Generally speaking, people who like to create problems are adverse to taking responsibility for them. SOMEBODY has to take the blame. Why not the victim? Your already screwing them. Just keep the same momentum going. The victim is the easiest person to blame any why expend the greater effort to find a different scapegoat when you are already only out for you self.
Technically, the government didn't create this issue - the demolition company did. The government is just enforcing the rules, as intended. Now, if those rules need updated or changed to account for this, that's a whole other discussion.
@@LJCyrus1 The government wasn't properly supervising their contractors. They ordered the demo, let them go after the demo company to collect for the screw up.
I don't understand why she hasn't already sued the demolition company for the cost of finishing the demo and cleaning up and the current cost to replace the house? The demo company should be insured and if they're under contract from the city, would the city not also be liable?
We don't know who contracted them but I doubt it was the city and who the hell knows why she would ignore this problem until she's forced to do something about it.
The older WaPo story says she consulted attorneys but could not afford them. I'd assume they have concerns about whether the company (You Call It We Haul It) is collectible, so they won't take it on contingency.
It's like receiving a speeding ticket from the police after the thief who stole your car drove through a photographic speed trap at double the posted limit. Which is also a thing.
@@lets-getbrandon4192 No, it's not. Not even remotely. The city ordered the threat of the fine. but they had nothing to do with her getting her house torn down in the first place.
@@01Lenda I agree with this fully , except I would call them sociopaths. Psychopath implies an underlying mental health disorder like schizophrenia. From very well min Sociopath is a term people use, often arbitrarily, to describe someone who is apparently without conscience, hateful, or hate-worthy. The term psychopath is used to convey a sociopath who is simply more dangerous, like a mass murderer.
@@01Lenda municipal jobs are hard and often pay trash, this is just how capitalist America works - the laws all assume that you have infinite money and if you've been wronged you'll recover your money in court
Maybe if the crew and/or their company were foolish enough to not check who owned the place before starting, there'd be a civil case against them. But it'd probably be a criminal case against whoever hired them.
If you hired a crew to demolish your own home, and the crew instead demolished the mayor's home, it would be the demolition crew they would be going after, not you, and yes it would be a civil matter
Boarded up or not, i guarantee she was paying property taxes, so there is value in the boarded up house and damages have occurred. . The lady should lawyer up asap.
Another item : I heard no mention as to whether or not the contractor was issued a demolition permit in the first place. It seems as though the woman made contact with the contractor, whom admitted to the error. Thus, she obviously knows the name of the contractor. Seems to me the next immediate step would be to find out if the city of Atlanta issued a demolition permit to that contractor. If the city did in fact issue a demolition permit to that contractor, then the city ought to be applying pressure on the contractor to straighten things out. Surely the house the contractor was supposed to demolish cannot be far away, at most across the street or, one or two houses away. Definitely some important information missing from the overall accounting of things at this point. But, perhaps the issue I've brought up has already been addressed.
@@scottmccutcheon9828 That's what I want to know to. If the City gave them the Permit, but they demolish the wrong house. The state STILL in fact vetted them and GAVE them the permit. Would the city not ALSO be held Liable for the Company's mistakes? If someone highers an Employee, and that Employee hurts a customer, would not BOTH the employee AND the company itself be Sued and Responcible? So why not in this situation?
So, if you home is destroyed by an outside force without the cities permits it's a violation? I wonder if they issue fines for tornados victims. How dare you not ask first to have your home surprisingly demolished without our say so.
People blaming the city of atlanta code enforcement for doing their jobs need to ask themselves why the neighbors should have to suffer lower property values because this woman refuses to hire an attorney. She can afford one and this is an open and shut case
The government didn't do anything wrong here. It's the Demo company that screwed up. If you were living next to this property would you be happy with it being left in such condition? Something must be missing from this story. Like Steve said, lawyers should be lining up to take on her cause.
My car got stolen in the 90s. The guy who stole kept getting parking tickets. Philly kept threatening to put a boot on my car despite me sending them *numerous* copies of police report proving it was stolen. Long story short ... it took me almost a year to get that mess straightened out. Insult to injury added when car was recovered by AC police... they towed my car when they caught the guy who stole it. I had to pay a $200 towing/ impound bill. The guy had the car longer than I did and all he got was probation. Both the DA and judge were idiots... along with Philly parking enforcement!!!
There would have to be proof that it was done on purpose or that the demolition company wasn't licensed or didn't have permits on the property they were supposed demolish. Absent those factors it is a civil matter. There are other factors where it could evolve into a criminal matter, but the known current facts don't support criminal charges.
The same people who are saying just because the house was boarded up it was her fault, blame the people who legally carry large amounts of cash and get it take by civil asset forfeiture..... Edit: I would check and see if someone is trying to purchase that property and they got turned down. So to retaliate they hired a company to demolish it under false pretenses. But it got caught halfway through.
My mother told me a story where the city wouldn't give a permit to demolish an old home on her friends' property so they could build a bigger house. So they found a loophole that said they don't need permits to demolish the insides of a structure for remodeling. So they built the shell of the new, larger, house around the previous house, then tore down the old house and carted it away truck load by truck load to the dump until it was all gone and they could finish the rest of the house. Terrible, but a good story.
I know someone who also did that in Mass. They wanted to expand by adding an addition but the town wouldn't let them so they built a new house around the old one. Bureaucrats suck.
I actually worked on a house with something similar to that going on. For some reason something wouldn't allow the house to be completely demolished, but they would let you do additions or expansions. So, we took down half and built a bigger newer half. Once that was done and inspected a new permit was pulled to take the other half down and built a second half of a new home. It was on a lake somewhere in central Florida...
@@pontiacg445 gub'ments are stupid and 90% of evening they do is stupid. I agree we do need them to cover that 10% of security and making sure businesses aren't abusing the populous, but that's all.
The city is at fault so now they're trying to shift the blame onto the homeowner. This is absolutely disgraceful. I hope she has a good lawyer. This city is trying to dodge all responsibility.
Whi is the city at fault? Did the city hire the contractor to demo a house and gave the contractor the wrong address? If so then the city is liable for everything. If not, then how is the city liable for anything?
There is a chain of responsibility here. The city has responsibility/oversight of the contractors they hire to perform as contracted. The city will be on the hook to the homeowner, then the city will have to go after the contractor.
@@donh6416 You're assuming the city hired the contractor to demo a house. It isn't said who hired the contractor and gave them the wrong address. That is the biggest piece of this missing because whoever hired the contractor and provided them with the wrong address is responsible for everything.
I don't get why if i went and destroyed a strangers house i would be in jail, but a dumb demolition crew are just allowed to leave, as far as i know they don't have any immunity.
@@AC-yj8cx So, if I rent a Caterpillar D-9 and bulldoze my neighbor's house I get off Scott free unless someone can prove intent? Oops, sorry I was just learning to drive one of these things!
Many companies where I live won't tear down a house without the person who contracted them, or a representative they are familiar with, is present. While that doesn't stop a spiteful neighbor from tearing down half of someone's garage, it means that that neighbor was physically present when doing so, and can easilly be gone after by both the contractor, and the owner in the case of malice. In all other cases, it simply means that there is someone on site to go "Yes, THIS is the correct house", so there's no mistake. Seems like a simple solution.
There was an article some years ago about a house in (I think) San Antonio in which the homeowner returned from work and found their house leveled. It was apparently a practical joke. The demolition company just showed up and tore down the house even though it was clearly in excellent condition and was occupied.
We are the gornments bosses yet go into a gov building with a camera AND YOU WILL SEE THAT THEY SEE US AS THEIR PEASANTS AND THEY ACT AND MAKE POLICY THAT MAKES THEM ALL ACT LIKE THEY ARE THE OWNERS AND ARE OUR BOSSES
The company that accidentally tore down the place, should have shown some balls and good business sense by stepping up and helping her with the rest of the demo, maybe getting a retro permit if possible, and then giving her the amount of what the worn out house was worth.
A lot of construction "companies" are literally just a couple guys with an ad and maybe a website that hires some cheap labor when someone gives them a job.
Construction companies are arguably some of the shadiest around since the majority of them are just a few people who play Three Card Monte with LLCs, like Steve described in the video. A lot of them don't even have assets, they just lease tools and equipment and hire laborers when a job comes in. So them having "business sense" or treating people right - whether that be customers or employees - usually doesn't happen.
A drunk driver drove into our dry cleaner's front fence and a retaining wall. The police found the guy down the road driving with part of the fence stuck to the front of his car. They let him go we were told because there's a lot of paperwork associated with arresting a non-citizen. When the dry cleaning store owner started yelling at the police, they threatened to cite him for obstructing the sidewalk with the debris from the retaining wall.
the irony that an LLC, which was created to protect an individual from being destroyed by an honest mistake, is now used by unscrupulous individuals to avoid accountability.
