Big Island house built on wrong lot faces additional obstacle
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 21 апр 2024
- The case of a house built on the wrong lot is set to return to court this week on Hawaii Island. Multiple parties are being sued by the owner of the lot where the house was supposed to be built. The contractor is being sued. The county is being sued. The owner of the lot, who one day learned a house suddenly was erected on her lot, is also being sued.
“Each accuse the other of Not making a reasonable offer” bruh you straight up trespassed and vandalized her property.
Yes, they can both accuse each other of whatever they want, but objectively the owner of the land is in the right here. She doesn't have to switch lots to cover them. Real estate is a rarity in the sense that two pieces of property are never completely the same and she has every right to refuse a switch if in her eyes the other property isn't as good.
@@SmallSpoonBrigade The property lined up with the stars and her horoscope numbers.
@@maxwebster7572 A bit cosmic, but her choice nonetheless. Unless, that is, the original owner materializes and kicks everyone off what is legally still their property.
Hawaii only gives one year to redeem a tax deed so that's done with at this point. The property is fully hers now.
Even if that weren't true and the delinquent former owner did redeem the deed... they'd be in the same position of either getting a free house or requiring the developer to tear it down.
you forgot that they actively refused to get a surveyor to confirm they have the right lot beofre even beginning their vandalism
She made a reasonable offer. Get the house off her lot. Move it, tear it down, whatever, just restore the land to the original condition.
Yes, considering that she didn't have a contract with the developer and wasn't even in talks with them to build a house there, the reasonable offer was for them to undo what they did.
@@SmallSpoonBrigade and the lot is not even legally hers. The original owners can swoop in and claim the land if they pay the back taxes. She tried to scoop in on someone's land by buying from a land auction, now she is getting that karma.
@@jeffjones5591 No, they potentially can reclaim it, but there's no guarantee they will within the time frame.
There's no karma here, it's a developer doing something incredibly stupid and trying to get out of it. The property is currently hers, as in she holds the deed to it. It's sad that so many people are blaming her for something that's not her fault.
Compromise? Why would the woman have to compromise? The house was built on her land illegally. The house needs to be removed and the land reclaimed.
They were trying to steal the woman land, then claim she is unreasonable..
Exactly
I'd keep the house. it's brand new. lot just went from $20k value to $320K in value with that house.
@@King_TuTT she doesn't want that house. She doesn't want to pay the property taxes on that house.
She doesn't "have" to compromise, but she might "want" to reconsider. If the previous owner of the land shows up with $20k they can pay her back and retake the property, new house and all. On the other hand, if she compromises then she gets the other land free and clear, with the title, and no one can take it away from her.
Sue the builder to remove the home, it was illegally built on her land. At no time is she responsible for paying any of the building costs or taxes
Why do you think they’re in court
But she owes the State for Property Taxes on the value of the house as in most States.
Her property, must be her Tax Bill. Free money, so the State has no incentive to stop that source.
@@steveurbach3093 not if the permits are invalid and it was done illegally
The developer is John K Mendonca from Mililani Hawaii. They need to be named and shamed!
Suing cost money
The reasonable course of action here is the builder restores the land to how he found it. The land owner did nothing wrong and has no obligation to help out the builder.
Pour new foundation on the correct lot. Move the house. Demolish the old foundation. Why is this even in court?!?
Very good idea why anyone else thought of it? After moving the house to the right lot, reclaim the land on her lot by removing the foundation and replanting the property
EXACTLY The were moving houses all the time over 70 years ago. Can't be that difficult.
I suspect that it is a slab foundation integral to the single story structure.
@@ripvanrevs You guys don't have a clue, slab foundations aren't normally moved, it's diffcult and expensive, your thinking about pier and beam or basement type houses.
@@Bonjour-World It's a good guess but I doubt it. Houses in Hawaii are typically built raised way off the ground with wooden posts and a sort of crawlspace under a wooden floor. Ones like the one in the video are typically concrete slab on grade and then wood framed above. Puna is on the rainy side so there is no way it has a wooden main floor - it's just sitting on the slab. All they have to do is open up the interior bottoms of the walls and unbolt the anchor bolts holding the sill plate on the slab. House movers do this all the time.
