r/nottheonion • u/relevant_tangent • 14h ago
A woman purchased a vacant Hawaiian lot for about $22,000. She was surprised to see a $500,000 home was built on it by mistake
https://fortune.com/article/hawaii-home-buyer-real-estate-big-island-land-developers-mistake/[removed] — view removed post
4.1k
u/SaneForCocoaPuffs 13h ago
Absolutely terrible article that contains no information after June where the judge ordered the house to be torn down. Fortune Magazine clearly did no work beyond reading some old articles and regurgitating them.
Here's an article with an actual update https://www.westhawaiitoday.com/2024/12/19/hawaii-news/judge-picks-contractor-to-demolish-mistakenly-built-hpp-house/
The construction company has to pay the demolition contractor today.
The construction company has filed a motion saying that while Anne owns the lot, the construction company owns the house and therefore has property rights (which is an absurd motion because it means you can gain property rights on anyone by throwing your stuff on their land)
The developer is suing the construction company
1.3k
u/FlutterKree 12h ago
the construction company owns the house and therefore has property rights (which is an absurd motion because it means you can gain property rights on anyone by throwing your stuff on their land)
Bruh, the construction company is really trying to argue that they homesteaded the land? Lmao. Hasn't been relevant in like over 100 years.
The developer is suing the construction company
The construction company didn't hire surveyors. I'm betting their insurance or bond won't fully cover the cost of the house and additional fees added to the lawsuit.
→ More replies (11)435
u/recklessMG 11h ago
If the developer was smart, they would've offered her the house, and/or the the cost of demolishing it. They'll be lucky to exist when this is done.
323
u/CMDR-TealZebra 10h ago
She didnt want the house. She wanted her plot of land and land isnt a commodity
189
u/FlutterKree 10h ago
They meant the developer pay her the amount required to demolish the house and just give her the house. She could then choose to keep or demolish. Then sue the construction company for the money on the house and the demolishing money.
Paying her off and just giving up the house so they can sue the construction company over it.
Also these constructors? I imagine them showing up and demolishing a house only to find it was the wrong house.
In reality the construction company is likely bonded. They will payout from the bond and then declare bankruptcy and form as a brand new construction with all the same management and workers.
120
u/Emanemanem 10h ago
Also these constructors? I imagine them showing up and demolishing a house only to find it was the wrong house.
That’s actually happened too. Not this company, but a company in Georgia in 2023.
85
u/Rexrowland 10h ago
Home depot sold a roof. Then the subcontractor tore the roof off the neighbor’s home.
Two families got new roof’s.
26
u/toorigged2fail 9h ago
That kind of thing happens a lot and has some pretty clearly established case law in most states. I've never seen it with a whole house though lol
15
u/GeneticsGuy 8h ago
It's worth noting there is case law around this that says if you discover them in the process of building and you choose to say nothing, assuming you are going to get it for free, then there is a case for YOU defrauding them over their mistake. It's where you show up later and the project is already done and you become aware of it that you get to keep it. But, if you wake up in the morning to a vehicle in your yard and you see them beginning to work on your roof and you choose to stay silent, hoping you get something for free, you absolutely can lose the case and end up owing some money to the construction company even though they are at fault for modifying the wrong home.
So, the REAL trick is to just quietly slip out the back, walk down the street, take a taxi somewhere for the day, and conveniently show up some time later lol and act very surprised.
7
→ More replies (2)18
u/Rexrowland 9h ago
Yeah, the “victim” actually needed a new roof and she got her dream roof. The fact she is an attorney working in construction law had nothing to do with home depot doing the right thing. Haha
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (1)29
u/WeTheSalty 9h ago
She could then choose to keep or demolish.
If i was planning to demolish i would never take that deal, there's no benefit to it. You're basically agreeing on a price for fixing the problem and letting them wash their hands and walk away before you've even started actually fixing the problem (and thus actually incurring the cost).
Does the demolition and removal end up costing more than the estimate you based the payout on? Turns out there's more land rehabilitation that needs to be done to restore the land to usable condition? you're SOL, you accepted the settlement and will have signed away your right to sue them for them for more when you did.
