced with brush?
That's exactly what she asked for when the error came to her attention. She just wants her lot in it's original condition. This is completely reasonable. Besides the developers should have insurance to cover their errors. In no way should this woman have to be drug through the court system and incur the stress and attorneys fees.
For this to even go to court shows just how crooked our injustice system is, absolutely ridiculous!
Well, it *has* to go to court to get a resolution. Just because the developer is suing the landowner it doesn't mean he will automatically win!
The developer wanted that lot. This was NO mistake.
Not only is this absurd, but also frightening since the outcome of this suit can set a precedent.
as it should, all titles are null and void subject to hawaiian kingdom and by laws of commerce
Yes it will..
Good point.
Exactly. Even if it was a genuine mistake, if you set the precedent that it was okay and the landowner can be built off of their own property, there will be many more cases coming in hot that are not mistakes at all.
Im on her side totally
She needs to counter-sue and claim compensation for all the grief and stress that they have caused her, on a jury trial. She stands to get a lot of money because the developers have acted in a bad way.
She sued first. Pay attention.
@@stuwest3653she didn’t. They sued her after she declined to buy the house
This doesn't pass the smell test. How is all I got. HER property, PERIOD! They screwed up. Someone better be checking the Judge's financials to even contemplate this Lawsuit.
Would people STOP SAYING the developer ACCIDENTALLY built on her lot. Prior to the house being built, the developer had tried to buy the lot from her, and she refused. it was DELIBERATE. I reckon that he thought if he just builds the house anyway, some easy judge is going to be nice to him and forcibly remove her from ownership of that land, and force her to accept whatever settlement the developer wants. THIS WAS DELIBERATE ! Plus we have deliberate theft and vandalism of 100-year-old trees from her land. Trees that she especially wanted to be there, for her particular use of the land. Triple damages wouldn't even come close to what this woman deserves.
A new way to take her property.
White Imperialism.
Would people STOP SAYING the developer ACCIDENTALLY built on her lot. Prior to the house being built, the developer had tried to buy the lot from her, and she refused. it was DELIBERATE. I reckon that he thought if he just builds the house anyway, some easy judge is going to be nice to him and forcibly remove her from ownership of that land, and force her to accept whatever settlement the developer wants. THIS WAS DELIBERATE ! Plus we have deliberate theft and vandalism of 100-year-old trees from her land. Trees that she especially wanted to be there, for her particular use of the land. Triple damages wouldn't even come close to what this woman deserves.
@@KiwiCatherineJemma Like I said, a way to take her property. It hard to believe someone could be that stupid to not know where the house was suppose to be built. You have to call out locates before you dig.
she should sue them for destroying her forrest/plants
Compromise? This isn't the landowner's problem. It isn't her responsibility to compromise. It's the developer's problem. They need to repair and fix to the owner's specifications, ie, restore what they damaged.
To sue land owner for builders mistake, pretty sure building ordinance requires a survey. Dear builder take your loss and move on
Seems to me this is pretty cut and dry. We'll have to see if the judge is bought off on this one.
Imagine if these developers won and it set a precedent for other developers to think they can take whatever plot of land they wanted by building on it when the owner isn't looking and then suing to force the owner to accept a different plot of land.
this is the most corrupt state so don't put it past the judge to rule in favor of the developer. He'll rule "in the Spirit of Aloha..."
Which tells me this was 100% intentional. They planned for it to go down exactly like this.
This case will set a precedent for any similar cases in the future. Imagine if developers just start building houses wherever they want, and then say, oh, it was a mistake!
Start of a nightmare you could just take anyone's land
How did the developer get a building permit and how did they put in utilities without authorization from the land owner? What county clerk missed that this is the wrong land owner?
There has to be more to it than we are being told.
Kind of makes you wonder how much the landowner was not paying to the property for all of this to happen without her knowledge
@@eileenmcdonald1599 Was not paying to the property? What does this mean?