I'm a retired Michigan architect, structural, civil engineer. I've drafted up many demolition plans in my time. They can be just as complex as construction documents. Yes, indeed, they need to pull demolition permits, land usage permits, and often times other permits like wetlands, which at times require demolition plans to be drafted by architects and then submitted to township and city planning committees for approval.
@@spacecoastz4026 the city isn't assigning blame, just responsibility. It's her property, and she still needs to do something about it. If the city says it needs to be pulled down after pulling a permit, get the permit, hire a company to do it, and get it done. Add the cost to the lawsuit. She could give the original company the chance to do it by the deadline, but if they can't or won't, hire someone else.
@@JKiler1 they'd hate me, the city would now be the proud owner of the nation's newest cobalt-60 storage site. Inspect to your heart's content, at your own risk. The upside, no need for street lighting, cobalt-60 glows in the dark. I actually did lose a house. I had gotten called away, some war thing and all, so I deployed and while gone, some enterprising individuals stripped out every inch of copper in the building. Wires, pipes, all gone. Redeployed home to find a shell. I let the city take the house, as there was no way to recover the damages for less than the property value. The city of Filthadelphia then assessed my payroll tax at thrice what was declared in my tax filings, compounding the amount "due" while I was deployed. Just another fuck you for your service to an ungrateful nation. And I refuse to do business with anyone within those shitty limits. The Commonwealth's singular shitty of the worst class. Yeah, still feel a bit salty over that mess.
Pretty straight forward: 1. Get an attorney 2. Find & notify the company that started the job to come and finish 3. If they refuse hire a company to complete the job and include those $$ in the suit against the first company. I'd notify the Atlanta building department of the plans, so they know they're not being ignored. If they still levy fines, pay them and included those $$ in the suit as well. She wants to make sure she keeps the Building Department in the loop so they're aware of her efforts and are on her side (if only emotionally).
Personally, I'd hire another company for the job. The first one is obviously incompetent, and I don't believe in rewarding incompetence with more work. I'd shop around for someone to finish the job, pick the highest bidder just to make the bill saltier for the first clownshow, and sue them for the money.
@@nuclearmedicineman6270 I hear you. It would be an uphill battle...a case you'd lose the moment the judge asks two questions: 1) directed at the halfassed company; "Did the plaintiff contact you and request you complete the job? No they did not your honor, I was never given the opportunity to "finish" the job. Follow up question to the plaintiff; Did you make a reasonable effort to contact the original company and ask them to address the issue? No? Well in that case it's on you.
She never pressed charges and even if she did who would she press it on? The workers? The Owner? What if the owner wasn't there and didn't make the decision? Even if we did know who made the decision criminal destruction of property requires malice or intent, getting the wrong address is not malice or intent, therefore it's a civil case and not criminal.
@@duewhat9815. 1. Thats what a criminal investigation is for. 2. The answer is not no one is responsible. Someone is. And the company itself should be criminally charged. The C suite can serve the jail sentence.
@@duewhat9815You would press charges on the people that directly did it(the workers) and sue the company. If I show up to your house with demolition equipment and then your house ends up being demolished.. how was that not my intent? She wasn't in the city when it was demolished so how is she supposed to ever prove malice. As if they'd send her a letter and be like hey we're doing this out of malice. If the company was contracted by the city, the way the city is treating the situation shows malice to me
@@TooShots Intent in law means that they are knowingly breaking the law, in this case they believed that they were working on the correct house...they're liable for damages but they did not commit a crime. No, you should not arrest the workers and sue the company, wtf...
@@imjashingyou3461 Yeah they're going to do an investigation on whether or not they acted with criminal intent...right. And yes the company is responsible, civilly not criminally. I don't know why you would want to live in a world where the owner of a business can be arrested because of a mistake someone else made, you would of fit very well in the soviet union.
@@arribaficationwineho32 the system has to let some civil actions sometimes to happen. These no excuse policies are always issues, especially with unwilling to compromise bureaucrats that refuse to acknowledge the big picture issues that are not the fault of the citizens.
Never underestimate local government to double down on a mistake, by making another mistake. This can compound multiple times until something breaks. Often the innocent citizen.
@@shittyopinionsno it's not. If it was you'd be seeing politicians and government officials getting treated like the tyrannical ones in the 1800s were treated. You're just coping
When I bought my home, the plot plan on the deed showed 3 out buildings where none existed when I bought it. I went to zoning to get that corrected. First tax bill I get I was being charged taxes on 3 out buildings that did not exist. I go to the tax office to have that get corrected. Then I get a notification that I needed to pay for 3 teardown permits, plus late fees for buildings that had been torn down years before I even bought the property.
We live in a small town in a small county and our neighbor had to pull a house down and the guy she hired thought that he could do just that - pull it down. He hooked a chain up to his Dodge and wrapped it around the front porch pole and pulled, actually thinking that it would pull the house down. Obviously, the pole came off and the house stood. We sat there and watched the ridiculous scene, unable to walk away. It took him days to demolish this two story home and he put all of the debris into the basement, filling the rest with dirt. The house they put in its spot has already started sinking due to the debris settling. This is a good example of why people need permits - this guy had no idea what he was doing.
Actually….the whole dumping it into the basement the covering it up…happens all the time by demo crews…that’s what they do with the debris if there’s a basement u set it….the home won’t settle if they had had it properly prepped for new construction
The Government and its minions are immune from all responsibility for its mistakes which is the complete opposite of how it works for the rest of the citizenry.
I've said this on a couple of comments on this video. I think the thing we're missing which is an important piece of information is did the city give the contractor and erroneous address or did the contractor misinterpret the address and go to the wrong place? Those details should point culpability in the right direction. I think Steve is over target by saying the list of people to be sued is long. And if it's permissible in the municipality actually naming city officials and contract company officials in the lawsuit so that they are personally required to answer and be involved in discovery would be the path I would probably go down.
@@BillyMcCord when the junkie mistakenly burns down thier dealers neighbors house, it is NOT intentional arson. Also the junkie was a New Yorker and talked fast with his accent, sooo... The baby rabbits died from brain hemmorage, as the result of the pasteurized milk that was purchased at hy-vee. True story! 1982... Wisconsin, (as i recall)
To prove a crime you have to prove that all of the "elements of the offense" are present. For theft you might have to prove that the accused took someone else's property, that he knew it was not his, that he knew he did not have permission, and that he did not intend to give it back. The court doesn't need to read his mind, they are allowed to infer intent from the details of what he did. Maybe he went into someone else's house uninvited, carried something out, and sold it. That is generally enough to convict. Unless he can show that he was supposed to go into someone else's house, take something out and get rid of it. If he produces a work order for the neighbor's house, it is going to be hard to argue that he is a thief. He is still at fault, but it is more like being at fault in an auto accident. The person who caused the damage has to pay for it. That is what we have here.
@@lrmackmcbride7498 Yes, but to get what she's owed, she'll have to file a tort against the demo company. It doesn't sound like they're insured, or like they're going to do the right thing of their own accord.
Who originally sent the demo team? I lived in Georgia, in a suburb of Atlanta, for almost a decade, and on at least 3 occasions there were stories splashed across the news where the police raided the wrong house because their warrant had the wrong address on it or the cop reading the warrant read it wrong. Worse, every time it happens, the city refuses to pay for repairs for damages caused. In looking up this story, it appears that the city of Atlanta, in March of 2023, sent a demolition team to tear down another house (different from this one), where they had sent the notices to the wrong address beforehand, getting the zip code wrong. I am unsure what is going on, but it seems to be an ongoing and widespread problem.
What is going on is that there is a finite pool of IQ points in the universe, and as the population keeps growing there are fewer points to award to each new person.
@@johnpublic6582 thankfully pizza delivery drivers seem to have enough intelligence to find the right house even if cops and demolition crews don't.. Maybe because if they make a mistake they have to pay for it?
Next: "They're going after any future homes she might reside in!" 🙄 Get the attorney general involved. Also make sure the local news is aware of your situation too.
@@lynnohl2526 Yes, but I meant like a "7 on your side" type of station. Fox tends to be Universal and might not have the time to harass (remind) those folks the way a reporter clearly needs to because this ridiculousness is beginning to feel beyond incompetence and has quickly become their way of doing business! A plucky reporter and a camera man might be able to do more.
Sad that our government institutions can exercise "Executive Action" on a whim to benefit themselves, but cannot do the same in a circumstance such as this...The "common sense" totality of the circumstances here speak for themselves...
