The really frustrating part here is that the courts going to correctly have it demolished and allow her to pursue damages against the company but the company is 100% just going to declare bankruptcy and fold their assets into another company with a different name and open right back up without the debt. It's such a common tactic with developers and contractors.
This is a “smart” tactic by a company and completely legal. But shouldn’t be.
My dad was a coal miner in the 70’s and 80’s and it was a boom and bust industry and they did the same shit. They would lease the mining rights from a land company. Set up the mine and hire employees under a company name. Then lease the equipment from another company. They’d mine until the market crashed or the seam of coal petered out, then walk in one day and lay off all the miners and file bankruptcy. The state would try to go after the company and sue for reclamation for abandoning the mine, but they only existed on paper. All of the profits went to the equipment company and the land company, which were the same company, and the one that filed bankruptcy didn’t own anything. Then rinse and repeat.
Actually they started a fund that was paid into by the companies to cover reclamation projects. It also covered reclamation before there were laws around this stuff. Granted, that tax was ultimately paid by the consumer, but it was tied directly to an excise tax on coal.
Yes, but those funds require companies to only pay a percentage of forecasted reclamation costs based on a risk matrix. If every company has the same practice, then that fund can only cover a percentage of the total costs. The “logic” is that not every company will go bankrupt. The remainder of cost does come from taxes.
In Alberta Canada, companies are legally obligated to remediate their oil wells after decommissioning them. So instead, they just sell off their old wells and some shitty shell company buys them all up and then goes bankrupt.
That’s just the tip of the iceberg, the corruption in this province runs so deep.
The state here eventually caught on and required huge bonds for reclamation before they’d issue permits. If a company goes out of business, the bond paid for the reclamation.
Yup America has the same laws on the books due to clean water and air.
So what coal companies will do is open up independent shell companies that will do all the mining and "washing" of coal. They'll strip mine mountains and have above ground "holding ponds" that will hold all the chemical baths needed to burn coal with less containments and then when it comes to cleaning up the ponds and replanting the mountain side, the shell company declare bankruptcy and the original owner of the coal company walks away wealthier.
And thats why energy produced by coal is only 50% more expensive despite than renewables despite needing waay more inftastructure and labour.
If they had to accout for all the site cleanup and mine reclamation like nuclear does it would actually be more expensive, despite the waste processing and site cleanup being less involved than nuclear waste.
I used to work for a mining company that owned a lead-zinc mine in Queensland, Australia. I worked on winding up operations for that mine when it was depleted. I was in the elevator one day at work and the CEO and COO got on and the CEO said, quote, "this mine is going to cost us more money to rehabilitate than we ever took out of it".
Lo and behold two months later the mine was sold to another company that was going to "explore further opportunities to reprocess the tailings and enhance reclamation from the remaining low-level ore". It never did anything of the sort, of course.
I've often heard people say that Canada isn't actually a progressive nation the way Americans think it is, it's just an oil company with a good health plan.
This is why in my state they now need a huge reclamation bond before any mining is permitted. Sees like shitty red tape, but it's because the previous miners were shitty.
The entire concept of an LLC should not be legal. People should be responsible for their actions and shouldn’t be able to abandon their debts and obligations as if their LLC is more than a piece of paper.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. The legal fiction that a corporation is a person is absurd. A corporation is a tool, guided by the hands that wield it. If a corporation is responsible for environmental destruction, deaths and dismemberments, etc, there damn well were people along the way that made those decisions.
Using an LLC to duck responsibility is a far cry from the way you or I would use one. If I were to use an LLC to start a business, it would be to shield myself from ruin and homelessness, not mere inconvenience.
LLCs should only be allowed for small businesses - like cottage food or other home run businesses under a certain income threshold.
Everything else, nope.
How is a holding company for my Global 6000 jet, not a small business? If you consider it, it generates no income and loses the cost of operating a super-heavy class private jet. It's losing money, so it's worse off than many small businesses.
This is why we shouldn't have AI yet. It has the exact same problem.
If something benefits it, it'll do it over and over and over with no care in the world as long as it's the best option and you don't specifically tell it not to. Even if there is a downside, it's a numbers game then whether it still comes out positive.
There have to be clear rules, like the "don't tell them how to cook drugs" update to chatgpt.
This isn't like a chatgpt thing, most "AI" works on a system similar enough to this that they have the same issues.
It's also just like training an animal. If there isn't a consequence for something every time, they keep doing it. My cat doesn't know how I know when he's on the counter, but he knows I will know and I'll be there with my spray bottle. Good thing she doesn't know what a security camera is.
This is the part people don't get, and it happens without AI.
We did this with the rules about dress code in high school until we were wearing our robes to school cause there was no rule saying we couldn't do it, which happened after we graduated.
But that's the problem. Complex algorithms get to make all kinds of decisions in human society these days, programs giving suggestions or used as screening tools. But not smart enough to really understand what they're doing.
Like that episode of Doctor Who with the self repairing spaceship. Not true AI and nobody specifically told it not to use the crew for spare parts.
I giggle whenever I hear about companies firing very busy employees to save money. Like cutting off toes and thinking it'll make the company run faster. But I'm sure the algorithm suggested cutting labor costs as the last possible place to crush a little more profit out than last quarter.
Yo real quick for anyone reading this is the playback for a lot of modern corporations.
If you ever wonder "why does the most productive workforce in the history of mankind own so little of the wealth they created?"
It starts with the market theory of labor value that dictates the value of your wages not the value your labor adds but what people with money are willing to pay for it. Which might work in an actual free market but doesn't work in reality due to cartels and class solidarity among the landlord class.
Largely correct yes. That's also why the companies who do it subcontract almost everything and never keep more cars on hand than is needed for payroll and that month's expenses. Everything else gets rolled out where it's shielded.
Companies should have to exist to get a history to be insured to allowed to work. Sure let a brand new one get insured but they pay higher rates.
It would be like a person constantly declaring bankruptcy and not effecting their credit.