Why is this even in court? The builder should’ve said oops, sorry, and removed all trace of construction ASAP.
Follow the money. At this point, the builders are doing all they can to avoid eating the cost, which, unfortunately, is the only right thing they can do. They made a mistake, and they are fighting tooth and nail to not have to pay, otherwise they're out the cost of a house, plus demo costs of that house, PLUS the cost of the house being built on the correct lot. They effectively are trying to avoid paying the cost to build a house twice and demolish it. It's messed up and they need to just take the L and move on, but they won't.
@@jacknoe4024 it gonna cost them even more when they fight it out in court. Chances are they gonna lose since they built their stuffs on someone else property. It ain't gonna end well. They gonna eat the lawsuit cost and removal cost. That is definitely not economical to the developer.
@@jacknoe4024 They could move the house to a new foundation. But they would still have to restore the property to its original condition. Which would include the cost of planting mature trees back on the property. And that is where the real kicker is.
@@superdave8248 I hadn't even considered how much they would have to pay to restore the land. Oh yeah, those developers are screwed, haha.
The cost of replacing mature trees combined with the loss of the construction funds for the house appear to be pushing the contractor into bankruptcy.
She wants her lot, what is so hard? The developer is bonded and has insurance, what is so hard?
The developer messed up, take responsibility, what's so hard?
What's so hard? The human weakness of pride and inability to accept having made a mistake.
Pride. The worst of the seven deadly sins
The developer suing her is John K Mendonca from Mililani Hawaii. Name and shame!
There is one man in charge: the developer is a narcissist.
His bond most likely will only cover a fraction of the cost to make this woman whole again, and the insurance company is no doubt helping the developer fight the woman's claim. Lawyers always win in these cases.
She didn’t ask for the house. She didn’t contract for the build. It was done due to others errors and she is giving them the ability to remove the house. I wouldn’t be so nice. I would simply tell them to stay off my property and that house that they put on my property belongs to me and if they want it back I charge 100k per day to access my property. Simple as that! F Em!
Lawsuit for them illegally building a house on her property is extortion and outrageous. There's no reasonable offer if it was the developers mistake.
No, it’s not outrageous that somebody wants to use the law to minimize their liability. And yes, they could offer her enough money. Almost Everyone has their price.
@@neilkurzman4907 Except that they have no leg to stand on. There is no legal basis for this suit.
@@SmallSpoonBrigade
Actually, the builder sued everybody not just her. And while she did nothing wrong, it may cost her a lot of money to defend her rights. And at the end, she may get her land restored, but not necessarily get her legal bills paid.
It’s unfortunate for her
Last I heard extortion is illegal right
They built this house on this lot purposely knowing it did not belong to the contractor or owner of the new house. This day and age, iit is not hard to look up and find ownership of the lots. That is why the contractor sued the actual lot owner. They were trying to bully them out of their lot. This is stealing property. This is a criminal issue. Not a civil issue. The contractor and whoever else conspired in this need to go to prison. This was not an "oops".
The police will not touch this with a twenty foot pole. This is a civil matter. I know, I buy real estate from tax auctions and resell it, and I have been through a similar situation.
Why does this woman have to go through this stress? She just wants her land as it was. Just take the house down as she wish.
Arson?
Karma - the original owner of the lot is going to pay the back taxes and take her lot away from her. In fact, if I was the developer, I'd fund it for them.
@@janofb WTF are you talking about? She has owned that lot of land for a few years now. It is HER land! Some DOUCHE developer cant just JACK UP your land from you.
@@janofb I do not think that is how forfeiture real estate auction works. once property is sold, new owner pays off the tax (difference of bid and remainder tax owed).
I suspect the problem; [tax defaulted] property is "acquired in earnest" and divided by developer into lots (this woman bought one of the lots). This means tax lien is not removed until ENTIRE lots are sold, and tax debt recouped. This means former owner can still pay off the tax and retake entire property with all sold off lots and houses on it. I am sure bulldoze houses that developer wasted money on.