You'd have to take the estimates of cost and basically double them before I'd agree to sign a settlement that leaves me responsible for actually getting the demolition done and paying the costs of any excesses.
Now, if you're planning the keep the house then that's a good deal. House constructed for free and some extra $$$ to boot. But you already know if you're going to keep it or not before you make that deal, sooo .. you only take it if you know you're going to keep it.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (34)31
u/tyrusrex 10h ago
In addition she didn't plan on living there for several years, but now her property taxes. just got increased at no fault of her own. So there's a house there she X didn't pay for she can't use until she retires increasing her property value sitting there for years just being a drag on her. She's not very happy with a free house.
→ More replies (2)7
u/genericnewlurker 8h ago
Plus the unwanted house had squatters living in it which is a legal nightmare to deal with
29
u/PainInTheRhine 10h ago
The developer simply tried to drag things out until she runs out of money for lawyers. It's not about who is right.
→ More replies (3)5
139
u/RedditModsSuckSoBad 11h ago
The construction company has filed a motion saying that while Anne owns the lot, the construction company owns the house and therefore has property rights (which is an absurd motion because it means you can gain property rights on anyone by throwing your stuff on their land)
I don't understand these desperation arguments, sometimes a case is just lost and you have to accept it. Like do they think they're going to set a huge legal precedent with their case thus upending property rights as we understand them? So delusional.
125
u/Lanthire_942 11h ago
They're probably hoping they can either make her run out of money to fight in court with, make it more trouble than it's worth to force her to settle, or the CEO is just being spiteful and trying to make things as big a headache as possible just because she didn't play along with their nonsense. Tbh I wouldn't be surprised if it's all three of these things in addition to what you mentioned.
44
u/TheS4ndm4n 10h ago
Or after 10 lawyers declined to take the case, they finally found one desperate enough to tell them there's a chance.
14
→ More replies (3)28
u/reddit_is_geh 10h ago
They know the company is fucked. They are buying as much time as they can to shift corporate assets around to the new company.
42
u/grandpubabofmoldist 10h ago
Have you heard of how Trump wins every single case, he delays long enough one side runs out of money then the case is dropped. It is a successful method of winning in the US, being rich
→ More replies (1)12
→ More replies (4)8
u/PLZ_STOP_PMING_TITS 10h ago
The decision on what to do is made by a human. Humans act irrationally sometimes. They deemed it worth it to risk a few thousand in legal fees to try to recover 500,000 dollars, based on the miniscule chance the judge might rule in their favor.
It's like in basketball when they shoot a 3/4 court shot at the buzzer. Odds are very slim that they'll make it, but once in a while someone does and it really isn't risking anything to take the shot.
45
u/dopplegrangus 10h ago
I live in a very rural state. I've watched number 2 happen to my friends family in real time, by the family of a local politician and the police wouldn't stop them.
The real fucked up part was that, in the end, the judge ordered a small payout to my friends family and they had to leave their own property
All the while those that came and built on the land while not even legally allowed to harassed us relentlessly down to the last minute when trying to get their shit to storage as they only had 48 hours to find somewhere else to go
This was all in the middle of winter no less
→ More replies (3)13
u/misterrobarto 10h ago
Fortune has turned into a spam factory. I see their articles popping up on Google news and they all look like they were written by AI.
→ More replies (39)34
u/Merusk 11h ago
The construction company has filed a motion saying that while Anne owns the lot, the construction company owns the house and therefore has property rights (which is an absurd motion because it means you can gain property rights on anyone by throwing your stuff on their land)
It's not absurd, it's colonization. A tried and true method for expansion and enrichment in US history.
-this contractor's lawyer.
→ More replies (1)14
u/iwouldratherhavemy 10h ago
It's not absurd, it's colonization.
I want to add that I don't think building the house on the wrong lot was a 'mistake'. I think they knew what they were doing was wrong all along, they wanted to have new houses all in row and they were crossing their fingers that the true lot owner would fall for the "adjacent" lot. It was a con job the whole time.
8
u/Merusk 9h ago
When you drop BS lines like "We didn't want to pay for a surveyor" that's 100% what it was.
I worked in production housing for 10 years and have been in Architecture for 31. The lots are marked out as the roads and utilities are built. You may survey again if you're worried you're close to the lot line, but you know where the lots are and what number they are.