You know that LLCs aren’t impervious to being pierced though right ? It just takes someone motivated and well funded and a good lawyer. Also the money doesn’t just evaporate. Creditors are going to want to be paid and if there’s enough money on the table they might take a closer look at these LLCs. . Bankruptcy is fine but the next time they try to get a construction loan, who will lend to them??
LLC protection can be pierced but it requires pretty deliberate malfeasance. Mixing personal funds with business, being obviously undercapitalized, or having an owner willfully break the law will do the job but simple negligence resulting in bankruptcy probably won’t. If you could convince a court that building on the wrong lot represented gross negligence(a pretty reasonable stance) and the owner(s) of the company were either were directly responsible for or failed to reasonably supervise the employee who skipped a survey you might pierce the corporate veil but if it was an employee and the owners normally take a hands off approach to their management I suspect the courts would let the LLC protection stand.
Alternatively, if the whole situation could be traced to the owners action they could be sued individually in addition to as part of the LLC which bypasses the question of the LLCs ability to pay any judgements.
A lot of people think this is how LLCs work.
Like lenders, landlords, and other creditors don't know this one.
Personal guarantees are a thing. I've had to sign them, and have had them signed...
Yes but your llc and your personal social are connected. If your llc files for bankruptcy it is absolutely tied to your social. Im sure theres rich people process to make this impossible. Shel companies. Estates. Ponzis. Whatever. But rest assured the IRS and the gov on the state and federal level absolutely know if you opened an LLC and owe money or filed for bankruptcy.
That's exactly what they do.
The developer has like 10 office employees, maybe a crew or two of framers and that's it. They keep just enough on hand in assets to cover payroll. If they have to pay anything out, everyone just gets hired at the new company and they pay a couple grand in the few pieces of equipment they use.
Company is still on the hook for demo and cleanup. It is possible the judge can seize asset of the old company if they declare bankruptcy and "sell" equipment and supplies to a new LLC company for $1. If the judge is quick enough, the new company will have no construction equipment to use.
It’s great you think that but that rarely happens. I’ve seen this play out so many times on the insurance side of things. One specific instance was a builder, a large national builder, did a whole neighborhood in Texas. They didn’t use the proper strapping and a tornado came through. Devastating damage all around. They immediately declared bankruptcy and moved their assets over. We went after them in courts for like two years and didn’t see a penny
I’ve seen this happen so many times in our subro department. If we can’t chase the money down, I doubt she will.
Also most of these builders are just on paper and sub out the work to other companies. So the main builder might not even have many assets at all. They have the system rigged.
> It is possible the judge can seize asset of the old company if they declare bankruptcy and "sell" equipment and supplies to a new LLC company for $1.
They could, but these companies have very little as far as assets to begin with.
Sure they can seize a few laptops and phones and shit but outside of that almost nothing is actually owned by the company. They generally lease their building (often from an umbrella LLC owned by the actual owners). The tools their few actual construction workers use? Primarily owned by the indvidual workers outside of a couple of job site miter saws / table saws and maybe a generator or air compressor. Their biggest assests are their trucks and trailers. The trucks are often on a lease.
A judge can seize it, but there's basically nothing significant there. The land that they are planning to develop is owned by a separate legal entity and sold to them as they build each house.
These places just fold up, let them take what little there is to take and just hire everyone under a new business that takes a lease in the exact same office and they just buy a couple grand worth of new stuff.
> 100% just going to declare bankruptcy and fold their assets into another company with a different name and open right back up without the debt.
Unless they kept their assets separated from the very very beginning, this is very illegal, and an easy one to prove, open and shut case. Though if the company knows what they’re doing, they definitely would’ve kept things separated from the start, it’s the standard thing to do for all developers.
In that case you start going after individuals’ professional licenses.
Surveyors, contractors, engineers, and architects are all required to possess professional licenses to perform those services - but can lose their individual licenses in cases like these.
Loss of a license is a massive deal because you can end up being barred from ever possessing one again by your state’s professional licensing board.
It happens time and time again. The "company" is never real on anything but paper. They get an LLC they hire the subcontractors on their own LLC. Whoever is liable folds whenever something happens and they get new papers and do it all again.
I've seen it happen personally multiple times.
Like I said, if they keep the LLC separate from the beginning like they usually do, yea the only assets at risk is the property itself, but you implied they can move assets out of the LLC at the sign of trouble, that is illegal, and if you see someone do that you can sue them for the transferred assets, it’ll be an open and shut case
Typically the way I’ve seen it in our subro departments is that the little bit of assets they have are liquidated to pay back debt. And by liquidated it’s sold for pennies on the dollar to another LLC. Bankruptcy debt has a very specific order so it goes to paying off specific debts first. Which is usually not the person that deserves it
> liquidated it’s sold for pennies on the dollar to another LLC. Bankruptcy debt has a very specific order so it goes to paying off specific debts first. Which is usually not the person that deserves it
Bankruptcy judges oversee how the assets are sold and who gets the money, typically secured creditors get paid back before unsecured ones. But, there’s always an element of negotiation and bankruptcy judges ensure that whatever assets that are sold are split fairly. It’s not all the one sided unfair split you seem to imply it is
Many companies will have a bond instead of insurance. But even if they do have insurance, the insurance will have a payout limit. A mistake of this magnitude may well be over the bond/maximum.
She doesn't want it there. She could have easily negotiated that, but then she would be left with a house she doesn't like that spoils the feel of the land and prevents her from using the property for what she bought it for.
There’s something called piercing the corporate veil. Corporations need to be made in good faith. And creating another corporation to circumvent a debt can be viewed negatively by a judge.
Once the corporate veil is pierced, you can claim damages from the operating parties personal assets
It's not like bankruptcy is automatic, you actually have to be... you know, bankrupt. A $500k debt that they'll share with any subs they can push blame on isn't likely to qualify even most small developers.
Being that the judge ruled the building illegal since they didn't have a permit for that lot, I doubt they could hide behind the LLC, and will instead be personally liable.
What would be an appropriate solution to this problem? Putting restrictions on people being able to create another LLC if they one that failed due to bankruptcy?