@@janofbif she bought it at a county auction, there can't be any back taxes. The county accepts the purchase price and applies it to the taxes owed. If there isn't enough to cover the taxes, the county writes the remaining taxes off.
The developers have deep pockets and are trying to crush her. If I were rich, I would be contacting her attorneys and pay for her to sue everybody involved. The county inspectors should have known the house was on the wrong lot from the get go.
This poor woman has been through the ringer with the developer. Take the loss and return her land! This is so wrong.
The last few seconds sums it up nicely. No matter what happens, the lawyers win.
I’ve been following this case & it’s the developer that screwed this up & the developer that is suing everyone.... they screwed up so they are suing everyone... wtf
They can move the house to a near by lot at their builders expense! they were attempting to steal a better lot. They figured they could offer a lesser lot because no one would want to spend all that time in court. They owe the lot owner for every blade of grass that was moved. I would ask for legal fees too.
The lot that the house was built on actually ISNT a better lot though, simply because it has a clouded title. That means if the owner EVER wants to sell it, even if she builds a home, the new buyer will have to pay in cash up front in full, because title insurance companies will not insure properties with clouded titles and lenders won’t give you a loan if a title company won’t insure it.
If I were her, I would’ve taken the other lot if it had title insurance and yelled “no backsies” as soon as pen hit paper.
@@The.Hawaiian.Kingdom But you are not her. Alas for she believes in astrology.
@@joshuahudson2170
Is THAT why she wants to keep the lot so bad?
@@The.Hawaiian.Kingdom Either that or she really likes tropical trees. We don't know for certain.
It seems silly like all the commenters mentioned. The woman who owns the lot is not responsible for the construction. She wasn't even aware of it. It was mentioned by the developer that the person who wanted the construction didn't want to pay for a surveyor on the boundaries. Now, I don't know how long the construction of the building took, but it seems strange that I hadn't heard if the developer ever visited the site while the builder was contracted to build it. Did the developer visit it? Who goes to build a new structure and never visits the project as it is being built? Does the developer not know his own property boundaries? Why would a builder have a surveyor verify the boundaries of the project that the developer did not want to pay for? He's contracted to build , which he did. Is it in the contract to validate boundaries that the developer wasn't paying for and didn't want? If he did so, he would be paying out of pocket. It sounds like the builder followed the developer's orders, so why is it his fault for constructing on the wrong property? Didn't the developer not want to get a surveyor or did the developer visit the site once started? Usually on undeveloped land, it needs clearence, grading and such on location of construction, was none of that reviewed by the developer? It seems it more of the developer's responsibility, as the county is not going to validate the surveyor's rights, they approve plans on the property submitted.
They were supposed to build on the lot next door. From what I gathered and footage, the area is mostly undeveloped so one lot is not distinguishable from another. There is much we don't know about what happened with the developer, builder, client, etc. What is clear is the lot owner had nothing to do with any of it. The fact that she's being dragged into this mess is the problem.
@@minhduong1484 defaulted TAXES. see my comment on what i suspected is real problem.
only winners are the lawyers
This story makes zero sense. The original owner did not pay taxes on the lot and it went to auction. The lady from California bought the lot at Auction for $20k. A developer then built a house on this lot thinking it was a different lot. Now per state law, the original owner can come back and lay claim to the lot. So who currently owns the lot?
The reporter mis-spoke several times, what you referenced included...another was the confusing way he described the offer from the house owner around the 1:00 mark...
Remove the home by so and so date or it is considered abandoned, land owner gets to keep it!!
She doesn't want it and it will cost her a lot of money to remove it. They need to remove it.
@@kpjaskie1 she wants it. she doesn't want to pay for it. (and rightly so) but trust me... she wants it.
I'd bet money the developer KNEW the lot was incorrect but bec he really wanted that specific lot, he could force a sale by "accidentally" building there. That's why they keep pushing for the land swap.
Absolutely a valid scenario...
I wonder if there is a problem with the other lot that they keep insisting on the land swap?
@@juju-xx5xn Not really, it could be that her lot has a better view and is larger size than the lot they are trying to offer her. The builder wants to do a straight trade without compensation for the less attractive and probably smaller lot. The the builder can then charge more for the lot and house.