Steve you didn't mention that she may also be able to go after the people that hired the company to do the demolition work in the first place. This company wasn't just wandering the neighborhood looking for places that they could demolish without being contracted to do so. I believe that the people that hired this company were employees of the city of Atlanta. Atlanta isn't going to go out of business or go away any time soon so they would be collectable and since they are now trying to get her to pay for the demolition companies mistake as probably ordered by the city, I would think that she would have a decent case against the citations. The other problem is that the city claims that they tacked the notice to the front door but it was found in the back yard. Presumably they didn't find the front door in the back yard. Also given that everyone has a cell phone camera she could demand proof that it was posted on the front door if that is still there. If package delivery companies can show me a picture of the package having been delivered then I am sure that the city can show proof of service beyond a signed paper. There are many cases of mail or packages being dumped in remote areas and never being delivered.
I had an interesting scenario happen in my parent's neighborhood a new neighbor was moving in and building a new house on their lot. The construction company she hired screwed up the laying of the foundations and construction was ultimately stopped as a civil suit ensued. The neighborhood HOA got involved and was ordering the construction site be demolished due to it being an eyesore and started issuing daily fines against the owner. The trial's judge ruled that the construction site was evidence in the case blocking the demolition order but did allow the daily fines to proceed. The HOA knew the whole drama of the situation and made no immediate attempt to collect against the owner and just let the fines accumulate while the owner added the fines to the lawsuit for what they were suing for. About a year later the owner won the case and was awarded the full cost of the demolition of the old house, the whole cost of the old house, the cost of the HOA fines, and more. Needless to say the HOA made a huge budget surplus and used the money to construct a public tennis court for the residents with their share when the owner finally paid off their fees.
Dealing with local government is always mind boggling. My house in Florida was demolished by the Hurricane 2 years ago. The first thing the county said was we will not issue a permit to build until you have been approved to demolish and also the certification by a properly licensed hazmat inspector of adherence to disposal of toxic waste. I will be dealing with this mess when we get back to Florida this winter. (sigh) Insult to injury, is they say there will be an $7500 fee to cover future costs of supplying the lot with utilities, despite the utilities are there and have been for decades.
in the UK Criminal law defines gross negligence as 'a conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care, which is likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm to persons, property, or both. Knocking down a house without making sure it was the right one with the relevant permits would be gross negligence@@duewhat9815
I would say that is called 'the burden of prove'. The jury/judge can than decide if they believe your excuse or if the fact show you did it on purpose. If you are not a demolition company I do doubt that a jury/judge would believe you and demolishing any house without a permit might be illegal in itself.
If you are asking whether someone could do it as a crime (maybe for revenge) and then get off, the answer is yes in theory, but it would be totally impractical if it could be pulled off at all. He would probably have to start a demolition company, spend a few years doing jobs, and then somehow get a job demolishing a house which could plausibly be confused with his victim's. Pretty far-fetched.
People in Atlanta need to send the story to their Mayor and City Council members. Code compliance needs to just put this on hold. I hope that the only reason the news station didn't mention a lawsuit was because they hadn't asked those questions of the victim.
We get what we vote for. Everyone gets worked up over big national elections, but hardly turn up to vote for the positions what will affect them the most.
Funny how I am not a lawyer but my first thought exactly what you said. The demo company that made the mistake should offer to take care of it and minimize their damages. The loss of the house is still a loss and still might cost them more money but at least it won't be the cost of the demo on top of it.
I'm surprised that with situations like this, the company in the wrong won't do THE THING that they could do (in this case finish demo/clean up of the house) rather than wait till they get sued and having to pay another company to do the work they could have done, presumably at less of an expense, and without at least some of the legal expense.
Why is destroying someone else's property exclusively a civil matter? Criminal damage is a criminal offence. Doing it through incompetence doesn't mean it isn't criminal. And it's the individuals who did the damage who should bare responsibility.
This thing where houses are knocked down by mistake goes on all over the country for decades, gee you would think some of those smart lawmakers would make a law to keep this from happening.
I love in our free and democratic society, if you are the victim you have the worst time of all the party involved! The city? they are doing their job. The demo company? If they will ever be find guilty, will just pack up and keep on going with their life (and don't get me it's illegal, Steve explained how it works), the victim? will probably be financially ruined!
I was a licensed plumbing contractor in Fl. and the companies that do the Demo have to pull the permit and be licensed, the homeowner in these cases most times cannot pull such a permit, so it would fall on the city to follow up with the Demo company.
The problem is that the woman is not very intelligent. If you watch interviews with her, she comes off as very low intelligence. Possibly developmentally disabled. She hasn’t contacted a lawyer and has no plans to sue. Has attempted to get no help other than talking to officials who have no power to help her. She is just leaving the property as the demolition company left it hoping something will miraculously change.
Hindsight being 20/20, she probably shouldn’t have stopped the demolition once it started and waited till after it was completed to alert the company that they got the wrong house.
She didn't stop the demo, the insane morons stopped mid job. Did someone look at the work order & say, "Hey guys, we're at the wrong place. It's a block away, let's leave!" What the hell???
There is one person she can still sue if all else fails, the person who ordered the demolition...I doubt they will be an LLC that will go out of business.
If she was the owner of record, why wasn't she personally served with the notice of demolition and the consequences if she didn't, i.e. the destruction of her property, instead of just posting a notice out of sight behind the house. Why didn't the City investigate and find out if any demo permit was issued in that neighborhood, and determine who destroyed her property, and whether or not the demo company had a city demo license and a city permit for the specific property and a record of who had asked for the house to be demolished and who was paying for the work. The intentional wrongful destruction of another person's real property is a felony in many states, and if the City facilitates the crime by wrongful or improper posting, failure to serve the owner at her residence or mailing address on City records, or at the address her property tax notices are sent to, etc. would seem to put the City in cahoots with whoever destroyed the house, and make the City, or its responsible employee(s), responsible for her loss of property value, loss of use, court costs and attorneys fees. Deprivation of real property w/o due process of law is often best pursued in federal court; the lawyer who represents the landowner would get a lot of publicity pursuing such a claim, particularly if this is found to be a widespread racket in the City, complete with not requiring licenses from, or permits issued to, the demo companies, and with kickbacks to City employees for their connivance in the scheme.
Not only does she need to clean it up, but they're also requiring her to get the "Proper permit" which she cannot get on her own. I wonder if she has homeowner's insurance that may cover it.I doubt it. Something for people to check in their coverage is whether their policy covers the 'tear down" of a totaled home. I read where someone had their house totaled and they took the payout only to find out they were liable for the removal of the remaining structure.
""Hodgson said she's filed a police report and talked with lawyers but was "still in this process of figuring out what to do." "We keep pressing in different directions to see if something is going to happen," she said. She said the Atlanta-based company responsible, You Call It We Haul It LLC, has yet to contact her or offer any compensation for the mistake."
I don't think this was a mistake anymore. I don't even live in Georgia but I've heard some variation of a house being torn down in Atlanta by "mistake" about 10 times now. To what end, no idea...
This reminds me of the steps taken by hospital personnel to make absolutely certain as to which exact body part is going to be operated on (or removed). The exact protocols probably differ from hospital to hospital, but in general the patient is asked multiple times before they're anesthetized to confirm the type and site of surgery, and those confirmations are recorded and compared with the written patient record. The idea is, of course, to not amputate the wrong leg, or remove the non-cancerous breast, and so on. And not to replace the wrong hip or knee joint. In some cases, if it's a right or left body part, careful patients have gone so far as to take a Sharpie and write "NO!" in big letters on the nonoperative side, and "YES" on the operative side. Careful surgeons take extraordinary care to make sure they get it right. And for non-life-threatening situations (such as demolishing a house) those involved should at the very least double-check to make sure they are "operating" on the correct site.
She needs to follow a lawsuit against the demolition company and then she also needs to follow lawsuit against the city because if there was permits that needed to be done none of that was done properly and she needs to countersue for everything that they're doing to her but add times about 3 so no matter what they think the house is worth if it had sentimental value or whatever I would not take anything under 3 million
It is more like having to pay the towing fees when the police find your car abandoned somewhere. Sure they know it wasn't you, but the tow truck guy has to send the bill to someone.
If someone takes an axe to your car, that's criminal. How is that any different for a house? And how does civil code enforcement apply in criminal issues?
Mistakes were made.... The City of Atlanta should be trying to help the victimized homeowner, not amplifying the damage. The city should be pursuing the responsible contractor, not the victimized homeowner, to clean up the mess, and pay the permitting fines and costs. The homeowner needs to sue the contractor and the City, and any judgements must include all legal costs.