@@eileenmcdonald1599 So??
The developer didn't get a survey done to make sure they were building in the correct lot, or so they said.
How dare they force another lot on her! They're trying to avoid addtional expenses to remove the house. They admitted fault, fix it on your expense. I hope they're insurance gets non-renewed, and I hope she counter sues.
*their
@staciespur8293 and i'll bet you cannot spell tyre correctly! A Sepo attempting to educate someone on correct English is certainly a joke!
@@staciespur8293 Pedantic? But thank you.
developer builds house on wrong lot ( she got a huge TAX increase) and the developer sues her .....this is what our country has come to ...unbelievable
You know the "developer" is a faceless corporation when they build a house on the wrong property and then promptly sue the landowner of said lot.
Give her attorney fees, require house removal and an amount for her inconvenience and stress.
Don't forget they need to return the property to the condition it was before they bulldozed it.
They're attempting to avoid paying for their mistake.
A mistake is delivering a package to the wrong address. Getting the permits, getting building plans, hiring a construction company and building a house on the wrong lot is not a 'mistake." They want that lot, and when she wouldn't just roll over and trade it for the lot next door, they had to take her to court and sue her into bankruptcy.
I like this lot. Just build my house on it and I will sue for the lot later. Not on accident at all. Ask the builder what he did with his hush money.
*by accident
*not accidentally
I believe you are 100 % right. No one is that stupid to build on the wrong lot by mistake,
@@carolynmerrick6377 They 100% did this on purpose so it would go to court and set a new precedent that would give them and pretty much every other developer carte blanche authority to pull these shenanigans in the future.
Wow, I hope she wins and takes the whole company
Another example of a 2 tiered justice system, if they force her to settle by switching lots or any other offer. A rich developer screwed up, land on any Hawaiin island is big bucks. This isn't an immenient domain case, and the only one whos going to benifit is the big company who failed to do due diligence and have it surveyed before they built on a large project.
I really don’t see how she wouldn’t be entitled to have them pay to have the house demolished, pay her attorney’s fees, and compensate her for the time they occupied her property.
And restore the lot to before build condition.
Nobody is going to demolish a brand new house.
The builders don't WANT to rectify the situation. They want to keep the house that they built on the nicer lot so they can sell it for a lot more money. That's why they made this "mistake" in the first place. The plan was to buy a cheap lot, build on the expensive lot, then say "whoops! Our mistake. Here, let's trade" then they the nicer lot for the price of a cheaper one. They figured that she would cave in and play ball with them. Because she hasn't done that, they sued her in order to pressure her into an out of court settlement and take the lot that they want to stick her with. When that fails, they will resort to the usual "legal" stuff: Defamation, intimidation, misinformation, and filing so many injunctions and other legal requests that it will force her into bankruptcy, while they get richer. That's how the American justice system works in this day and age.
@@stuwest3653 it happens all the time. a person had to tear down a house they put too close to the property line,
@@davesnothere8859 If they have to they will move the house. They aren't going to tear it down. You know nothing.
Because there are so many stupid technicalities and loopholes with the the law now, it makes more sense to be a criminal. Steal whatever you want and then just say it's yours because the owner wasn't touching it. Things are backwards and stupid now.
The company that was in charge of building the house on her property should be required to tear it down and pay her several hundred thousand dollars for her trouble
You just built this lady a FREE HOUSE!!!!!
SUCKS TO BE YOU👏👍😎🇨🇦
All of HPP Subdivision is filled with Micro-ecosystems, making each location, each lot, unique in it's zonal climate. There's a rise and fall effect of the land fomation that makes for subtle rainfall differences. Part of HPP is closer to the ocean making some lots filled with "sea air" (higher in sodium making plant growth limited or needy). There are some lots that are heavily wooded and even "non-buildable" due to routine flooding. She had a terrific lot someone is trying to turn into their own cash cow and they likely expect her to settle for some crappy, "leftovers" lot.