Move the house, and if it has a basement, dig it up...
Why is this even an issue? THEY built the house on the wrong lot. THEY are responsible for removing the home, turning HER lot back to where it was.
This is the least they have to do. Compensation for the stress she had and the time and money she already spend on that BS should be considered aswell.
The builders screwed up by not hiring a surveyor first. They screwed up again by building a house on the wrong lot. Now, they want someone else to take over their own mistake.
Unbelievable.
Exactly right
So basically any developer can “accidentally “build on the wrong property on purpose in order to claim someone’s land. It looks like the house is in fire prone area to me. Im not suggesting anyone go set it on fire.
Most of Hawaii is in a fire prone area. If not from brush and trees then from Volcanoes
I wish everybody would pay for my screwup. My life would be a lot better. 😂
This is what wrong and bad reporting looks like, this guy is a disgrace as a reporter
it sounded like they are trying to say that she doesn't own the land and some other bs. Looks like the news channel is supporting the developer by the way they are telling this.
The house owner should pay to Move the house to the lot next door . Problemed solved .
Exactly
The house owner is screwed over by the developer as well
Reporter mis-spoke at 1:05...he said "The owner of the lot where the house was supposed to have been built...etc..." which is confusing...he should have said "The lot where the house was supposed to have been built is being offered to the owner of the lot the house is on...."
Remove the house, it’s not your property. The original price of the lot doesn’t matter, it’s irrelevant. Clean the lot, grade it back to what it was previously and replace the plants and trees. This poor lady looked traumatized at court. The idea that the builder could swap lots with her and all is well is ridiculous.
If they let the developer get away with anything other than removing the house and fixing the land you can bet someone in the future will pick a lot that isn’t theirs that they desire and will build on it. That doesn’t look like $500k to me but maybe so.
Always pay for survey and title when you purchase and or build, it’s cheap insurance. The builder went cheap and now they will need to pay for the mistake.
SO, the owner bought the lot at Auction for 20,000. and has no clear title?? How does that happen? Where is the title company at ?
Tax sales are different. I would never buy anything in a tax sale.
Even if you buy from a tax sale, there can still be a lein holder on the property. Think of a county/city as a HOA. HOA's will sell houses if you dont pay the fines they impose on you for violations of the HOA rules. But that does not clear the debt to the lender who holds the title.
Why not just move the house to the correct lot?
How can county sell property without a title.
... without a CLEAR title. I'm guessing that the title includes a right of redemption period of 1-5 years for the prior property owner the re-claim the property if they can come up with the funds and payback the auction winner. The new owner can always offer to "buy out" the prior owners right of rescission, record the agreement and get issued clear title.
I'm sure with a house on it now, The previous owner that lost it could have reason and financial backing to go after it
Gangser Government can do what it wants until there is a American Revolution #2......!
Property with clouds on the title are sold every day. Frequently a government will transfer title with a "quitclaim" deed, whcih in broad terms means that they are selling their rights to the property, whatever those rights may be, and not claiming to transfer full ownership rights. This is different that a warranty deed, which warrants that full ownership of the described property is being transferred. Note, this is a very simplistic description of "quitclaim deeds" and "warranty deeds", so there's probably a lot of wrinkles and details that could be debated. But that's the general concept. A warranty deeds says "I own this land, and I'm transferring ownership to you" a Quitclaim deed just says "I'm transferring all my claims to the property to you, but I don't necessarily claim I own uncontested title to the land".
@@Jon....... I found documents on the websites of the Tax Assessors of both Maui County and Hawaii County (property in question is in Hawaii County) stating that the redemption period for a property from a tax auction is 1 year. This parcel was bought at auction in 2018, so it seems like it's well past the period when the former owners would have a legal claim.
This is all the developers' fault for not hiring a surveyor. Why is the judge even allowing this case to move forward.
If this woman's attorneys don't have her best interests at heart, then she loses the quiet title action. That is essentially what the opposing party is suing her for, is quiet title. Iowa and Hawaii mirror Quiet Title abuse when it comes to laws etc, because it is also a civil forfeiture action too.