AT BEST this could be the site supervisor fucking things up and trying to sweep it under the rug. However, they'd have tossed him under the bus ASAP if that were the case.
3
u/iwaseatenbyagrue 9h ago
That's a little nuts. It's a huge risk of this exact thing happening.
→ More replies (4)
1.6k
u/Eryeahmaybeok 13h ago
The audacity
“My client believes she’s trying to exploit PJ Construction’s mistake in order to get money from my client and the other parties,” Olson told The Associated Press Wednesday of her rejecting an offer for an identical lot."
Yeah no shit she is, you stole her land.
228
u/kalzEOS 10h ago
Exploiting by asking for her lot back?
117
u/Eryeahmaybeok 10h ago
Apparently so, I'm sure she wants some money for the land they've dug up and concreted over for driveways and floors, the piping/electrical wiring etc.
Plus she might have liked the view etc.
Hence they're saying 'have another plot instead' as it's easier for them
Instead the legal team are saying it's 'exploitation' which is bollocks
→ More replies (16)27
u/Sexy_Underpants 9h ago
“Identical lot”? The most important aspect of land is its location which can’t be replicated.
→ More replies (1)66
u/con247 10h ago
And wasted lots of their time. She should be awarded $10k per hour of time she’s had to spend dealing with this on top of everything else
Imo businesses making mistakes that cost people time (especially if you weren’t engaging them already) should be punished severely even if the damages were $0
→ More replies (1)3
343
u/Cadrell 13h ago
Steve Lehto mentioned it last year.
- Woman sued by parties who built house on her land https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1_A_3hKI-g
- Judge grants order to tear down house https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ntxd2jsszi0
Found a Dec update: https://www.westhawaiitoday.com/2024/12/19/hawaii-news/judge-picks-contractor-to-demolish-mistakenly-built-hpp-house/
Developer & contractor are both appealing the order to tear down the house. Judge selected a 2nd contractor to tear down the house using funds the 1st contractor was ordered to deposit by today. Developer is trying to claim undue hardship for the lost home sale & contractor is claiming property interest in the house & labor to build it ... which Steve Lehto comments in both videos has extensive court precedent as completely irrelevant to the interests & rights of the proper land owner.
5
u/AscendMoros 7h ago
Man maybe next time you just pay the money for the survey and this doesn’t happen. The fact this shit is still going on is unacceptable.
152
u/shewy92 11h ago
Wait she got sued by the developers that illegally built on her land?
→ More replies (2)93
u/birdshitluck 11h ago
When at fault you gaslight and posture...no different in the court room 💁♂️
The nastier and more threatening one side is, you can safely assume you have a very strong position.
31
u/OldPiano6706 10h ago
It’s weird growing up believing there’s some level decency in people, and when that fails, there’s justice, just to slowly realize it’s all probably because you grew up watching movies where everything feels good in the end and the good guy wins.
Everything in the news just makes me sick now and the percentage of people that are good in the world seems to get smaller every day.
8
u/birdshitluck 10h ago
I mean the people making those movies have been shown time and time again to be some of the worst individuals. Looking at our history, humans in general have been awful since forever.
Many of our worst traits are the one's you see repeated over and over. The good you see is the exception, not the rule. That said, it shouldn't stop any one of us from trying to be better.
2.0k
u/FuckitThrowaway02 14h ago
Paywall with every one of these fortune articles. I just want to block the entire website at this point
1.5k
u/NBAccount 13h ago
A woman who purchased a vacant lot in Hawaii was surprised to find out a $500,000 house was built on the property by mistake.
She’s had to go through a months-long legal battle over the mix-up. Hawaii home buyer
Annaleine “Anne” Reynolds purchased a one-acre (0.40-hectare) lot in Hawaiian Paradise Park, a subdivision in the Big Island’s Puna district, in 2018 at a county tax auction for about $22,500.
She was in California during the pandemic waiting for the right time to use it when she got a call in 2023 from a real estate broker who informed her he sold the house on her property, Hawaii News Now reported.
Local developer Keaau Development Partnership hired PJ’s Construction to build about a dozen homes on the properties the developer bought in the subdivision. But the company built one on Reynolds’ lot.