>But the judge rejected a request that the land be restored to its original condition.
That's fucked. They company should 100% be on the hook for restoring what they took from her.
This is me guessing, but it could have something to do with “old growth” forests. If the vegetation was there long enough, then it would be old growth and even replacing it with the same species of plants in the same amounts wouldn’t restore the destroyed ecosystem.
100% this. This area is literally a rainforest. When they develop these lots like this developer did they bulldoze the jungle then level the lava bedrock a few inches under the soil then add 5 feet of boulders/rock to level the property.
They build a house on a level empty rockbed. The jungle can never be restored in a human lifetime to become the raw, native jungle with the same shape to the landscape, native plants, etc.
Instead it will just be another flat, level, empty lot of gravel that slowly falls with long razorgrass
Great guess, that's exactly why. The property is in Hawaiian Paradise Park on the Big Island. I used to own 1 of those lots for a future retirement place and noped out and sold it when volcanic activity from Kilauea picked up around a few years ago and cut off the nearest town by road, 3 miles away. Most of not all of the thousands of lots require stripping and grading prior to building.
Owner can still sue for replacement tree to match the picture she had from before covid. r/treelaw has some posts about illegally removed tree, some which can cost a $ number with 5 or 6 digits long zero's.
If it's old growth, it's probably large and going to be very expensive. I found an example of moving one old tree costing $300,000: https://www.houmatoday.com/story/news/2011/02/23/la-taxpayers-to-spend-300000-to-move-a-150-year-old-oak-to-make-way-for-road/26962939007/ multiply that by a few tree and on top of that, buying the live, similar aged tree from other land to move it. A few million dollars is what I could see if the land owner does sue to restore the land, including replacement tree.
The land was bulldozed and the old growth plants destroyed, along with whatever animals living in them. The owner wants all that back. The builder also doesn’t want to remove the foundation and the water cachement system under the house. These things are $$$ to remedy. https://www.businessinsider.com/woman-gets-sued-after-developer-builds-home-on-her-property-2024-4?op=1
Obviously they didn't ask for the old growth, erc to be back to its orginianl state. Be realistic here. It's the whole not removing the the foundation thing for instance that becomes the problem. It can be put back into its ordinal state WITHIN REASON. Obviously no living thing can ever be restored after it was killed. That's not what's I'm question here...
An article was linked in the above article, and it has the following:
> It all started in 2018, when Annaleine “Anne” Reynolds thought she’d found the perfect, serene parcel in Paradise Park to host her meditative healing women’s retreats.
>“There’s a sacredness to it and the one that I chose to buy had all the right qualities,” she said.
Pretty self explanatory then. Whatever was on the property that gave it those qualities is no longer there, nor is it physically possible to replace.
So maybe a small forest, an animal habitat, etc.
I don't know for certain, but typically you have to grade the land before putting in a foundation. I'm not sure it is possible to return the land to its original state.
You cannot really de-grade back to the original contour of the land, especially if it has specific soil/ rock compositions.
The exact trees, the exact plants (even if known) can't be put back. So now that you can't do that, restoration becomes a game of "close enough". Now you need to decide what close enough is, which is a lot harder to determine than the items the order is addressing right now. Since it's more questionable, the court is delaying any decisions on that for a trial which will be later.
Because it's incredibly difficult to restore nature to its original state even tire tracks would be considered damages so some naturalist or arborist or landscaper will have to go estimate the costs to restore it as best as possible to its original state then she can sue for that estimation of cost
There’s a term that was coined in the 1980’s in the PNW called “chainsaw justice”. Logging companies would send loggers into the forest to cut down old growth stands before judgements could be made in cases against them brought by environmental activists.
Many judges saw this illegal activity but it was impossible to restore the land to its true original condition, so cases were thrown out. Prosecutors only choice were to seek remedial damages that equated to the direct cost of the lumber sold.
In this case, the damages would be the difference in the value of the land before and after the removal of the home and the alteration of the ecosystem.
So in western New York similar things happen with people being caught harvesting black walnut trees off of private property.
These trees grow slow and the tree harvested could be over 100 years old. So when these people are caught its impossible for them to restore the damage they did, they just have to pay a massive fine in damages instead.
I imagine something similar is happening here.
If I damage my car, my insurance is supposed to cover whatever it costs to restore it to its original state before the accident. That doesn't mean if I get a quarter panel crushed that I expect them to take the crushed quarter panel and somehow bring it back to its original shape. But I do expect them to replace it back to its original form as much as it is possible. So even know it's a totally different and new quarter panel, it's still in its original state. Same thing can be done here.
They graded the land. Returning it to original condition would require them to “unlevel” the land again and restore all the vegetation and any wildlife that may have been there.
Yeah, not possible. I live down the road from here. Original lot was original growth forest. Native trees and bushes. It is literally a rainforest that had been building up on its own for ages.
Developers come in and bulldoze lots, then add 5+ feet of rock to make a foundation for the whole lot. Build a house, add some sod if you are lucky or leave it rock and sell it.
Assuming developer left it rock foundation the property is totally changed. The original shape of the land is gone, bulldozed, boulders and rock added 5 foot deep and leveled. That forest isn't coming back, nor is the shape of the property. Now it will just be a flattened, empty lot.
My property is 7 years of planting and growth and it is beautiful, but it is a landscaped beauty. Not the same as the tranquil jungle beauty the lot would have previously had.
> It is literally a rainforest that had been building up on its own for ages.
I use to live in a lush area off 37th in Orchidland. One day while breaking up rock with my trusty o'o bar, Haha, it looks pretty scrubby to me. What's the cross street? I used to live in Orchidland. One time while disassembling rock, I found charcoal embedded in the rock. It was a tree limb that had been englufed in lI found charcoal that was a tree limb that was embedded in the flowing lava. I called the volcano observatory, and they sent a guy to collect samples. This enabled them to carbon date the lava flow for the first time. Funny thing, right after finding this, Mt. St. Helen's went off, and my sample got pushed way back, and it took a couple years for them to get to it.