The city should halt any contract they have with the demolition company until they replace the womans house. Usually there is more than one home on their contract
So, if your house is burned down by an arsonist, can you be held liable for not having had the foresight to pull a "burn down a house" permit? Honestly, I don't see how this is *not* a criminal matter. Presumably the value of the property alone would elevate it to that? I dunno, I'm not a lawyer.
I hope she sues and wins against the demolision company for all the stress they caused. I don't think people should sue for everything, but the demo company is asking for it by not making it right ASAP
The woman was probably trying to avoid a lawsuit and relying on the demo company to do the right thing and complete the demo and compensate her. May wind up in a lawsuit after all.
It is so wonderful that our government takes responsibility for acting in such an intelligent manner. Must be all that "Qualified Immunity" crap... (Don't get me wrong, there are times where QI is needed, but govt. officials LOVE doing stupid/illegal stuff and trying to get away with it.)
@@robertwazniak9495Exactly! QI should by default be granted, not taken. Granted by the courts in certain circumstances, instead of being removed by the courts in particularly egregious cases, as it is now.
This is absurd. Whomever paid the demo company is responsible for the womans lose & should compensate her for damages. The demo company is responsible for doing what it was contracted to do. Their error is between them & the people that hired them. This is the city denying their mistake & incompetence. Someone should lose their job.
Another instance proving that all of us in America that have something, a home, property, anything of value, we do not have total ownership of it. The Government is always there no matter what to take a share and make a shitty situation even worse.
I live in a much smaller city than Atlanta, and I have no problems believing the random goober driving around for code enforcement wouldn't know a damned thing about the fact that the house was torn down by mistake. This is a classic case of left hand and right hand not even knowing the other exists. This is a case of stupidity, rather than malice, and whatever attorney she's retained to deal with the accidental demolition should be able to sort out the code office fairly quickly.
I want one of those t-shirts. That was a nice 60th birthday gift for me. My cousin bought two houses on adjoining lots near the beach in Ocean City New Jersey in 2012. He was working on getting demolition permits so he could tear down both houses and build one large one on the combined lots. His lots were near ground zero for Superstorm Sandy. He withdrew his demolition application and got a summarily issued permit for debris removal (or maybe it was an order). He was probably the only one on his block who was glad his homes were destroyed by the storm.
I would've gone to a lawyer the same day they were caught tearing it down. As a matter of fact, I'd of had the police out there before they could've packed up to leave the site!
that is why i like living where i do...1 town only has 1 permit requirement... a plumbing permit for the septic system... other than that it is the honor system and when you are done constructing whatever you are building, you stop by the town office and tell the tax assessor so that they can come out and appraise and tax you accordingly... permits are a scam to get our money...and if a builder did this and ran away by cancelling their LLC, i would make it my life's mission to ensure they don't do it again... social media works wonders..
We had a townhouse once in an HOA where the HOA was responsible for the common areas, roads and street sidewalks and home owners were responsible for maintaining their driveways and front door lead walks. We got hit with a blizzard and the HOA decided to hire snow removal for the common area walks and streets but added our privately owned lead walks and driveways as well. The crews threw down ice melt which was too strong and melted our concrete driveway which faced the full frontal sun more so than any other townhouse with a driveway. The HOA then waited a few months for it to warm up before issuing us a violation for a pitted driveway that was only two years old. Brand new home. We had to resurface the driveway due to HOA doing homeowner maintenance on our private drive. They would not back down either. I refused to let them touch our driveway and lead walk from then on.
Steve my mom’s sister in detroit had to get a permit to abandon her home in the 80s . The house got caught up in a bad area that was in decline wile the taxes were worth more than the home . She was just going to leave but had to get a permit to abandon her home. The permit required them to board it up then be inspected and the city would declare it abandon.
Never underestimate a government's ability to create problems and then blame you for them.
THIS!!
Never underestimate a company's ability to create problem and then blame you for them.
Generally speaking, people who like to create problems are adverse to taking responsibility for them. SOMEBODY has to take the blame. Why not the victim? Your already screwing them. Just keep the same momentum going. The victim is the easiest person to blame any why expend the greater effort to find a different scapegoat when you are already only out for you self.
Technically, the government didn't create this issue - the demolition company did.
The government is just enforcing the rules, as intended.
Now, if those rules need updated or changed to account for this, that's a whole other discussion.
@@LJCyrus1 The government wasn't properly supervising their contractors. They ordered the demo, let them go after the demo company to collect for the screw up.
I don't understand why she hasn't already sued the demolition company for the cost of finishing the demo and cleaning up and the current cost to replace the house? The demo company should be insured and if they're under contract from the city, would the city not also be liable?
We don't know who contracted them but I doubt it was the city and who the hell knows why she would ignore this problem until she's forced to do something about it.
@@duewhat9815 From the last video about this, She does not live near the old family home. It was delapitated already.
The older WaPo story says she consulted attorneys but could not afford them. I'd assume they have concerns about whether the company (You Call It We Haul It) is collectible, so they won't take it on contingency.
Probably a senior who is overwhelmed on what to do and they are taking advantage of that !
@@FrancisBeanBlades what does collectible mean in this context?
It's like a cop writing you a ticket for witnessing them speeding.
That’s a perfect analogy for this situation.
It's like receiving a speeding ticket from the police after the thief who stole your car drove through a photographic speed trap at double the posted limit. Which is also a thing.
@@lets-getbrandon4192 No, it's not. Not even remotely. The city ordered the threat of the fine. but they had nothing to do with her getting her house torn down in the first place.
There was an actual cop who put a man in handcuffs because the cop rear ended the man's car.
Getting cited for bleeding on the sidewalk after getting mugged.
The amount of psychopaths in local government is shocking.
No, when you consider that most, are bottom feeders, looking for the easiest fruit jobs...
@@01Lenda I agree with this fully , except I would call them sociopaths. Psychopath implies an underlying mental health disorder like schizophrenia.
From very well min
Sociopath is a term people use, often arbitrarily, to describe someone who is apparently without conscience, hateful, or hate-worthy. The term psychopath is used to convey a sociopath who is simply more dangerous, like a mass murderer.
Especially in Georgia. Remember, this is Fanni Willis's territory.
@@01Lenda municipal jobs are hard and often pay trash, this is just how capitalist America works - the laws all assume that you have infinite money and if you've been wronged you'll recover your money in court
More likely malignant narcissists. The electoral process attracts them and selects for them.
If I accidentally total someones car i am still liable! SHE NEEDS TO SUE THAT COMPANIES ASS INTO THE GROUND!!!!
“demolish”
So, would it be a "civil" matter if we hired a crew to demolish the Mayor's home? Or the Sheriff's home? Or any of these absurd "public servants"?
😮😂😂😂😂
Maybe if the crew and/or their company were foolish enough to not check who owned the place before starting, there'd be a civil case against them.
But it'd probably be a criminal case against whoever hired them.
No because it would be premeditated. This case was unintentional.
@@TheRealJBMcMunn You have to prove premeditation.
If you hired a crew to demolish your own home, and the crew instead demolished the mayor's home, it would be the demolition crew they would be going after, not you, and yes it would be a civil matter
Boarded up or not, i guarantee she was paying property taxes, so there is value in the boarded up house and damages have occurred. . The lady should lawyer up asap.
Uh, no she paid taxes. I know this story really well.... She has lawyered up, update soon... Local media involved as well...
Another item : I heard no mention as to whether or not the contractor was issued a demolition permit in the first place.
It seems as though the woman made contact with the contractor, whom admitted to the error. Thus, she obviously knows the name of the contractor. Seems to me the next immediate step would be to find out if the city of Atlanta issued a demolition permit to that contractor. If the city did in fact issue a demolition permit to that contractor, then the city ought to be applying pressure on the contractor to straighten things out.
Surely the house the contractor was supposed to demolish cannot be far away, at most across the street or, one or two houses away.
Definitely some important information missing from the overall accounting of things at this point. But, perhaps the issue I've brought up has already been addressed.
@@scottmccutcheon9828 exactly
@@scottmccutcheon9828 That's what I want to know to. If the City gave them the Permit, but they demolish the wrong house. The state STILL in fact vetted them and GAVE them the permit. Would the city not ALSO be held Liable for the Company's mistakes? If someone highers an Employee, and that Employee hurts a customer, would not BOTH the employee AND the company itself be Sued and Responcible? So why not in this situation?
@@JirodyneNot if permits were only treated as a fee.
So, if you home is destroyed by an outside force without the cities permits it's a violation? I wonder if they issue fines for tornados victims. How dare you not ask first to have your home surprisingly demolished without our say so.
A demolition and a natural disaster aren't the same thing, nice try though.