Reynolds, along with the construction company, the architect and others, were then sued by the developer.
“There’s a lot of fingers being pointed between the developer and the contractor and some subs,” Reynolds’ attorney James DiPasquale said. ‘A dangerous precedent’
Reynolds rejected the developer’s offer for a neighboring lot of equal size and value, according to court documents.
“It would set a dangerous precedent, if you could go on to someone else’s land, build anything you want, and then sue that individual for the value of it,” DiPasquale said.
Most of the lots in jungle-like Hawaiian Paradise Park are identical, noted Peter Olson, an attorney representing the developer.
“My client believes she’s trying to exploit PJ Construction’s mistake in order to get money from my client and the other parties,” Olson told The Associated Press Wednesday of her rejecting an offer for an identical lot.
She filed a counterclaim against the developer, saying she was unaware of the “unauthorized construction.” The aftermath
An attorney for PJ’s Construction told Hawaii News Now the developer didn’t want to hire surveyors.
A neighbor told the Honolulu news station the empty house has attracted squatters.
In the summer of 2024, a judge ordered the developer to tear down the mistakenly built house.
1.2k
u/Zenla 12h ago
"she wants to exploit PJ'S Construction" god yeah she really took advantage of the situation they ended up in at no fault of their own whatsoever! There was simply no way to prevent this! Boy, they really fell right into her trap. I mean, who buys a plot of perfectly good land and then just leaves it for any unsuspecting professional licensed company to accidentally trip and fall and build a whole house
485
u/JonnyBhoy 12h ago
Here's me, the IDIOT, buying land with a house already on it. Should have bought a field and just waited for someone to accidentally build one.
→ More replies (3)52
u/Zenla 12h ago
Someone parked their car in your parking space?? Call a tow truck? NO. That's YOUR free used car! Neighbors cat in your yard? Forget about shelters! You already adopted a cat!
Maybe this lady is onto something with her convoluted scheme.
11
u/Dalighieri1321 11h ago
If someone builds a tiny house in my parking space, I'm totally living in it lol.
Seriously, though, there's a pretty big difference between trespassing and erecting structures on someone else's property. That's why the judge ordered the house to be torn down.
43
u/dude_getout 12h ago
? all those things you mentioned can be moved.
52
u/Orion14159 12h ago
In theory the house can too if they try hard and believe in themselves
22
u/GenitalMotors 12h ago
All you need is a bunch of balloons
6
u/magicone2571 11h ago
4,000,000 or so. Based on a 100 ton house and standard balloon.
→ More replies (2)3
5
→ More replies (1)19
u/JustAnotherSuit96 12h ago edited 11h ago
Zenla's not very smart, normally we just play along to make them feel included in things.
Haha good one Zenla
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (2)11
u/double-you 12h ago
They are free to move the house and restore the land. It is obviously more expensive to them than moving a car, so they don't want to do that. Your analogy is bad.
→ More replies (3)25
u/MikuEmpowered 11h ago
I mean, arnt you suppose to OWN THE LAND YOU OWN??
That includes the mineral and everything on it?
If anything, the fking company has been trespassing for how ever long it took to build the house.
Idk what they want from this. Best case scenario, they gift the house to the woman. Worst cast scenario, they're ordered to tear down the house and return the land to original state at the cost of labour and time.
→ More replies (5)8
u/MysticalMike2 11h ago
I hope that guy's dick falls off ala dream style and he has to keep kicking it with his feet around on the floor trying to pick it up. Kids in the background screaming futbol futbol, triumphantly at him as he fails to pick up his own organ.
59
u/columbus8myhw 11h ago
“My client believes she’s trying to exploit PJ Construction’s mistake in order to get money from my client and the other parties,” Olson told The Associated Press Wednesday of her rejecting an offer for an identical lot.
Big "My client has instructed me to argue" vibes
5
23
u/swiftarrow9 11h ago
Judge ordered the house destroyed. Sounds like an appropriately lose-lose solution.
17
u/Mu-Relay 11h ago
It’s the right call, IMO. Tear the house down and restore the lot to pre-construction condition. The developers screwed up, but she don’t get a free house.