Omg
Compromise? It’s her land… bye house
See what happens when lawyers become involved.
I know how Judge Judy would rule in this case.
Judge Judy: Your mistake, MOVE IT
If that happened in UK the house is torn down.
Can someone explain to me about this not clear title bit? She either owns the land or does not.
California owner bought property in tax auction 2018. Ex-Owner has a year to make any claim on it (time has passed). Seemed the new California owner needs to update the paperwork stating she is the legal title owner of said property. I am assuming the California owner is paying property taxes on it.
I doubt you could build a house In Hawaii for $250/sqft. Probably more like $500/sqft
Yes! Very true.
There's no guarantee of a clean title!? The land did not have a home on it when it was purchased.
title wasnt the issue - lack of survey was
The lot was purchased in a tax auction, which is a cloud on the title. Former owners may have still have some legal claim to the parcel.
@@andrewalexander9492 the owner had an empty lot so if the original owner reclaimed shed get her money back and be fine - now if the owner comes back theyll have a home on theor lot - plus how much can they owe in taxes for an empty unimproved lot- i beg borrow steal to get that property with a house
@@bikeman1x11 WHether or no she would get her money back kind of misses the point. The point is that a house, the ownership of whcih may be subject to court cases, built on a lot, the ownership of which might be subject to other court cases, for a different reason, is not as valuable as an equivalent house with a clean title, and no pending litigation.
@@andrewalexander9492 of course but id say the original owner is likely out of the picture so the only question is what to do about the the house the careless contactors built omn the wrong lot- so does the woman who legitimately bought the lot at auction keep the house or should they move it or tear it down- the offer of an inferior lot isnt even in the equation.
Developers NEVER see that they did anything wrong!
I am also bewildered as to why the house is still there. Who is paying the taxes on it? Demo the structure and restore the land to as close as possible to its old self.
Move the house it's done all the time
she doesn't want that 'particular" style house lol, that's the real issue here. If she liked the house it would of been already been settled.
@@user-sk9sp7pe4y They can move the house to the next door lot.
It's amazing that this is being made so difficult. The builder and the city inspectors are the ones who made the mistake and built on the wrong lot. Either give the house to the lady or tear it down...She did nothing wrong and that should be so simple to figure out. Our court systems are such a joke these days...I bet a Jr. High schooler could figure this out no problem...
If I owned a property and someone without my knowledge built a house on it by their own mistake and they want to argue with me about what is right they better be prepared to pay all my legal fees because I'm suing. I hope this lady comes out way ahead on this and gets every single penny of her legal bills paid for by the company who actually made the mistake.
If I was her my chickens would be living in style.
Rent a dozer and have a party
Why?! They illegally entered her land and built on it, they should be responsible for returning the land to its prior condition. That should be it, end of discussion.
They should have lawyers come on and explain how this is possible
How much does demolition cost?
I am confused about where the reporter saids that she doesn't have "clear title to the land". What does mean? Can another party. (try to) claim it later?
Lenders are not cleared, just the taxes owed to the county/city
So if I see a nice piece of land somewhere and I build a house on it then now the land is mine....or I compensate them with land somewhere else...
Best Use? Burn to learn! Fire department can use the practice.
Nice to see Jeremy in Puna!
How was the building permit even cleared to build? No surveyor
I hope that woman continues to stand her ground, and everything plays out to her Benefit. It’s not her fault it’s her she could do what she pleases with it.
So the state has stepped aside and said to the owner and the developer, "I'm out, you two are on your own". Basically, NEVER buy property in Hawaii because it is not government guaranteed. Got it.
$20k for a lot sounds pretty nice. May have to look into some land auctions
So her land needs to be restored, i think most agree. But can they move the house, they do that stuff all the time on the mainland, or is it logistically impractical on the island?
She doesn't have to compromise.
The leaders of this building company should be called out publicly since they want to ruin this woman and won't do right... Way to much has been made to conceal their identity... How many people have unwittingly contacted with them during this fiasco?
Move the house to the right lot at the builders expense!
Now would be the time for the original owner who lost the property to get it back for the tax lien amount.
With a new house on it.