I live on my HPP land and so do my children. Are we now needing to worry someone will show up with demolition equipment to build a house to replace ours? Then demand we give them title? The decision on this case could mean all of our privately-owned lands are in jeopardy of contractor take-over. 😢
Plus, there is a history of such situations in the court system, especially within the RICO office. An efficient judge would review those prior cases. If that judge saw what I've seen in those cases, the decision will be one that blows back the steam from that illicit contractor. Let's just hope the judge isn't a corporate lackey.
great points; shows the "incentive" for the builder to try to "grab" a more marketable lot, and since she's an out of towner, thought she'd settle and get a lot dumped on her that appeared to be similar, but in actually perhaps not even buildable. Have to wonder if the contractor or his buddies HAVE a lot like that, like me selling moose pasture in Manitoba to someone living in Florida.
Yeah. Would people STOP SAYING the developer ACCIDENTALLY built on her lot. Prior to the house being built, the developer had tried to buy the lot from her, and she refused. it was DELIBERATE. I reckon that he thought if he just builds the house anyway, some easy judge is going to be nice to him and forcibly remove her from ownership of that land, and force her to accept whatever settlement the developer wants. THIS WAS DELIBERATE ! Plus we have deliberate theft and vandalism of 100-year-old trees from her land. Trees that she especially wanted to be there, for her particular use of the land. Triple damages wouldn't even come close to what this woman deserves.
@@KiwiCatherineJemma if they already tried to buy the lot and were refused, then that kills their "we got the wrong lot" argument. I hope her attorney mentions that little fact.
^^^^^ It just doesn't matter. No justification is needed. It was her lot, someone built an unauthorized building on it, she should just start renting it out!! Free House!!! Wheeeeee!
PJ'S CONSTRUCTION & KEAAU DEVELOPMENT PARTNERSHIP. 👎👎
It does not matter why she bought that lot. All that matters is someone else built a house she does not want or asked to be built on that lot. Developer needs to remove the house and restore the lot to what it looked like before.
Stupid lawsuit. The contractor is wrong period. The owner should not be put through this BS.
No one should just assume that the developer made a mistake. How would we know? the judge should send a clear message by making the developer pay fully and overly for the 'mistake' it had made.
Lot belongs to the lady. People come along and build a house on the lot she owned. Sounds like a free gift to me. Since the developer did not build on the lot he was SUPPOSED to use, he owes somebody a new house.
Why? Because he just gave the one he built away. The lot owner should formally trespass the developer and all of his subsidiaries and subcontractors. She should rent out the house and take the profit!!!
It’s the developers liability and fault, she’s done nothing wrong! If she doesn’t want a different lot, she should not be forced to change lots, it is her right to keep the one she chose and purchased.
She should either get to keep the house for free or the developers should be held liable and responsible for removing it or tearing it down if she doesn’t want it.
Something similar happened to my parents. In our case, the developer fixed the issue by trading lots. We went from a small corner lot to a much larger lot at the back of a cul-de-sac. What we lost was time. They had to start our house again from zero. All in all it worked out well for us.
This lady is getting screwed in her deal.
This is simple. They built a home on property they don't own. They are responsible for making things whole. Not her.
If anything other than a complete ruling in her favor including her attorney fees & travel cost to appear. The judge would need to be reviewed. Should be already for not throwing the case out.
They should offer her 2 lots but I doubt they would do that because it seems they just don't want to lose the money they put into that house. Pilau developer. They should be named.
She has every right to just keep her lot of land. I dont care what her reasoning is for not wanting to trade/sell it....the bottom line is that she should not be forced to trade/sell it.
The judge needs to be held accountable for permitting this law suit to go ahead! Obviously being "Paid-off" by the developer!
The developer needs to remove the building and return her land back to it's original state. The developer also needs to compensate her for the uses of HER land and any legal fees that she has incurred from the developers MISTAKE.