If she has insurance it should all be covered you would think or the demo companees insurance would
@@duewhat9815It definitely amounts to the same thing in this case as far as the woman being liable for it
You don't need a demo permit for the disaster but you do for the clean up.
I can bet they absolutely would issue a citation to a tornado victim if it was not cleaned up in a timely fashion. Sad reality.
Government:
If it's not broken, they'll keep fixing it until it is.
You forgot the contracts paid with OUR MONEY to the govt. officials Cronies,
People blaming this woman need to examine their hearts. Would you want this horrific situation to happen to you through no fault of your own?
People blaming the city of atlanta code enforcement for doing their jobs need to ask themselves why the neighbors should have to suffer lower property values because this woman refuses to hire an attorney. She can afford one and this is an open and shut case
"Suffer lower property value?"
Are you serious? Oh nooo, real residents have to pay lower property taxes, what a nightmare nooo
Never underestimate the incompetence of government agencies and the bureaucrats employed by those agencies.
there is no incompetence by the city in this case.
MALICE, not incompetence. So tired of watching everyone cover for them with that stupid "oh they just didn't know any better" argument.
The government didn't do anything wrong here. It's the Demo company that screwed up. If you were living next to this property would you be happy with it being left in such condition? Something must be missing from this story. Like Steve said, lawyers should be lining up to take on her cause.
The city contracted the job.
@@july8xx did the city contract the job? It wasn't mentioned in the video.
My car got stolen in the 90s. The guy who stole kept getting parking tickets. Philly kept threatening to put a boot on my car despite me sending them *numerous* copies of police report proving it was stolen. Long story short ... it took me almost a year to get that mess straightened out. Insult to injury added when car was recovered by AC police... they towed my car when they caught the guy who stole it. I had to pay a $200 towing/ impound bill. The guy had the car longer than I did and all he got was probation. Both the DA and judge were idiots... along with Philly parking enforcement!!!
Keep voting Blue so they can screw you!
A soros bought DA in philly!!! 👹👹👹👹
Let me guess. You are white and the criminal was a POC ?
Exactly. It's all absurd.
I am curious as to why criminal charges could not be filed against the individuals that were involved in the demolition of the home.
There would have to be proof that it was done on purpose or that the demolition company wasn't licensed or didn't have permits on the property they were supposed demolish. Absent those factors it is a civil matter. There are other factors where it could evolve into a criminal matter, but the known current facts don't support criminal charges.
Intent
They intended to demolish the house when they demolished it.
@@ScottM7209 You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
@@jessecarliner7733 what word? "intended?", "demolished"? because I see both are used appropriately
The people that demolished the property should be charged criminally.
The same people who are saying just because the house was boarded up it was her fault, blame the people who legally carry large amounts of cash and get it take by civil asset forfeiture.....
Edit: I would check and see if someone is trying to purchase that property and they got turned down. So to retaliate they hired a company to demolish it under false pretenses. But it got caught halfway through.
Finally found the comment I was looking for👍 Exactly what I was thinking.
My mother told me a story where the city wouldn't give a permit to demolish an old home on her friends' property so they could build a bigger house. So they found a loophole that said they don't need permits to demolish the insides of a structure for remodeling. So they built the shell of the new, larger, house around the previous house, then tore down the old house and carted it away truck load by truck load to the dump until it was all gone and they could finish the rest of the house. Terrible, but a good story.
I know someone who also did that in Mass. They wanted to expand by adding an addition but the town wouldn't let them so they built a new house around the old one. Bureaucrats suck.
I actually worked on a house with something similar to that going on. For some reason something wouldn't allow the house to be completely demolished, but they would let you do additions or expansions. So, we took down half and built a bigger newer half. Once that was done and inspected a new permit was pulled to take the other half down and built a second half of a new home. It was on a lake somewhere in central Florida...
@@pontiacg445 gub'ments are stupid and 90% of evening they do is stupid. I agree we do need them to cover that 10% of security and making sure businesses aren't abusing the populous, but that's all.
pretty sure they are not allowing demolition because it will stop being an estate and change of taxing yada yada
I feel bad they had to do that but holy shit I'm amazed at peoples engenuity
The city is at fault so now they're trying to shift the blame onto the homeowner. This is absolutely disgraceful. I hope she has a good lawyer. This city is trying to dodge all responsibility.
Whi is the city at fault? Did the city hire the contractor to demo a house and gave the contractor the wrong address? If so then the city is liable for everything. If not, then how is the city liable for anything?
There is a chain of responsibility here. The city has responsibility/oversight of the contractors they hire to perform as contracted.
The city will be on the hook to the homeowner, then the city will have to go after the contractor.
@@donh6416 You're assuming the city hired the contractor to demo a house. It isn't said who hired the contractor and gave them the wrong address. That is the biggest piece of this missing because whoever hired the contractor and provided them with the wrong address is responsible for everything.
@@johnlyn1 its simple, the city issues a demolition permit, they are partly responsible that it is the correct house being demolished.
2 properties and vacation money...she'll be fine.
I don't get why if i went and destroyed a strangers house i would be in jail, but a dumb demolition crew are just allowed to leave, as far as i know they don't have any immunity.
“Oops! Sorry!”
Intent
@@AC-yj8cx So, if I rent a Caterpillar D-9 and bulldoze my neighbor's house I get off Scott free unless someone can prove intent? Oops, sorry I was just learning to drive one of these things!
Laying on a bear-skinned rug "We're Sorry"
Oh-oh, Spagetti Oh's!
This is like just piling ignorance on top of incompetence.
Sleep walking and daydreaming.
There is NO situation that can't be made worse by government.
Many companies where I live won't tear down a house without the person who contracted them, or a representative they are familiar with, is present. While that doesn't stop a spiteful neighbor from tearing down half of someone's garage, it means that that neighbor was physically present when doing so, and can easilly be gone after by both the contractor, and the owner in the case of malice. In all other cases, it simply means that there is someone on site to go "Yes, THIS is the correct house", so there's no mistake.
Seems like a simple solution.
That should be mandatory
I've seen them demand ID and compare it with county property ownership records before they'll do anything.
@@nolongeramused8135that is the most professional way to do it.
It is starting to look like the demo company was not only incompetent, but unlicensed and uninsured.
There was an article some years ago about a house in (I think) San Antonio in which the homeowner returned from work and found their house leveled.
It was apparently a practical joke. The demolition company just showed up and tore down the house even though it was clearly in excellent condition and was occupied.
I don't imagine that the code enforcement people bothered to send mail to the address that the property tax bill goes to?
There's no fine money in doing that now is there ?
What? No, of course not! Think what you're asking of those poor beaurocrats just trying to drink their coffees in peace! Be reasonable!
We are the gornments bosses yet go into a gov building with a camera AND YOU WILL SEE THAT THEY SEE US AS THEIR PEASANTS AND THEY ACT AND MAKE POLICY THAT MAKES THEM ALL ACT LIKE THEY ARE THE OWNERS AND ARE OUR BOSSES
The company that accidentally tore down the place, should have shown some balls and good business sense by stepping up and helping her with the rest of the demo, maybe getting a retro permit if possible, and then giving her the amount of what the worn out house was worth.
A lot of construction "companies" are literally just a couple guys with an ad and maybe a website that hires some cheap labor when someone gives them a job.
Construction companies are arguably some of the shadiest around since the majority of them are just a few people who play Three Card Monte with LLCs, like Steve described in the video. A lot of them don't even have assets, they just lease tools and equipment and hire laborers when a job comes in. So them having "business sense" or treating people right - whether that be customers or employees - usually doesn't happen.
@@duewhat9815 very true and hires border crossers which disappear into the night.
A drunk driver drove into our dry cleaner's front fence and a retaining wall. The police found the guy down the road driving with part of the fence stuck to the front of his car. They let him go we were told because there's a lot of paperwork associated with arresting a non-citizen. When the dry cleaning store owner started yelling at the police, they threatened to cite him for obstructing the sidewalk with the debris from the retaining wall.
I cry bullshit
@@Chilo-i1d I would love to hear your optometrist's explanation for that one!
@@pontiacg445
🙄😖
There is a steady stream of these things being done to people by cities and counties. Open your eyes,@@Chilo-i1d
The lack of empathy in Atlanta's response is quite astounding... in any case, doesn;t the demolition company have commercial liability insurance?
the irony that an LLC, which was created to protect an individual from being destroyed by an honest mistake, is now used by unscrupulous individuals to avoid accountability.
I'm a retired Michigan architect, structural, civil engineer. I've drafted up many demolition plans in my time. They can be just as complex as construction documents. Yes, indeed, they need to pull demolition permits, land usage permits, and often times other permits like wetlands, which at times require demolition plans to be drafted by architects and then submitted to township and city planning committees for approval.