Hell, you ought to write real estate copy. You call it rain forest ages old, I call it scrubby flatland.
The law treats land and plots of land as unique, this goes back centuries in terms of precedent. Because they scrapped the lot, it’s been considered destroyed under the law, and its uniqueness cannot be restored. They’re setting a pretrial conference to determine damages due to the defendant (original homeowner). Her land cannot be made whole, now a jury will have to decide how much that’s worth.
Who's on the hook for the newly assessed property values with the county? I remember this all started when the owner got a notice their "undeveloped" was suddenly being taxed at a rate indicative of it being fully developed.
Does the rate go back to being an undeveloped lot as part of this ruling?
It would have to, if the house was demolished. But she'd probably have to apply, or protest her next assessment. But hey, a court order for demolition, are you going to argue with the judge?
Source: I have dealt with the county tax office in person many times. They even called the cops on me once. The cop just laughed.
There is actually another court case now to determine damages since it is impossible to return the property to its original condition.
Here is a lawyer [explaining ](https://youtu.be/Ntxd2jsszi0?si=jJwuhH8uz4EML8OP) the case so far.
It's not physically possible to restore it to its original condition. He rejected the motion on the grounds that it can't be done, not because she doesn't deserve it.
Yeah, what are they going to do now, take a wrecking ball to it and just leaving the shambles in place for her to deal with? They should be on the hook for $xxxxx in cleanup and removal of garbage.
She has to submit 3 companies to do the demolition. I'd presume she'll ask them to include removal of all debris. The court is going to choose the company based on the proposals, and it is being changed to the people that sued her. After that she can follow up with a lawsuit for the monetary damages to the property.
There were extenuating circumstances. The defense argued that she swapped the house numbers on the construction permits. I pulled them myself just last month and I know she swapped those numbers. I knew it was 1216. One after Magna Carta. As if anyone could ever make such a mistake. Never.
It's honestly easier, cheaper and safer to just demolish and rebuild, no matter how wasteful it is. They'll knock down entire new homes after realizing they are built a few feet too close to the property line.
Also the house had squatters for a bit, and no one has shared the picture of the house's interior. Were the house all ripped up, all copper pipes and wires stolen, etc? Or in pristine condition?
IIRC, the original issue was that the construction company wanted her to pay for the house. At this point, it seems like it would be cheaper to just give her the house. Are land prices so high that a free house is irrelevant?
She doesn't want the house, the house is causing higher property taxes, and the house currently is housing squatters. Easier to knock it down and build the house she actually wants.
IIRC, whoever did the markings for the plots messed up. Housing company turned around and asked the lady to accept another house on a different plot (housing company sold the land and house to another person). Lady refused and told them to remove the house and restore the land and leave her alone.
Housing company sues the construction company and the lady and claims they were defrauded and tried to make things right.
It's ALOT cheaper for the Housing company to write off the house and walk away. But being the greedy a$$holes, they want to do things as cheap as possible.
But yes in Hawaii you buy the land, not the house
She bought the land for ["about $22,500 at an auction back in 2018."](https://finance.yahoo.com/news/hawaii-property-owner-left-stunned-095700264.html)
Getting a good plot of land at a reasonable price is more important than the house that stands on it. If the land is great but the house is bad, people will renovate or demolish/rebuild.
She bought the land for ["about $22,500 at an auction back in 2018."](https://finance.yahoo.com/news/hawaii-property-owner-left-stunned-095700264.html)
Fun fact: During the 70s, this area -- the Puna District of Hawaii County, State of Hawaii, USA, was the most productive marijuana growing area in the US. During a DEA coordinated national sweep of illegal outdoor growing operations, the Puna district yielded more seized weed than the state of Missouri, the #2 most productive state, after Hawaii. It's almost a certainty that someone at least considered growing weed on that land at one time. Most of it was grown in plastic bags, hidden in the bushes. The population of the area was only a fraction of what it is today, but the pot industry most definitely changed the Puna district forever, and was the beginning of the insane growth it's suffered since then. People ask me if I ever want to go back, the answer is no, it's not there anymore.
But then again, a lot more people are enjoying life there, than before, and that's a happy thing. Puna is something of a last resort for the local people who don't have a lot of money, or great family connections, but want a piece of land, to grow on, rather than live in some chicken coop apartment in town. That's not the Hawaiian way. Puna is the last affordable land in Hawaii.
Unfortunately, Puna has become way too crowded these days to disappear easily. The federal witness protection program has moved down to Ka'u / South Point - makes life safer if somewhat less interesting.
It’s probably been set already, but my opinion, the developer knew exactly what he was doing. The lot they built on was more desirable and they thought they just could screw over the owner.
In reality it's because they expected the telephone poles to be accurate plot markets and decided to not use a real survey based on benchmarks/landmarks or whatever their called.
She should have owned the house outright and had the option to sell it and buy another open plot that suited her needs. You can’t possibly restore a parcel after it’s built on, and someone who builds on the wrong lot has zero right to anything whatsoever.
The house is screwing over her property taxes right now. What she likely wants is the property restored completely to before the demo and construction, but the court knows this isn't possible. Forcing the house demo alleviates the property tax issue while the owner of the property seeks compensation which would be equivalent to restoring the original plot, so that they can attempt to acquire a new plot of land with similar properties as the first, since there is no way the plot can physically be restored to its original appearance.
Unless the builder is a very well established company though, which probably is unlikely considering they built on the wrong lot, then the odds of getting any real compensation from them are very low. Not a good situation and not a good solution imo, ultimately there is no good fix, but taking over the home and selling the whole thing would have been her best chance at being made whole as she’d have had enough money to hopefully buy another piece of land in a better area.
I hope she does get proper compensation from the builder but I wouldn’t hold my breath.
Real estate isn't fungible. Each property is individual, and you can't just replace it with one 'equivalent' in value. The property owner didn't want something 'in a better area'. She wanted the property she bought, in the condition she bought it.