This is just wrong. The ones who did wrong wont admit it and now wants to sue the lot owner. Disgusting!
The developer is at fault.
Developer SCREWED up and refuses to do the right thing;...MOVE the house and restore the lot to its previous condition, instead they persecute the owner with frivoloyus litigating, now they can pay damages, emotional distress to the owner in addidtion to removing their "mistake" from her property...!
She should charge the builder for storing their house on her lot or have it torn down and make the builder pay for it.
Hope she wins and counter sues for legal fees and pain and suffering mental stressed and harassed by corpet greed.😊
Do you know what the word counter even means?
So, a developer can feign ignorance, take whatever lot they like best, then sue the owner to acquire the improved lot? I don't think so, if it were my property! I would bulldoze it and send the bill to the contractor!
Why bulldoze??? The Builder just gave her a free house!!!
@@medbob1 Only if it isn't what she wants. She had detailed reasons for the lot and may have for the building as well.
@@kayezbiciak544 Of course.... Move Destroy or simply move on and build where they were supposed to. It';s up to the lot owner!!!
That judge is getting paid very well to be a sheister
This really should be simple. The owner owns the land. She wishes to retain it. She has that right. The developer has no right to that land. He had no right to build on it. He is in the wrong. He needs to be forced to return that land to the point before development. That should be the ruling. He should not have had the standing to sue. Only she has any standing to sue. The developers case should be dismissed without cause. She then needs to sue for reinstatement of the land accordingly, plus the costs in this case and her one. She should easily win. It’s not up for debate or negotiation.
counter sue for Trespass
Trespass is a criminal, and not civil infraction. You can't sue for it per say.
anyone ever heard of the 4th amendment?? This needed to have been dismissed with prejudice upon the first hearing. The developer can not force someone to take something they don't want. Yes I personally feel this is about more money on both sides, however, It was her land to do with what she pleased. Who is the developer ???
Built on wrong lot? Move it. Property rights.
I hope she WINS BIG TIME! Not only did they build this house, but the stripped the land of the plants that were there. This is why she bought that lot. On top of buying the lot, she is also paying increased taxes on the lot now because of the house being built on it.
The foolish developer will soon find out the true cost of this lot. Legal cost I mean.
They should disclose the name of the developer and cancel them to the point they pay it up and also be out of business because if they did this to her imagine how many they did it.
2 words: DUE DILIGENCE!!! The developer is at fault and bears ALL responsibility for the mistake.
Sue , demolition of unlawful house, trespassing and restitution of trees and legal fees and taxes
Name the developer.
Nah shes a crazy person
@@raichu5844 You should know.
The company that mistakenly built the house on the wrong lot was PJ's Construction, a local building outfit that was hired by developer Keaau Development Partnership. The plan was to build 12 homes on parcels that Keaau Development purchased.
Simply that's her house now free of charge
Yet she is complaining its not what she wants. Which is her right.
@@eileenmcdonald1599 They wouldn't just give it to her anyway.
The court should immediately rule that the developers must remove the house and return the land to its approximate original state. They should also pay damages and their attorney should face sanctions.
This should never made it this far, I hope she ends up suing the builder for court costs and the aggravation it caused her.
The developers should be made to forfeit any moneys from the building of this house. They built it on the wrong lot. The courts should give the developers a choice. Either give the house to the woman. Or the developers need to remove the home and all other upgrades to the lot and return the lot to the woman in its original state. There is nothing else to consider here. The developer screwed up, not the woman. Offering her a different lot is not the being fair with her. That is her land, her property and they are attempting to steal it from her.
Not a good choice. She doesn't want the house. The developer giving her the house is not an option. They just need to remove the house and restore her land.
What more proof do you need that private property Rights don't exist in the US.
Kelo vs. New London was all the proof I needed
She should press criminal charges of trespass and destruction of private property. A developers mistake isn't her problem.