But how is this "her" fault.
Ah yes, America, land of the free, where you can't do anything without permission from the government, not even on your own property
ALL that planning, and NO ONE noticed the house didn't look like the one on the plan, NOR was the right Address...
@@spacecoastz4026 the city isn't assigning blame, just responsibility. It's her property, and she still needs to do something about it. If the city says it needs to be pulled down after pulling a permit, get the permit, hire a company to do it, and get it done. Add the cost to the lawsuit. She could give the original company the chance to do it by the deadline, but if they can't or won't, hire someone else.
@@JKiler1 they'd hate me, the city would now be the proud owner of the nation's newest cobalt-60 storage site.
Inspect to your heart's content, at your own risk. The upside, no need for street lighting, cobalt-60 glows in the dark.
I actually did lose a house. I had gotten called away, some war thing and all, so I deployed and while gone, some enterprising individuals stripped out every inch of copper in the building. Wires, pipes, all gone. Redeployed home to find a shell. I let the city take the house, as there was no way to recover the damages for less than the property value.
The city of Filthadelphia then assessed my payroll tax at thrice what was declared in my tax filings, compounding the amount "due" while I was deployed.
Just another fuck you for your service to an ungrateful nation.
And I refuse to do business with anyone within those shitty limits. The Commonwealth's singular shitty of the worst class.
Yeah, still feel a bit salty over that mess.
Pretty straight forward: 1. Get an attorney 2. Find & notify the company that started the job to come and finish 3. If they refuse hire a company to complete the job and include those $$ in the suit against the first company. I'd notify the Atlanta building department of the plans, so they know they're not being ignored. If they still levy fines, pay them and included those $$ in the suit as well. She wants to make sure she keeps the Building Department in the loop so they're aware of her efforts and are on her side (if only emotionally).
Personally, I'd hire another company for the job. The first one is obviously incompetent, and I don't believe in rewarding incompetence with more work. I'd shop around for someone to finish the job, pick the highest bidder just to make the bill saltier for the first clownshow, and sue them for the money.
@@nuclearmedicineman6270 I hear you. It would be an uphill battle...a case you'd lose the moment the judge asks two questions: 1) directed at the halfassed company; "Did the plaintiff contact you and request you complete the job? No they did not your honor, I was never given the opportunity to "finish" the job. Follow up question to the plaintiff; Did you make a reasonable effort to contact the original company and ask them to address the issue? No? Well in that case it's on you.
City not only needs to replace the home but pay this woman millions without hesitation
The city had nothing to do with tearing the house down.
The city didn't tear her house down!
The city of Atlanta is responsible for not holding the demolition company responsible for the destruction of private property, criminal trespass, B&E
She never pressed charges and even if she did who would she press it on? The workers? The Owner? What if the owner wasn't there and didn't make the decision? Even if we did know who made the decision criminal destruction of property requires malice or intent, getting the wrong address is not malice or intent, therefore it's a civil case and not criminal.
@@duewhat9815.
1. Thats what a criminal investigation is for. 2. The answer is not no one is responsible. Someone is. And the company itself should be criminally charged. The C suite can serve the jail sentence.
@@duewhat9815You would press charges on the people that directly did it(the workers) and sue the company. If I show up to your house with demolition equipment and then your house ends up being demolished.. how was that not my intent? She wasn't in the city when it was demolished so how is she supposed to ever prove malice. As if they'd send her a letter and be like hey we're doing this out of malice. If the company was contracted by the city, the way the city is treating the situation shows malice to me
@@TooShots Intent in law means that they are knowingly breaking the law, in this case they believed that they were working on the correct house...they're liable for damages but they did not commit a crime. No, you should not arrest the workers and sue the company, wtf...
@@imjashingyou3461 Yeah they're going to do an investigation on whether or not they acted with criminal intent...right. And yes the company is responsible, civilly not criminally. I don't know why you would want to live in a world where the owner of a business can be arrested because of a mistake someone else made, you would of fit very well in the soviet union.
City's have become nothing more than a huge HOA.
You have that backwards.
Where do you think the hoas got their playbook?
Worse than an HOA
From need. You think blighted property is a GOOD thing in neighborhoods?
Most are fiefdoms honestly
@@arribaficationwineho32 the system has to let some civil actions sometimes to happen. These no excuse policies are always issues, especially with unwilling to compromise bureaucrats that refuse to acknowledge the big picture issues that are not the fault of the citizens.
Never underestimate local government to double down on a mistake, by making another mistake. This can compound multiple times until something breaks. Often the innocent citizen.
KIlldozer intensifies
Because there is no repercussions. No matter what they do, there is almost no chance of personal punishment.
@@denisrichard58 lol...Oh, yes there is. The tide's are rolling back in after being out for so long....
@@shittyopinionsno it's not. If it was you'd be seeing politicians and government officials getting treated like the tyrannical ones in the 1800s were treated. You're just coping
How has the city made a mistake? Nowhere in the reporting does it say who ordered the demolition. The one doing the demolition was a private company.
When I bought my home, the plot plan on the deed showed 3 out buildings where none existed when I bought it.
I went to zoning to get that corrected.
First tax bill I get I was being charged taxes on 3 out buildings that did not exist.
I go to the tax office to have that get corrected.
Then I get a notification that I needed to pay for 3 teardown permits, plus late fees for buildings that had been torn down years before I even bought the property.
We live in a small town in a small county and our neighbor had to pull a house down and the guy she hired thought that he could do just that - pull it down. He hooked a chain up to his Dodge and wrapped it around the front porch pole and pulled, actually thinking that it would pull the house down. Obviously, the pole came off and the house stood. We sat there and watched the ridiculous scene, unable to walk away. It took him days to demolish this two story home and he put all of the debris into the basement, filling the rest with dirt. The house they put in its spot has already started sinking due to the debris settling. This is a good example of why people need permits - this guy had no idea what he was doing.
Actually….the whole dumping it into the basement the covering it up…happens all the time by demo crews…that’s what they do with the debris if there’s a basement u set it….the home won’t settle if they had had it properly prepped for new construction
Im surprised that’s allowed at all but then again basements don’t exist out here where I live
How is this not criminal? Theft of property is theft of property.
The Government and its minions are immune from all responsibility for its mistakes which is the complete opposite of how it works for the rest of the citizenry.
I've said this on a couple of comments on this video. I think the thing we're missing which is an important piece of information is did the city give the contractor and erroneous address or did the contractor misinterpret the address and go to the wrong place? Those details should point culpability in the right direction. I think Steve is over target by saying the list of people to be sued is long. And if it's permissible in the municipality actually naming city officials and contract company officials in the lawsuit so that they are personally required to answer and be involved in discovery would be the path I would probably go down.
@@BillyMcCord the contractor was at the wrong address. Their paperwork had the correct address.
@@BillyMcCord when the junkie mistakenly burns down thier dealers neighbors house, it is NOT intentional arson. Also the junkie was a New Yorker and talked fast with his accent, sooo... The baby rabbits died from brain hemmorage, as the result of the pasteurized milk that was purchased at hy-vee.
True story! 1982... Wisconsin, (as i recall)
To prove a crime you have to prove that all of the "elements of the offense" are present. For theft you might have to prove that the accused took someone else's property, that he knew it was not his, that he knew he did not have permission, and that he did not intend to give it back. The court doesn't need to read his mind, they are allowed to infer intent from the details of what he did. Maybe he went into someone else's house uninvited, carried something out, and sold it. That is generally enough to convict. Unless he can show that he was supposed to go into someone else's house, take something out and get rid of it. If he produces a work order for the neighbor's house, it is going to be hard to argue that he is a thief. He is still at fault, but it is more like being at fault in an auto accident. The person who caused the damage has to pay for it. That is what we have here.
"You can't fight city hall."
Marvin Heemeyer: "Hold my beer."
That has always been one of my biggest nightmares - to find my home *gone* when I wasn't there to stop it.
😞
isn't cleaning up the mess the responsibility of the demolition crew?
If she hires them to do it.
@@duewhat9815 they broke it they are now responsible for fixing it. Rather the company still exists or not is another matter.
@@lrmackmcbride7498 Yes, but to get what she's owed, she'll have to file a tort against the demo company. It doesn't sound like they're insured, or like they're going to do the right thing of their own accord.
They realized they made a mistake and quickly left.
@@redlion145 of course not.
Using the fact that the house was boarded up as a criticism of her is so bizarre...
Yeah that was weird, no rational person is going to come to the conclusion that a boarded up house simply and unequivocally deserves to be demolished.
Especially considering that in most metro Atlanta counties it is in fact the law to board up a vacant dwelling.
@@D3M3NT3Dstrang3rGood info!