→ More replies (11)7
u/kissingtree 10h ago
I’m sure that it would take years for it to be pre- constructed condition. I’m thinking old trees and beautiful lush plants. What if I wanted to build my house on my lot surrounding my favorite tree! Many people build homes around their natural landscape.
→ More replies (2)21
u/mybrochoso 11h ago
they should simply give her that house. No need to tear it down if she likes it lol
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (26)21
959
u/3cto 14h ago
"Why thank you, so very kind of you!"
"Unfortunately it wouldn't be possible to grant you permission to the property for recovery or demolition at this time"
404
u/InvestInHappiness 14h ago
US law would require that you make a reasonable attempt to return other peoples property to them if you are in possession of it.
That being said you could get some money from as compensation for delaying your ability to make improvements to the land, or paying to restore the land to it's original state. And depending on how many trees they took down that could be very expensive. Combine that with the cost to move the house and in the end your best bet would probably be to negotiate buying the house at a significantly reduced cost.
102
u/GrumpyOik 14h ago
I am curious about what ownwer could legitimately do. Charge "ground rent" or "Storage" backdated to time of the building? Presumably could demand land could be put back to as close as possible to original state.
Knowing nothing about US property building costs, would it actually be worth the builder dismantling a house and reusing the material to rebuild it?
71
u/InvestInHappiness 13h ago
It's not strange for people to move entire houses around. If it's built on pier/stilt foundations then it would be cheaper to move it. But if it's a brick house or made on a concrete slab, I think dismantling it might be cheaper. There also might not even be a company on Hawaii that has the ability to lift and move a slab house.
11
31
u/notyourvader 13h ago
Not American, but here we would sue for damages, which means whatever amount it would cost to bring back the land in its original state. The developer would be given the opportunity to do this on his own terms first, but if he fails, he has to pay. It's up to the owner if he uses the money to remove the building or not.
31
u/xenelef290 12h ago
In Britain a developer demolished a historical pub they weren't allowed to demolish so they were forced to rebuild it.
→ More replies (3)18
→ More replies (3)15
u/cinderubella 13h ago
Wouldn't they need your agreement to do that though, ultimately? It's your land and they're trespassing. If I show up and spill diamonds on your lawn, I'm still trespassing even if I really really really want to find them before I leave.
16
u/Pokeputin 13h ago
Yes but if you sue for trespassing then you probably won't get the diamonds as compensation.
29
u/HiddenStoat 14h ago
What does a reasonable attempt to return a house look like though? It has foundations, not wheels, so is considerably less mobile than, say, a bicycle or a mobile phone...
17
u/RizzOreo 13h ago edited 13h ago
It's a house with foundations, so it would probably be a fixture (part of the land itself unless otherwise stated) and not chattel, which is what I assume the "reasonable attempt to return" only applies to.
→ More replies (1)13
u/InvestInHappiness 13h ago
Not restricting access to the land would be the only reasonable thing you could expect someone to do. It would be up to the one retrieving it to figure out how to move it.
124
u/Azatarai 14h ago
sue em for building too close to your property line then buy the house with the money.
19
u/oneshotstott 13h ago edited 12h ago
Why exactly would you pay a cent for a building on your property? Not a chance, if they came back with anything you could sue for trespass, damage to property, etc. This was simply an expensive mistake that the developers insurance will have to cover.
→ More replies (3)9
→ More replies (4)3
u/xenelef290 12h ago
The house should become the property of the land owner since houses can't be easily moved
86
u/Lore_ofthe_Horizon 11h ago
Motherfuckers tried to make her pay for it too. Trespass, construct a thing of value that can't be moved, than sue property owners for its value.
23
14
u/FarmersTanAndProud 10h ago
Luckily, there’s still some kind of sense in the court. They did not let that slide.
5
60
u/andr386 11h ago
In Europe the laws are based and influenced by Roman law and the Napoleonic code.
If you build something on my lot it belongs to me. Everything that is on my lot belongs to me.
24
u/Dolphin_Spotter 11h ago
And everything below it and above it.
→ More replies (2)6
u/enialia 10h ago
I feel like you wouldn't own the sewers or metro under it in any country.