Its not the property owners fault at all. The construction company goofed and the county goofed, too bad so sad. If i was the judge I would be telling that property owner congratulations you are the proud owner of a half mil home for free, and im locking your county taxes in at what you paid for the lot.
I hope the person, can get some fair and just compensation, before this company declares bankruptcy, in order to fulfill its obligations. There should be laws that pertain to companies and people who use bankruptcy to shield themselves from court ordered damages.
[https://apnews.com/article/hawaii-house-wrong-lot-legal-fight-b3681c1ab06cb8efdf31dea40bc56a56](https://apnews.com/article/hawaii-house-wrong-lot-legal-fight-b3681c1ab06cb8efdf31dea40bc56a56)
[https://www.boredpanda.com/annaleine-reynolds-discovers-house-built-on-her-land-hawaii-paradise-park/](https://www.boredpanda.com/annaleine-reynolds-discovers-house-built-on-her-land-hawaii-paradise-park/)
[https://www.mercurynews.com/2024/06/27/hawaii-court-orders-deconstruction-of-house-built-on-wrong-lot/](https://www.mercurynews.com/2024/06/27/hawaii-court-orders-deconstruction-of-house-built-on-wrong-lot/)
Basically it's cheaper for them to destroy that one instead of moving it to the proper lot, because of where the lots are placed from the sounds of it. They were all underdeveloped and apparently the person developing the land 'counted telephone poles' instead of going through the proper procedure of getting a survey. I've seen a few videos on this including when the developer started suing her and a bunch of other folks involved in the actual construction, mostly from the same lawyer breaking down the basic information. The value of the property taxes went up around 10 times the amount yearly after the house was built, and she only learned about it after a person saying he sold the house called her. The house also apparently attracted squatters, according to one of the neighbors.
Stick framed houses aren't the easiest to move due to everything within the house fully relying on the foundation not only for support but for structure, and if the construction company was already cutting corners by not getting a proper plat survey done, they 100% absolutely cut corners in the construction of that house. Plus after having squatters living in it and potentially ransacking the copper and other valuable building materials, it probably is just a complete loss
How are developers this stupid? They tear down the wrong house, tear up the wrong lot. Inspection videos of 500k+ new builds are highlight the shotty work they produce. Anyone involved shouldn’t be allowed to work construction anymore.
The really frustrating part here is that the courts going to correctly have it demolished and allow her to pursue damages against the company but the company is 100% just going to declare bankruptcy and fold their assets into another company with a different name and open right back up without the debt. It's such a common tactic with developers and contractors.
And that's why every build is done by an LLC that only exists for that build.
This is a “smart” tactic by a company and completely legal. But shouldn’t be. My dad was a coal miner in the 70’s and 80’s and it was a boom and bust industry and they did the same shit. They would lease the mining rights from a land company. Set up the mine and hire employees under a company name. Then lease the equipment from another company. They’d mine until the market crashed or the seam of coal petered out, then walk in one day and lay off all the miners and file bankruptcy. The state would try to go after the company and sue for reclamation for abandoning the mine, but they only existed on paper. All of the profits went to the equipment company and the land company, which were the same company, and the one that filed bankruptcy didn’t own anything. Then rinse and repeat.
And then guess who's on the hook when their mess becomes a problem for everyone else. Socialize the costs, privatize the profits.
Actually they started a fund that was paid into by the companies to cover reclamation projects. It also covered reclamation before there were laws around this stuff. Granted, that tax was ultimately paid by the consumer, but it was tied directly to an excise tax on coal.
Yes, but those funds require companies to only pay a percentage of forecasted reclamation costs based on a risk matrix. If every company has the same practice, then that fund can only cover a percentage of the total costs. The “logic” is that not every company will go bankrupt. The remainder of cost does come from taxes.
In Alberta Canada, companies are legally obligated to remediate their oil wells after decommissioning them. So instead, they just sell off their old wells and some shitty shell company buys them all up and then goes bankrupt. That’s just the tip of the iceberg, the corruption in this province runs so deep.
The state here eventually caught on and required huge bonds for reclamation before they’d issue permits. If a company goes out of business, the bond paid for the reclamation.
In Alberta, they don’t want to catch on and people vote for the corruption because it supports the industry that pays so many.
Yup America has the same laws on the books due to clean water and air. So what coal companies will do is open up independent shell companies that will do all the mining and "washing" of coal. They'll strip mine mountains and have above ground "holding ponds" that will hold all the chemical baths needed to burn coal with less containments and then when it comes to cleaning up the ponds and replanting the mountain side, the shell company declare bankruptcy and the original owner of the coal company walks away wealthier.
And thats why energy produced by coal is only 50% more expensive despite than renewables despite needing waay more inftastructure and labour. If they had to accout for all the site cleanup and mine reclamation like nuclear does it would actually be more expensive, despite the waste processing and site cleanup being less involved than nuclear waste.
I used to work for a mining company that owned a lead-zinc mine in Queensland, Australia. I worked on winding up operations for that mine when it was depleted. I was in the elevator one day at work and the CEO and COO got on and the CEO said, quote, "this mine is going to cost us more money to rehabilitate than we ever took out of it". Lo and behold two months later the mine was sold to another company that was going to "explore further opportunities to reprocess the tailings and enhance reclamation from the remaining low-level ore". It never did anything of the sort, of course.
they need to ask for personal guarantees
I've often heard people say that Canada isn't actually a progressive nation the way Americans think it is, it's just an oil company with a good health plan.
why wouldn't the government require a bond prior to the commencement of construction? That's what they do in the US
The US does require it, but that bond is often just a small fraction of the enormous cost of remediating the site.
This is why in my state they now need a huge reclamation bond before any mining is permitted. Sees like shitty red tape, but it's because the previous miners were shitty.
And yet student loan debt can’t be discharged by bankruptcy, because of “reasons”.
Corporations are people too, except when they aren’t.