Yes. Erosion of critical thinking skills is not just rampant in police departments. It seems to be a general way of thinking by many US citizens.
Maybe they don't know laws about boarding up houses that go into "storage"?
This is why I'm glad that I live in the country and don't have to deal with this type of crap.
Who originally sent the demo team? I lived in Georgia, in a suburb of Atlanta, for almost a decade, and on at least 3 occasions there were stories splashed across the news where the police raided the wrong house because their warrant had the wrong address on it or the cop reading the warrant read it wrong.
Worse, every time it happens, the city refuses to pay for repairs for damages caused.
In looking up this story, it appears that the city of Atlanta, in March of 2023, sent a demolition team to tear down another house (different from this one), where they had sent the notices to the wrong address beforehand, getting the zip code wrong.
I am unsure what is going on, but it seems to be an ongoing and widespread problem.
illiterate people in charge, no doubt.
What is going on is that there is a finite pool of IQ points in the universe, and as the population keeps growing there are fewer points to award to each new person.
Don't worry they did an internal investigation and found nothing wrong.
@@GrumpyIan always seems to work that way, don't it.
@@johnpublic6582 thankfully pizza delivery drivers seem to have enough intelligence to find the right house even if cops and demolition crews don't.. Maybe because if they make a mistake they have to pay for it?
Next: "They're going after any future homes she might reside in!" 🙄
Get the attorney general involved. Also make sure the local news is aware of your situation too.
No just local news, take it to the tv
Apparently media is getting involved. Someone posted it is finally getting their attention.
This story came from a local Fox news station website.
@@lynnohl2526 Yes, but I meant like a "7 on your side" type of station. Fox tends to be Universal and might not have the time to harass (remind) those folks the way a reporter clearly needs to because this ridiculousness is beginning to feel beyond incompetence and has quickly become their way of doing business! A plucky reporter and a camera man might be able to do more.
The only thing that would surprise me with the story, is the city auctioning off the property, and keeping the proceeds.
Not sure I'd be surprised at all.
NOT keeping the proceeds would be surprising.
I hope you keep us informed about what happens to this woman and the first thing I would have done was get a lawyer.😊
What a mess of circumstance. 🙄 When one is stunned and grieving upon grief, one does not always act promptly on anything.
Sad that our government institutions can exercise "Executive Action" on a whim to benefit themselves, but cannot do the same in a circumstance such as this...The "common sense" totality of the circumstances here speak for themselves...
Steve you didn't mention that she may also be able to go after the people that hired the company to do the demolition work in the first place. This company wasn't just wandering the neighborhood looking for places that they could demolish without being contracted to do so. I believe that the people that hired this company were employees of the city of Atlanta. Atlanta isn't going to go out of business or go away any time soon so they would be collectable and since they are now trying to get her to pay for the demolition companies mistake as probably ordered by the city, I would think that she would have a decent case against the citations. The other problem is that the city claims that they tacked the notice to the front door but it was found in the back yard. Presumably they didn't find the front door in the back yard. Also given that everyone has a cell phone camera she could demand proof that it was posted on the front door if that is still there. If package delivery companies can show me a picture of the package having been delivered then I am sure that the city can show proof of service beyond a signed paper. There are many cases of mail or packages being dumped in remote areas and never being delivered.
the city government can do a they please and you as an individual are almost helpless
I had an interesting scenario happen in my parent's neighborhood a new neighbor was moving in and building a new house on their lot. The construction company she hired screwed up the laying of the foundations and construction was ultimately stopped as a civil suit ensued. The neighborhood HOA got involved and was ordering the construction site be demolished due to it being an eyesore and started issuing daily fines against the owner. The trial's judge ruled that the construction site was evidence in the case blocking the demolition order but did allow the daily fines to proceed. The HOA knew the whole drama of the situation and made no immediate attempt to collect against the owner and just let the fines accumulate while the owner added the fines to the lawsuit for what they were suing for. About a year later the owner won the case and was awarded the full cost of the demolition of the old house, the whole cost of the old house, the cost of the HOA fines, and more. Needless to say the HOA made a huge budget surplus and used the money to construct a public tennis court for the residents with their share when the owner finally paid off their fees.
Never underestimate the corruption of Atlanta officials.
Dealing with local government is always mind boggling. My house in Florida was demolished by the Hurricane 2 years ago. The first thing the county said was we will not issue a permit to build until you have been approved to demolish and also the certification by a properly licensed hazmat inspector of adherence to disposal of toxic waste. I will be dealing with this mess when we get back to Florida this winter. (sigh) Insult to injury, is they say there will be an $7500 fee to cover future costs of supplying the lot with utilities, despite the utilities are there and have been for decades.
are you saying that if I knock down a house, I can claim sorry wrong address and not get done for criminal damage?
Yes, criminal destruction of property requires malice and intent...therefore it's a civil case.
in the UK Criminal law defines gross negligence as 'a conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care, which is likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm to persons, property, or both. Knocking down a house without making sure it was the right one with the relevant permits would be gross negligence@@duewhat9815
I would say that is called 'the burden of prove'. The jury/judge can than decide if they believe your excuse or if the fact show you did it on purpose. If you are not a demolition company I do doubt that a jury/judge would believe you and demolishing any house without a permit might be illegal in itself.
If you are asking whether someone could do it as a crime (maybe for revenge) and then get off, the answer is yes in theory, but it would be totally impractical if it could be pulled off at all. He would probably have to start a demolition company, spend a few years doing jobs, and then somehow get a job demolishing a house which could plausibly be confused with his victim's. Pretty far-fetched.
if you had permits and a legit demo company you would prosecuted in the uk for gross negligence@@Temo990
That lady, if she has not already, needs to file a lawsuit against the city and the crew that tore her house down. I would be beyond livid!
She needs to be proactive and sue the city and force them to back off until this matter can be handled with the company who caused the damage.
People in Atlanta need to send the story to their Mayor and City Council members. Code compliance needs to just put this on hold.
I hope that the only reason the news station didn't mention a lawsuit was because they hadn't asked those questions of the victim.
We need better government officials.
It was a corporation that screwed up or is acting on their behalf in order to get that land.
Or we just need less government overall.
@@anonymousguy1794Yes!
We get what we vote for. Everyone gets worked up over big national elections, but hardly turn up to vote for the positions what will affect them the most.
Need to unplug the city government and plug it back in
Funny how I am not a lawyer but my first thought exactly what you said. The demo company that made the mistake should offer to take care of it and minimize their damages. The loss of the house is still a loss and still might cost them more money but at least it won't be the cost of the demo on top of it.
“Land of the free”?
Yeah, right.
I'm surprised that with situations like this, the company in the wrong won't do THE THING that they could do (in this case finish demo/clean up of the house) rather than wait till they get sued and having to pay another company to do the work they could have done, presumably at less of an expense, and without at least some of the legal expense.
Why is destroying someone else's property exclusively a civil matter? Criminal damage is a criminal offence. Doing it through incompetence doesn't mean it isn't criminal. And it's the individuals who did the damage who should bare responsibility.
This thing where houses are knocked down by mistake goes on all over the country for decades, gee you would think some of those smart lawmakers would make a law to keep this from happening.
I love in our free and democratic society, if you are the victim you have the worst time of all the party involved! The city? they are doing their job. The demo company? If they will ever be find guilty, will just pack up and keep on going with their life (and don't get me it's illegal, Steve explained how it works), the victim? will probably be financially ruined!
Yep. They can just dissolve the LLC and move on. It's really difficult to sue a defunct entity.
I was a licensed plumbing contractor in Fl. and the companies that do the Demo have to pull the permit and be licensed, the homeowner in these cases most times cannot pull such a permit, so it would fall on the city to follow up with the Demo company.
The problem is that the woman is not very intelligent. If you watch interviews with her, she comes off as very low intelligence. Possibly developmentally disabled. She hasn’t contacted a lawyer and has no plans to sue. Has attempted to get no help other than talking to officials who have no power to help her. She is just leaving the property as the demolition company left it hoping something will miraculously change.
Poor woman. Now she’s got to pay to sue. Somebody needs to step up and do the right thing.
Hindsight being 20/20, she probably shouldn’t have stopped the demolition once it started and waited till after it was completed to alert the company that they got the wrong house.
She didn't stop the demo, the insane morons stopped mid job. Did someone look at the work order & say, "Hey guys, we're at the wrong place. It's a block away, let's leave!"
What the hell???
There is one person she can still sue if all else fails, the person who ordered the demolition...I doubt they will be an LLC that will go out of business.