Don't be surprised if the ruling on this case favors the builder. I hope that the land owner has the financial ability to take it all the way to the SC. That would be a dangerous precedent set for land/home owners.
The developer is a squatter.
She doesn't need to explain anything about birth charts, her property looks like shes getting a free home...
Her explanation just makes her sound weird. The property was hers that's all that needed to be known.
@@eileenmcdonald1599 Some people are really into Feng Shui and similar things. Its very important to them. If thats what they believe well they are entitled to that. An example, maybe the lot number has 4 in it. Thats considered a very "bad" number with some people because when pronounced in Cantonese it sounds very similar to "death".
Ultimately her reasons dont matter. Its her land and she is entitled to it.
That would be the best outcome, for her to be awarded the house if that is what she wants. If she doesn’t, then it will have to be moved, or destroyed. I would hope a move could be arranged, it’s painful to see the waste of a new structure. I really hope the land owner prevails.
She said she wants the house gone
@@mplsmark222probably just a tacky new Mcmansion, not much of a waste
She’s the victim here not the developer!
Just because she doesn’t want another lot doesn’t make her wrong.
This lady is 100% in the RIGHT! Fix it, and I mean to HER satisfaction, not what the company believes or anyone else believes is a "fair" offer.
She should be charging the developer rent until he removes the house, she also needs to make sure her land is left as it was before he made the mistake in building on her land.😮😂 who the F**k does he think he is.
Either give her the house and let her keep her land, or lose millions and she'll still keep the house and her land. lol
They need to own up to their mistake and take the loss which is totally their fault. How they are trying to put this on the land owner is unreal.
She doesn't want the house there but there's no way she should have to pay to have it removed.
@@AaaaNinja She could have a free house and still have room to build another. She shouldnt pay for anything. She should sue them for every penny.
She is the one that does not want the house.
How this case was ever hear in court is ridiculous!
I hope she counter sues the developers for mental anguish and her time and effort and false accusations. Private property is just that private! They were trespassing for the whole time it was being built. The developers don’t want the expense of tearing down the trespassing structure and turning the property back to how it was! Typical corporations against the people.
She said birth chart!
Exact, shes a nutter
All very strange
@@eileenmcdonald1599Stranger than building a house on someone else’s lot?
this woman's land was destroyed and a structure built on it... she's do damages and then some.
Our judicial system is terrible.
This happened to my Grandpa. A Mall was built on his lot. He had a 2 acre lot. The Mall Builder / Owners said they would give him "Fair Market Value". My Grandpa said "No thanks. I'm your new partner." They ended up paying him 7 times what the land was worth. It was still a deal. I wish this woman all the luck in the world.
I'm praying for her🙏🏽♥️🙏🏽♥️🙏🏽♥️🙏🏽♥️🙏🏽♥️🙏🏽🛐✝️🛐✝️🛐✝️
As a Kanaka Maoli. She owns the land.
I think this sums up just how ridiculous this is:
"Oh, I'm sorry I ran over your kids. It was a mistake. I meant to drive on the road, not on the sidewalk. Now those kid's parents should pay for the damage to my car."
"We've made a reasonable attempt to find a comparable lot"...so? WTH does that matter?!?!?!?
Hawaiians own the land by land patent. She only owns color of title but the developers are to blame too. The real culprit is the state who appoints the judges etc… it’s all corrupt. No foreigner owns land here.
Everyone is a foreigner. So called native Hawaiians are from Taiwan mixed with Filipinos and others and like everyone else immigrated from somewhere else. In the end no one owns land but uses it until death separates us from the land that we are simply borrowing.
How could it possibly be her fault that some construction company built a house on her lot by mistake???
Scratch that "by mistake". Someone else here commented that they previously tried to buy the lot from her and she refused.
This is beyond ludicrous. The judge should have taken about 10 minutes to rule in her favor, fine the developer and order the removal of the home.
The judge needs to put his foot down and make the developer make it right. Even if the house has to go