Property owner stunned after $500,000 house built on wrong lot: ‘Are you kidding me?’

"An attorney for PJ’s Construction said the developers didn’t want to hire surveyors."

Well there's your problem.

The answer here should be simple... the developers pay for demolition, removal of the house, and restore the property back to the condition where they found it.

The Title Company has to be sweating bullets right now. It's their whole job to prevent problems like this.

Reynold’s attorney said they offered to swap her their lot right next door or sell her the house at a discount. But she has refused both offers. “It would set a dangerous precedent if you could go onto someone else’s land, build anything you want, and then sue that individual for the value of it,” DiPasquale said.

Good for her.

The still vacant three-bedroom, two-bath house on a 1-acre lot in Puna’s Hawaiian Paradise Park is worth about $500,000. But it could cost a lot of people more than that as they head to court to sort it out.

Wow. A house is cheaper in Hawaii than it is in SoCal?

The housemate of my mother just sold her mother's house in Orange County. 2 bedroom and 1 bath, so smaller, for over $1 million.

The fuck are they even suing Reynolds for? They fucked up; why does she have to pay for their fuck up?

Reynold’s attorney said they offered to swap her their lot right next door or sell her the house at a discount.

But she has refused both offers.

“It would set a dangerous precedent if you could go onto someone else’s land, build anything you want, and then sue that individual for the value of it,” DiPasquale said.

Good call.

Pay up capitalist fucks

Sucks having to pay a lawyer to write up the dismissal motion, but it's not like you're getting anywhere in court with someone you have no fucking contract with.

She'd have hired a lawyer for the "damages" on her "mediation retreat" anyway.

Edit: I'd imagine Hawaiian locals don't have much sympathy for this absent California landlady complaining about property taxes and squatters btw

Not surprised but Steve Lehto did a video on this.

https://piped.video/watch?v=B1_A_3hKI-g

If anyone wants a practiceing attorney's take.

$500k? Where I live that would be a cardboard box

I will preface this with this warning because I know in advance this will be a hot take

I think she's being unreasonable. No if ands or buts, I agree with the company that is suing her, this does not mean that I agree that they should have built the house in the first place; because it was not their property. However, they have tried multiple times to reach a resolution with her that would help both sides, she has turned down every offer so far stating she didn't want the house there in the first place.

This is a reasonable response, however let's go over what she's turned down so far:

• she has turned down an offer of another plot of land, which was offered free of charge and still in the same area that her other house was which she has turned down because the coordinates are against her zodiac signs.

• They have offered to sell her the house at a discounted value, what she is also turned down not because she doesn't think the house shows value, but because “It would set a dangerous precedent if you could go onto someone else’s land, build anything you want, and then sue that individual for the value of it"

This would be 100% understandable if it weren't for the fact that it is very clear that this was not their intention and also not what they are doing, they are suing the discounted value of it because they know they fucked up.

I agree with the company accusation, she is trying to take advantage of what was a mistake, if she truly felt the way that she feels she would bulldoze the lot or be trying to work with the company to have them pay for bulldozed costs, neither of which have been publically stated(not that the company would agree with bulldozing it). She wants to take advantage of this mistake and get a free 500,000 house out of it. I will be interested how this plays out in court, I'm not a lawyer but I hard disagree with this case being an open shut case like the practicing attorney video posted in another comment.

edit: to save people asking me for the eighth time the same question, yes I understand she has no obligation to propose a solution, but the fact that she has not done so also indicates towards the intent.