If she was the owner of record, why wasn't she personally served with the notice of demolition and the consequences if she didn't, i.e. the destruction of her property, instead of just posting a notice out of sight behind the house. Why didn't the City investigate and find out if any demo permit was issued in that neighborhood, and determine who destroyed her property, and whether or not the demo company had a city demo license and a city permit for the specific property and a record of who had asked for the house to be demolished and who was paying for the work. The intentional wrongful destruction of another person's real property is a felony in many states, and if the City facilitates the crime by wrongful or improper posting, failure to serve the owner at her residence or mailing address on City records, or at the address her property tax notices
are sent to, etc. would seem to put the City in cahoots with whoever destroyed the house, and make the City, or its responsible employee(s), responsible for her loss of property value, loss of use, court costs and attorneys fees. Deprivation of real property w/o due process of law is often best pursued in federal court; the lawyer who represents the landowner would get a lot of publicity pursuing such a claim, particularly if this is found to be a widespread racket in the City, complete with not requiring licenses from, or permits issued to, the demo companies, and with kickbacks to City employees for their connivance in the scheme.
Not only does she need to clean it up, but they're also requiring her to get the "Proper permit" which she cannot get on her own. I wonder if she has homeowner's insurance that may cover it.I doubt it. Something for people to check in their coverage is whether their policy covers the 'tear down" of a totaled home. I read where someone had their house totaled and they took the payout only to find out they were liable for the removal of the remaining structure.
""Hodgson said she's filed a police report and talked with lawyers but was "still in this process of figuring out what to do." "We keep pressing in different directions to see if something is going to happen," she said. She said the Atlanta-based company responsible, You Call It We Haul It LLC, has yet to contact her or offer any compensation for the mistake."
Well, that sounds like a reputable company.
I don't think this was a mistake anymore. I don't even live in Georgia but I've heard some variation of a house being torn down in Atlanta by "mistake" about 10 times now. To what end, no idea...
Legal requires a down payment in most cases. She has to have money. There are barriers to getting justice.
She needs an attorney, Steve.
This reminds me of the steps taken by hospital personnel to make absolutely certain as to which exact body part is going to be operated on (or removed). The exact protocols probably differ from hospital to hospital, but in general the patient is asked multiple times before they're anesthetized to confirm the type and site of surgery, and those confirmations are recorded and compared with the written patient record. The idea is, of course, to not amputate the wrong leg, or remove the non-cancerous breast, and so on. And not to replace the wrong hip or knee joint. In some cases, if it's a right or left body part, careful patients have gone so far as to take a Sharpie and write "NO!" in big letters on the nonoperative side, and "YES" on the operative side. Careful surgeons take extraordinary care to make sure they get it right. And for non-life-threatening situations (such as demolishing a house) those involved should at the very least double-check to make sure they are "operating" on the correct site.
Yes I agree, malpractice can happen in many forms . Government protecting the people ?
So glad Chile is smart enough to sue people privately since he's NOT a lawyer
Hope she sues the hell outt the city
She needs to follow a lawsuit against the demolition company and then she also needs to follow lawsuit against the city because if there was permits that needed to be done none of that was done properly and she needs to countersue for everything that they're doing to her but add times about 3 so no matter what they think the house is worth if it had sentimental value or whatever I would not take anything under 3 million
Agree but the City is responsible
Kinda like getting a speeding ticket for a car that was stolen .
It is more like having to pay the towing fees when the police find your car abandoned somewhere. Sure they know it wasn't you, but the tow truck guy has to send the bill to someone.
Fair point 🙂@@david672orford
If someone takes an axe to your car, that's criminal. How is that any different for a house? And how does civil code enforcement apply in criminal issues?
She could sue the company but likely would not recover her money.
Mistakes were made.... The City of Atlanta should be trying to help the victimized homeowner, not amplifying the damage. The city should be pursuing the responsible contractor, not the victimized homeowner, to clean up the mess, and pay the permitting fines and costs. The homeowner needs to sue the contractor and the City, and any judgements must include all legal costs.
That's a lawyer's job...one that she spent way too long getting.
The city should halt any contract they have with the demolition company until they replace the womans house. Usually there is more than one home on their contract
@@duewhat9815Maybe she couldn't afford one until now......I hear she has one now. They aren't cheap and may not be willing to work on contingency.
So, if your house is burned down by an arsonist, can you be held liable for not having had the foresight to pull a "burn down a house" permit?
Honestly, I don't see how this is *not* a criminal matter. Presumably the value of the property alone would elevate it to that? I dunno, I'm not a lawyer.
Sue the city! Who ordered the demolition? The company who did the demo needs to be sued for illegal destruction of property.
I hope she sues and wins against the demolision company for all the stress they caused. I don't think people should sue for everything, but the demo company is asking for it by not making it right ASAP
The woman was probably trying to avoid a lawsuit and relying on the demo company to do the right thing and complete the demo and compensate her. May wind up in a lawsuit after all.
It is so wonderful that our government takes responsibility for acting in such an intelligent manner. Must be all that "Qualified Immunity" crap... (Don't get me wrong, there are times where QI is needed, but govt. officials LOVE doing stupid/illegal stuff and trying to get away with it.)
No. As long as ANY qualified immunity exists it will be abused. The only way forward is to abolish it completely.
About time that bureaucrats learn that Qualified Immunity has a time and place but doesn’t make you bulletproof.
@@the_once-and-future_king.That's why it needs to go back to being an affirmative defense at trial and not an automatic defense at summary judgment.
@@robertwazniak9495Exactly! QI should by default be granted, not taken. Granted by the courts in certain circumstances, instead of being removed by the courts in particularly egregious cases, as it is now.
This is absurd. Whomever paid the demo company is responsible for the womans lose & should compensate her for damages. The demo company is responsible for doing what it was contracted to do. Their error is between them & the people that hired them. This is the city denying their mistake & incompetence. Someone should lose their job.
I'm amazed the city actually released that statement. Who reads that and goes 'Yup, that makes us look better.'?
Another instance proving that all of us in America that have something, a home, property, anything of value, we do not have total ownership of it. The Government is always there no matter what to take a share and make a shitty situation even worse.
Ben is trying to figure out if he is hiding behind a silver belt buckle or badge.
I live in a much smaller city than Atlanta, and I have no problems believing the random goober driving around for code enforcement wouldn't know a damned thing about the fact that the house was torn down by mistake. This is a classic case of left hand and right hand not even knowing the other exists. This is a case of stupidity, rather than malice, and whatever attorney she's retained to deal with the accidental demolition should be able to sort out the code office fairly quickly.
"a piece of paper does her no good"
unless that piece of paper is small and green, and brings a bunch of it's friends
Ben behind the belt buckle on the right.
She should go see a judge and seek a restraining order against the city.
I want one of those t-shirts. That was a nice 60th birthday gift for me.
My cousin bought two houses on adjoining lots near the beach in Ocean City New Jersey in 2012. He was working on getting demolition permits so he could tear down both houses and build one large one on the combined lots. His lots were near ground zero for Superstorm Sandy. He withdrew his demolition application and got a summarily issued permit for debris removal (or maybe it was an order). He was probably the only one on his block who was glad his homes were destroyed by the storm.
I would've gone to a lawyer the same day they were caught tearing it down. As a matter of fact, I'd of had the police out there before they could've packed up to leave the site!
We don’t care. We don’t have to. - City of Atlanta
that is why i like living where i do...1 town only has 1 permit requirement... a plumbing permit for the septic system... other than that it is the honor system and when you are done constructing whatever you are building, you stop by the town office and tell the tax assessor so that they can come out and appraise and tax you accordingly... permits are a scam to get our money...and if a builder did this and ran away by cancelling their LLC, i would make it my life's mission to ensure they don't do it again... social media works wonders..
What a nightmare for the poor homeowner. Life is SOOO unfair! I do hope someone will come to her aid.
We had a townhouse once in an HOA where the HOA was responsible for the common areas, roads and street sidewalks and home owners were responsible for maintaining their driveways and front door lead walks. We got hit with a blizzard and the HOA decided to hire snow removal for the common area walks and streets but added our privately owned lead walks and driveways as well. The crews threw down ice melt which was too strong and melted our concrete driveway which faced the full frontal sun more so than any other townhouse with a driveway. The HOA then waited a few months for it to warm up before issuing us a violation for a pitted driveway that was only two years old. Brand new home. We had to resurface the driveway due to HOA doing homeowner maintenance on our private drive. They would not back down either. I refused to let them touch our driveway and lead walk from then on.
Steve my mom’s sister in detroit had to get a permit to abandon her home in the 80s . The house got caught up in a bad area that was in decline wile the taxes were worth more than the home . She was just going to leave but had to get a permit to abandon her home. The permit required them to board it up then be inspected and the city would declare it abandon.