In Hawaii, the original owner only had 1 year to do so and that time has already passed. It's now a clear title.
Building on the wrong lot never happens. That is not a mistake. It is a deliberate move to try to steal the lot.
-You would think someone somewhere would have caught this.
With the amount lawyers charge. Nobody would do this on purpose. Multiple stories of people demolishing the wrong house also.
It’s not her fault the contractor was an idiot.
Why not move the house to the lot next door (the "correct" lot)?! Also, if the State took possession of the property, it should be obligated to provide clear title prior to the auction or at most there should only be a 6 month right of rescission period for the former property owner to reclaim the property, if they are able to pay the auction winner for all of their costs plus interest and a nuisance fee. The current owner can always offer the prior owner money to sign a Quit Claim duty to negate their right of rescission period to take back the property.
I've seen speculation that it's because the deasign integrates the foundation to the point where the foundation would also have to be moved, or the entire building would fall over.
I don't know if that's true, but she does have the right to make them remove the building by any means necessary. They can tear it down, or they can move it is possible, but it's her lot, and nobody is disputing that or that she didn't grant permission. It's just an attempt to make the process so expensive that she gives in and pays them.
Wouldn't the argument be that the house now belongs to the lot owner? She can sell it since its on her land. She should be also able to sue the builder for any costs she has incurred due to their mistake.
Except she doesn't want the house. Also right now, even though it's technically her property. She could probably get into very big trouble if she tried to do anything herself about the house. So the courts are needed to unravel this mess.
From what I'd read, 1) she doesn't want to, she wants her property back to it's original condition, and 2) the property would problematic to sell, as there is pending legal action regarding the house being built on the wrong property, and also because the parcel was bought at a tax auction, whcih means the title to the parcel isn't clear title. Bottom line is that buying this property would mean buying a lot of potential legal problems, and as such the value of the property is a lot less than a similarly sized house built on a similar size and location parcel, all with clear uncontested title.
Only under very demanding circumstances would I build a house on a concrete pad.
In this case, had the builders built on timber foundations they could move the building to their own lot, then they would just have to restore the bush they bulldozed.
Pretty simple for the land owner (or it should be). Demand the house and all improvements be torn down and removed and some 💵 for the inconvenience and legal fees. Don’t waiver from that unless all parties that screwed up make an offer that is acceptable to you.
It bothers me how contractor built a house on wrong lot,,, I am still thinking,,,
The lot owner shouldn’t have to compromise with anyone. The developer and county messed up. If you build a fence on your neighbors property, you have to tear it down if a survey shows you messed up. Why isn’t the same logic applied here. Developer should have paid for a proper survey
let me sort this out. This lot has no clean title. When the original owner shows up (and pays his taxes) it's his again. So it's a high risk move anyone who would buy this lot with a house from the building company. It probably can only be sold when the company conceals the facts.
On the other side, there is the lot owner, who only wants the house to be torn down. From another video I learned that her main reason to stick to this lot is some magic numbers matching hers and her children's birth dates? Well, in the Land of the Free, this is a perfectly legal reason, but:
If I were her, I would accept a lot swap, but only if the builder pays all the court costs and the new lot has a clean title. What seems to have been offered to her.
So the woman who "owns" the lot, the one in lawsuit refusing next door lot, purchased the lots at tax sale? This being the case I would think she should ask for developer to clear the other lot and be happier than she could possibly be to get that lot free and clear vs the one she's "loosing". Tax sales can be really frustrating and tricky and could loose money and property on..... Or make a lot... Thus why people risk it.
Why isn't she suing them for putting a house she didn't authorize on her property?
Why is it the other way around?
Because the builder sued her first. She was trying to work something out when the builder just turned around and sued her when she wouldn't give him the land. I really don't understand why this is a mess and the courts can't figure it out. It must be a Hawaii thing. Round here if you build just a small part of your house on someone else's property it's got to go and it's a quick process. The courts don't even need to get involved, the towns just deny and occupancy permit and order it to be taken down and then daily fines are placed on the structure.