The entire concept of an LLC should not be legal. People should be responsible for their actions and shouldn’t be able to abandon their debts and obligations as if their LLC is more than a piece of paper.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. The legal fiction that a corporation is a person is absurd. A corporation is a tool, guided by the hands that wield it. If a corporation is responsible for environmental destruction, deaths and dismemberments, etc, there damn well were people along the way that made those decisions. Using an LLC to duck responsibility is a far cry from the way you or I would use one. If I were to use an LLC to start a business, it would be to shield myself from ruin and homelessness, not mere inconvenience.
LLCs should only be allowed for small businesses - like cottage food or other home run businesses under a certain income threshold. Everything else, nope.
How is a holding company for my Global 6000 jet, not a small business? If you consider it, it generates no income and loses the cost of operating a super-heavy class private jet. It's losing money, so it's worse off than many small businesses.
This is why we shouldn't have AI yet. It has the exact same problem. If something benefits it, it'll do it over and over and over with no care in the world as long as it's the best option and you don't specifically tell it not to. Even if there is a downside, it's a numbers game then whether it still comes out positive. There have to be clear rules, like the "don't tell them how to cook drugs" update to chatgpt. This isn't like a chatgpt thing, most "AI" works on a system similar enough to this that they have the same issues. It's also just like training an animal. If there isn't a consequence for something every time, they keep doing it. My cat doesn't know how I know when he's on the counter, but he knows I will know and I'll be there with my spray bottle. Good thing she doesn't know what a security camera is.
This is the part people don't get, and it happens without AI. We did this with the rules about dress code in high school until we were wearing our robes to school cause there was no rule saying we couldn't do it, which happened after we graduated.
Don’t worry, what we have now isn’t real AI.
But that's the problem. Complex algorithms get to make all kinds of decisions in human society these days, programs giving suggestions or used as screening tools. But not smart enough to really understand what they're doing. Like that episode of Doctor Who with the self repairing spaceship. Not true AI and nobody specifically told it not to use the crew for spare parts. I giggle whenever I hear about companies firing very busy employees to save money. Like cutting off toes and thinking it'll make the company run faster. But I'm sure the algorithm suggested cutting labor costs as the last possible place to crush a little more profit out than last quarter.
Yo real quick for anyone reading this is the playback for a lot of modern corporations. If you ever wonder "why does the most productive workforce in the history of mankind own so little of the wealth they created?" It starts with the market theory of labor value that dictates the value of your wages not the value your labor adds but what people with money are willing to pay for it. Which might work in an actual free market but doesn't work in reality due to cartels and class solidarity among the landlord class.
Largely correct yes. That's also why the companies who do it subcontract almost everything and never keep more cars on hand than is needed for payroll and that month's expenses. Everything else gets rolled out where it's shielded.
>and never keep more cars on hand than is needed for payroll I would love to work for a company that pays me in cars each month.
Companies should have to exist to get a history to be insured to allowed to work. Sure let a brand new one get insured but they pay higher rates. It would be like a person constantly declaring bankruptcy and not effecting their credit.
You know that LLCs aren’t impervious to being pierced though right ? It just takes someone motivated and well funded and a good lawyer. Also the money doesn’t just evaporate. Creditors are going to want to be paid and if there’s enough money on the table they might take a closer look at these LLCs. . Bankruptcy is fine but the next time they try to get a construction loan, who will lend to them??
LLC protection can be pierced but it requires pretty deliberate malfeasance. Mixing personal funds with business, being obviously undercapitalized, or having an owner willfully break the law will do the job but simple negligence resulting in bankruptcy probably won’t. If you could convince a court that building on the wrong lot represented gross negligence(a pretty reasonable stance) and the owner(s) of the company were either were directly responsible for or failed to reasonably supervise the employee who skipped a survey you might pierce the corporate veil but if it was an employee and the owners normally take a hands off approach to their management I suspect the courts would let the LLC protection stand. Alternatively, if the whole situation could be traced to the owners action they could be sued individually in addition to as part of the LLC which bypasses the question of the LLCs ability to pay any judgements.
> being obviously undercapitalized Usually this right there for those shells.
A lot of people think this is how LLCs work. Like lenders, landlords, and other creditors don't know this one. Personal guarantees are a thing. I've had to sign them, and have had them signed...
Company I work for would not sign personal guarantees (that being against the purpose of an LLC to begin with) and it was never a problem
What about the persons social security number and their credit score? Isnt it impossible to avoid those negative consequences?
The LLC gets it's own Tax ID, the whole point is to prevent negative consequences.
Yes but your llc and your personal social are connected. If your llc files for bankruptcy it is absolutely tied to your social. Im sure theres rich people process to make this impossible. Shel companies. Estates. Ponzis. Whatever. But rest assured the IRS and the gov on the state and federal level absolutely know if you opened an LLC and owe money or filed for bankruptcy.
They probably sub everything out and don’t even have assets. Just to make that filing bankruptcy that much easier.
That's exactly what they do. The developer has like 10 office employees, maybe a crew or two of framers and that's it. They keep just enough on hand in assets to cover payroll. If they have to pay anything out, everyone just gets hired at the new company and they pay a couple grand in the few pieces of equipment they use.
Company is still on the hook for demo and cleanup. It is possible the judge can seize asset of the old company if they declare bankruptcy and "sell" equipment and supplies to a new LLC company for $1. If the judge is quick enough, the new company will have no construction equipment to use.
It’s great you think that but that rarely happens. I’ve seen this play out so many times on the insurance side of things. One specific instance was a builder, a large national builder, did a whole neighborhood in Texas. They didn’t use the proper strapping and a tornado came through. Devastating damage all around. They immediately declared bankruptcy and moved their assets over. We went after them in courts for like two years and didn’t see a penny I’ve seen this happen so many times in our subro department. If we can’t chase the money down, I doubt she will. Also most of these builders are just on paper and sub out the work to other companies. So the main builder might not even have many assets at all. They have the system rigged.
I think many see "rigged" and think "conspiracy " when it's just plain old class solidarity.