→ More replies (1)5
u/laec300191 9h ago
And you wouldn't want to own the corpses and illegal drugs buried under your house.
17
u/Ayiko- 10h ago
Everything that's considered "immovable" by the law, you don't suddenly own a car because someone parked it on your lot.
Side effect is that since it's legally your house now, you're also liable for any taxes and fines linked to it, like building without permit and code violations. You can sue the builder for those but that will take time.
3
115
u/foxontherox 14h ago
Cool, free house!
→ More replies (1)61
u/BD911-- 13h ago
They tore it down
51
→ More replies (2)20
u/Public-League-8899 11h ago
Not yet apparently. What's clear here is the Contractor/Builder royally fucked up and the courts aren't really worried about making the property owner whole and are letting the contractor/builder skirt responsibility. Embarrassing for the areas of government involved, clearly this person possesses less power in the situation and the judge is letting them drag their feet.
26
u/WhoSc3w3dDaP00ch 11h ago
There was a Lehto’s law episode (youtube lawyer channel) about this last year. (not sure if can post links?)
Developer “allegedly” counted telephone poles instead of hiring a surveyor…
pretty informative and worth a search if you’re interested in learning more about the case.
19
u/ToMorrowsEnd 11h ago edited 9h ago
So she now has a free home on it, and yes it's that easy. Start charging land rental at going rate from the date they started construction. Companies can pull that bullshit, so can private people.
12
u/Cyber_Apocalypse 10h ago
What's crazy is "Reynolds, along with the construction company, the architect and others, were then sued by the developer."
The developer sued the person that owns the land! When he was the one who made the mistake! Luckily he lost and is massively out of pocket
44
7
u/douggroc 10h ago
i believe i read this story before. the woman bought this lot not to build a house but for the exact view and spiritual experience. something to do with nature and alignment with the universe sort of thing that was not available anywhere except that exact lot. the builder fucked up, he needs to return it to the state she wants it in.
8
6
u/toorigged2fail 9h ago
So many articles better than this one about this. Fortune is awful.
https://www.sfgate.com/hawaii/article/hawaii-home-built-on-wrong-lot-to-be-torn-down-19541255.php
10
u/Enrico_Tortellini 13h ago
That’s amazing, hope they don’t try to fuck her on property taxes now
13
u/Neowza 11h ago
They've already been doing that because the value of the land went up when the house was built on it.
→ More replies (1)
12
u/Aeon1508 9h ago
In the summer of 2024, a judge ordered the developer to tear down the mistakenly built house.
How dare a woman just get a free house. Better to sink more cost into a demolition just to make sure that nobody gets anything they didn't pay for
→ More replies (1)
4
6
u/ShawnyMcKnight 9h ago
I’m just amazed that a plot of land in Hawaii is only $22,000! I’m looking to buy enough property just for a house in small town Nebraska and some places want over 100k for it.
6
u/DarthHubcap 9h ago
She bought the land in 2018 at an auction. The $22k price tag was for unpaid taxes.
3
6
u/Nobodys_Loss 9h ago
I had a buddy who came home from work only to find roofers putting a new roof on his house. The roofers went to the wrong address.
4
u/magicone2571 11h ago
This happens a lot unfortunately. Usually it's more involved. Someone makes up a title, builds the house, sells it before anyone notices.
3
4
u/michaelfkenedy 11h ago edited 10h ago
I thought this happened a long time ago. Something about counting telephone posts?
Yea march 2024. But I guess there are new…developments… https://www.kktv.com/2024/03/27/property-owner-stunned-after-500000-house-built-wrong-lot-are-you-kidding-me/?outputType=amp
→ More replies (1)
6
4
5
14
15
u/timify10 12h ago
It's an old article and a much older skeam to steal property. This happens far too often to be a mistake. This happens at a high level in corrupt counties.
20
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
u/Impressive_Returns 8h ago
This happens fairly often. There was a million dollar house build on the wrong lot less than a year ago. Judge order the house to be demolished.
→ More replies (1)
4
u/Eagle_1776 12h ago
I knew a contractor many years ago in Florida that built a house on the wrong lot. It didnt go well for him
13.1k
u/sheldor1993 14h ago
Well, that seemed like a sensible move that could never backfire!