Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: shawn Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv Subject: Re: Woman sued by those who built home on HER lot Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2024 10:53:58 -0400 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 41 Message-ID: <4u6o0jtde8agqhrth4a16eppo3vu7fuba6@4ax.com> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2024 14:54:00 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="0c7febb03ba546d4f49e3e1f1709ee3d"; logging-data="3442350"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/+p7/V3KQG0OTBmL7AyM/dAcG9fXB+3dA=" User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272 Cancel-Lock: sha1:5FpZIjgQro0l9QM58f0/dLwEc7c= Bytes: 3129 On Tue, 02 Apr 2024 02:10:55 -0700, The Horny Goat wrote: >On Sun, 31 Mar 2024 01:18:30 -0400, shawn > wrote: > >>My guess is they hope to force her to settle due to the extensive >>lawyer fees. Only possible way I could see them winning the lawsuit >>(and I don't think even then) is if they granted her ownership of the >>home (which they already sold, so ooops) and then pursued compensation >>for the increased value of the property. Though since she didn't order >>the construction of the home and wants it gone I couldn't see them >>winning the case. > >In the early 1960s my grandfather was in precisely this situation >where he owned two lots - one he built his home on and the other he >left empty about 4 or 5 houses away. So the builder didn't do a survey before taking down the trees and building a home (with all the necessary utility connections)? The same as happened with the woman in Hawaii. Is this actually a common thing? >At that time he was in the habit of taking 4-5 weeks a year in >southern California and came home to find a house on his lot that had >been empty when he had left. > >He told us afterwards that he COULD have simply told the builder >"thank you for building me a house" (he said he had checked with a >lawyer) and legally that would have ended it but in the end sold the >lot to the builder for a substantial gain on what he had paid for the >lot. (Given the lot had been covered by trees when he left it was >rather easy to tell that the builder had taken down all his trees >before building.) > >But the very idea that the build in THIS case could claim he had >"improved the lot" is both ludicrous and offensive - and if properly >documented would almost certainly lead to punative damages if the case >had ever gone to trial. Normally in civil matters you have to REALLY >screw up for the plaintiff to get punitive damages but this would very >much seem to be such a case - particularly if the lot had been cleared >first.