> It is possible the judge can seize asset of the old company if they declare bankruptcy and "sell" equipment and supplies to a new LLC company for $1. They could, but these companies have very little as far as assets to begin with. Sure they can seize a few laptops and phones and shit but outside of that almost nothing is actually owned by the company. They generally lease their building (often from an umbrella LLC owned by the actual owners). The tools their few actual construction workers use? Primarily owned by the indvidual workers outside of a couple of job site miter saws / table saws and maybe a generator or air compressor. Their biggest assests are their trucks and trailers. The trucks are often on a lease. A judge can seize it, but there's basically nothing significant there. The land that they are planning to develop is owned by a separate legal entity and sold to them as they build each house. These places just fold up, let them take what little there is to take and just hire everyone under a new business that takes a lease in the exact same office and they just buy a couple grand worth of new stuff.
LLC's don't usually protect against judgements for things that are ruled to be intentionally negligent, harmful, reckless, or illegal.
Creed Bratton has never declared bankruptcy. When Creed Bratton gets in trouble, he transfers his debt to William Charles Schneider.
> 100% just going to declare bankruptcy and fold their assets into another company with a different name and open right back up without the debt. Unless they kept their assets separated from the very very beginning, this is very illegal, and an easy one to prove, open and shut case. Though if the company knows what they’re doing, they definitely would’ve kept things separated from the start, it’s the standard thing to do for all developers.
In that case you start going after individuals’ professional licenses. Surveyors, contractors, engineers, and architects are all required to possess professional licenses to perform those services - but can lose their individual licenses in cases like these. Loss of a license is a massive deal because you can end up being barred from ever possessing one again by your state’s professional licensing board.
It happens time and time again. The "company" is never real on anything but paper. They get an LLC they hire the subcontractors on their own LLC. Whoever is liable folds whenever something happens and they get new papers and do it all again. I've seen it happen personally multiple times.
Like I said, if they keep the LLC separate from the beginning like they usually do, yea the only assets at risk is the property itself, but you implied they can move assets out of the LLC at the sign of trouble, that is illegal, and if you see someone do that you can sue them for the transferred assets, it’ll be an open and shut case
Typically the way I’ve seen it in our subro departments is that the little bit of assets they have are liquidated to pay back debt. And by liquidated it’s sold for pennies on the dollar to another LLC. Bankruptcy debt has a very specific order so it goes to paying off specific debts first. Which is usually not the person that deserves it
> liquidated it’s sold for pennies on the dollar to another LLC. Bankruptcy debt has a very specific order so it goes to paying off specific debts first. Which is usually not the person that deserves it Bankruptcy judges oversee how the assets are sold and who gets the money, typically secured creditors get paid back before unsecured ones. But, there’s always an element of negotiation and bankruptcy judges ensure that whatever assets that are sold are split fairly. It’s not all the one sided unfair split you seem to imply it is
Curious is the company would typically have insurance to cover for this type of situation?
Many companies will have a bond instead of insurance. But even if they do have insurance, the insurance will have a payout limit. A mistake of this magnitude may well be over the bond/maximum.
I wonder if she could then negotiate them leaving the structure on site as is?
She doesn't want it there. She could have easily negotiated that, but then she would be left with a house she doesn't like that spoils the feel of the land and prevents her from using the property for what she bought it for.
There has to be an insurance claim here that will remedy this. Errors and Ommissions? Do we have any insurance people on here?
There’s something called piercing the corporate veil. Corporations need to be made in good faith. And creating another corporation to circumvent a debt can be viewed negatively by a judge. Once the corporate veil is pierced, you can claim damages from the operating parties personal assets
Declare bankruptcy and fold their assets into another company. This is a loophole that should have been closed a long time ago
It's not like bankruptcy is automatic, you actually have to be... you know, bankrupt. A $500k debt that they'll share with any subs they can push blame on isn't likely to qualify even most small developers.
Being that the judge ruled the building illegal since they didn't have a permit for that lot, I doubt they could hide behind the LLC, and will instead be personally liable.
Courts go hard after people in debt but these companies get off easy.
What would be an appropriate solution to this problem? Putting restrictions on people being able to create another LLC if they one that failed due to bankruptcy?
>But the judge rejected a request that the land be restored to its original condition. That's fucked. They company should 100% be on the hook for restoring what they took from her.
As others said, it's not physically possible to return to as original. The land owner is allowed to sue for those damages though.
What the hell does this even mean lmao. The article mentions it but doesn't explain why. What makes it physically impossible?
This is me guessing, but it could have something to do with “old growth” forests. If the vegetation was there long enough, then it would be old growth and even replacing it with the same species of plants in the same amounts wouldn’t restore the destroyed ecosystem.
100% this. This area is literally a rainforest. When they develop these lots like this developer did they bulldoze the jungle then level the lava bedrock a few inches under the soil then add 5 feet of boulders/rock to level the property. They build a house on a level empty rockbed. The jungle can never be restored in a human lifetime to become the raw, native jungle with the same shape to the landscape, native plants, etc. Instead it will just be another flat, level, empty lot of gravel that slowly falls with long razorgrass
Great guess, that's exactly why. The property is in Hawaiian Paradise Park on the Big Island. I used to own 1 of those lots for a future retirement place and noped out and sold it when volcanic activity from Kilauea picked up around a few years ago and cut off the nearest town by road, 3 miles away. Most of not all of the thousands of lots require stripping and grading prior to building.
Owner can still sue for replacement tree to match the picture she had from before covid. r/treelaw has some posts about illegally removed tree, some which can cost a $ number with 5 or 6 digits long zero's. If it's old growth, it's probably large and going to be very expensive. I found an example of moving one old tree costing $300,000: https://www.houmatoday.com/story/news/2011/02/23/la-taxpayers-to-spend-300000-to-move-a-150-year-old-oak-to-make-way-for-road/26962939007/ multiply that by a few tree and on top of that, buying the live, similar aged tree from other land to move it. A few million dollars is what I could see if the land owner does sue to restore the land, including replacement tree.