@@ericeven4090 I agree. However, she could have filed a countersuit as soon as she was served. I would have. That way the cases probably would have been combined for a resolution. Everyone has the ability to file a suit, not everyone has the grounds to file. I hope the judge essentially says "Too bad, your mistake, buddy. Enjoy your new house, ma'am."
I work for a survey company. Stuff like this is why we will always be in business. Smart people call us to avoid situations like this.
let's say you got called and you told the builder to build on the wrong property, would you have to pay for all the damages that happend to her? House removal? Compensation for the builder?
Whoever failed to properly clear the title at the tax auction should be held responsible. It really should be the responsibility of the agency auctioning it to guarantee clear and valid title to the land. It really should never have got to the state it was allowed to be in. I don't care if they can do that, they should have done better.
This case is ludicrous. You can’t just go around building houses wherever you want and then try to bully the land-owners into swapping to different plots they didn’t want.
Welcome to America, what are the criminals get away with everything.
I don't see any reason why a judge cannot say.. tear the house down
With this wrinkle, it would seem that the lot trade would be in the owners advantage as they would get a lot that's free and clear, not one that has a potential issue.
Consider, the prior owner who lost it to tax sale could pop up this week, pay the taxes and interest to the woman who bought it at tax sale and be the legal owner of a new house.
There’s companys who knows how to move away the house from the property, that simple ,they can relocate it next door. Simple.
The report is wrong on one major fact. The landowner is not suing anyone, at least not yet. It is the developer, who already has a lot of money invested, that is suing..well...everyone involved including the landowner, the contractor, the city, etc.
If they get away with it and she is forced to except the house or the money or any deal, it means then that anybody can build on your land and get away with it. The only solution is tear down that house and trash it.
That company just gonna have to take the hit. They screwed up, not the land owner. The one screwed up takes the hit.
There has to be clean title.
The opposite problem, where your land is sold out from under you or unpaid taxes and you have no recourse, is bad too.
But keeping the title in limbo forever is just stupid.
The state needs to change the law.
Sounds like he liked her view better and thought he could do a sneaky trade situation after the fact. Easier to ask forgiveness than permission. She is not obligated to make any accommodations to anyone, this is not her fault or doing. As far as I am concerned they are obligated to do as she asks and return her property to it's original state.
So…a developer tries to steal someone’s property and only the Lawyers win. Figures.
It's not the lot owner's responsibility to compromise.
Reasonable offer? WTF? It is HER LOT OF LAND! Some developer cant just JACK UP your land..then try and make you a 'reasonable' offer in order to basically STEAL your land from you!
Unreal. How did the judge even take this case? Imagine the precedent this would make IF the judge ruled in favor of the developer?
Owner of property: Well, I have a property with a home on it now. I’ll sell it all to you for $500,000 and we can close this all out.
These people building on someone else’s property shouldn’t have been able to have their case even heard. This is absurd. They trespassed and illegal developed on a property that wasn’t theirs to build on. She doesn’t have to do anything. Get off my property and take your house with you.
I would think that the owner of the land that wants to develop it would need to follow a protocol when getting a permit to build.
I would think the county would have that as a requirement when you are in the permitting stages.
That should be a no brainer anyway on the big island due to the vastness and wild landscape.
That developer clearly hasn’t been to his property much less the Big Island.
Free house
With this much damage done; a reasonable offer would be to swap with the neighboring lot (the one where the house should have been built) and restore that one to the tropical vegetation the owner wants. But in other news the builder is probably going to go bankrupt.
I assume the land is now taxed at the house value. Ouch
I think several people wanted her property and "accidently" built a house.
Get a house mover and put it on the proper lot then return the destroyed lot to its previous condition.
Interesting. The developer should just have had the house moved to the lot next door.🤨
Mainland people
Builder: We messed up! Here is 20k that you paid, same great deal you bought it for!
Owner: No thanks, please remove your mistake from my property.
Government: BOTH of you owe us unpaid taxes! Pay up or work it out, it’s not our problem our building permit department did not verify the details and allowed you to build.
It’s like that dog that chases his tail infinitely running in circles.
Landowner is paying taxes. This lot was bought in a tax auction in 2018. There is usually 1 year after that where the ex-owner has the ability to claim/buy it back.