Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com>
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: <uuapp9$1h025$1@dont-email.me> <ecsh0jdcdpdcdp9rambm5othg1qluefi2g@4ax.com> <cgin0jhra674kdefqnopreoj9ruqge7b2m@4ax.com>
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 <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:

>On Sun, 31 Mar 2024 01:18:30 -0400, shawn
><nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> 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.