*archaic hymnal* tree law tree law tree law
The land was bulldozed and the old growth plants destroyed, along with whatever animals living in them. The owner wants all that back. The builder also doesn’t want to remove the foundation and the water cachement system under the house. These things are $$$ to remedy. https://www.businessinsider.com/woman-gets-sued-after-developer-builds-home-on-her-property-2024-4?op=1
Probably stole the topsoil they removed for the foundation too.
Obviously they didn't ask for the old growth, erc to be back to its orginianl state. Be realistic here. It's the whole not removing the the foundation thing for instance that becomes the problem. It can be put back into its ordinal state WITHIN REASON. Obviously no living thing can ever be restored after it was killed. That's not what's I'm question here...
“Now she's fighting in court to maintain possession of her land and to have the house that sits on it removed and the flora and fauna restored.”
Yes, replant what was there. Absolutely.
An article was linked in the above article, and it has the following: > It all started in 2018, when Annaleine “Anne” Reynolds thought she’d found the perfect, serene parcel in Paradise Park to host her meditative healing women’s retreats. >“There’s a sacredness to it and the one that I chose to buy had all the right qualities,” she said. Pretty self explanatory then. Whatever was on the property that gave it those qualities is no longer there, nor is it physically possible to replace. So maybe a small forest, an animal habitat, etc.
I don't know for certain, but typically you have to grade the land before putting in a foundation. I'm not sure it is possible to return the land to its original state. You cannot really de-grade back to the original contour of the land, especially if it has specific soil/ rock compositions.
The exact trees, the exact plants (even if known) can't be put back. So now that you can't do that, restoration becomes a game of "close enough". Now you need to decide what close enough is, which is a lot harder to determine than the items the order is addressing right now. Since it's more questionable, the court is delaying any decisions on that for a trial which will be later.
Its very difficult to transplant full grown threes and vegetation. They have to plant new trees which takes years to grow.
Because it's incredibly difficult to restore nature to its original state even tire tracks would be considered damages so some naturalist or arborist or landscaper will have to go estimate the costs to restore it as best as possible to its original state then she can sue for that estimation of cost
There’s a term that was coined in the 1980’s in the PNW called “chainsaw justice”. Logging companies would send loggers into the forest to cut down old growth stands before judgements could be made in cases against them brought by environmental activists. Many judges saw this illegal activity but it was impossible to restore the land to its true original condition, so cases were thrown out. Prosecutors only choice were to seek remedial damages that equated to the direct cost of the lumber sold. In this case, the damages would be the difference in the value of the land before and after the removal of the home and the alteration of the ecosystem.
So in western New York similar things happen with people being caught harvesting black walnut trees off of private property. These trees grow slow and the tree harvested could be over 100 years old. So when these people are caught its impossible for them to restore the damage they did, they just have to pay a massive fine in damages instead. I imagine something similar is happening here.
Obviously you can't make 100 year old trees grow right back but you can replant them at the very lest and get the property back to its orginial shape.
If I damage my car, my insurance is supposed to cover whatever it costs to restore it to its original state before the accident. That doesn't mean if I get a quarter panel crushed that I expect them to take the crushed quarter panel and somehow bring it back to its original shape. But I do expect them to replace it back to its original form as much as it is possible. So even know it's a totally different and new quarter panel, it's still in its original state. Same thing can be done here.
Sort of a smart asset exaggeration but you can put every grain of dirt and blade of grass in places exactly as it was
They graded the land. Returning it to original condition would require them to “unlevel” the land again and restore all the vegetation and any wildlife that may have been there.
They clear cut and graded the lot flat, you can't make it like it never happened.
Yeah, not possible. I live down the road from here. Original lot was original growth forest. Native trees and bushes. It is literally a rainforest that had been building up on its own for ages. Developers come in and bulldoze lots, then add 5+ feet of rock to make a foundation for the whole lot. Build a house, add some sod if you are lucky or leave it rock and sell it. Assuming developer left it rock foundation the property is totally changed. The original shape of the land is gone, bulldozed, boulders and rock added 5 foot deep and leveled. That forest isn't coming back, nor is the shape of the property. Now it will just be a flattened, empty lot. My property is 7 years of planting and growth and it is beautiful, but it is a landscaped beauty. Not the same as the tranquil jungle beauty the lot would have previously had.
> It is literally a rainforest that had been building up on its own for ages. I use to live in a lush area off 37th in Orchidland. One day while breaking up rock with my trusty o'o bar, Haha, it looks pretty scrubby to me. What's the cross street? I used to live in Orchidland. One time while disassembling rock, I found charcoal embedded in the rock. It was a tree limb that had been englufed in lI found charcoal that was a tree limb that was embedded in the flowing lava. I called the volcano observatory, and they sent a guy to collect samples. This enabled them to carbon date the lava flow for the first time. Funny thing, right after finding this, Mt. St. Helen's went off, and my sample got pushed way back, and it took a couple years for them to get to it. Hell, you ought to write real estate copy. You call it rain forest ages old, I call it scrubby flatland.
The law treats land and plots of land as unique, this goes back centuries in terms of precedent. Because they scrapped the lot, it’s been considered destroyed under the law, and its uniqueness cannot be restored. They’re setting a pretrial conference to determine damages due to the defendant (original homeowner). Her land cannot be made whole, now a jury will have to decide how much that’s worth.
Who's on the hook for the newly assessed property values with the county? I remember this all started when the owner got a notice their "undeveloped" was suddenly being taxed at a rate indicative of it being fully developed. Does the rate go back to being an undeveloped lot as part of this ruling?
It would have to, if the house was demolished. But she'd probably have to apply, or protest her next assessment. But hey, a court order for demolition, are you going to argue with the judge? Source: I have dealt with the county tax office in person many times. They even called the cops on me once. The cop just laughed.
There is actually another court case now to determine damages since it is impossible to return the property to its original condition. Here is a lawyer [explaining ](https://youtu.be/Ntxd2jsszi0?si=jJwuhH8uz4EML8OP) the case so far.
It's not physically possible to restore it to its original condition. He rejected the motion on the grounds that it can't be done, not because she doesn't deserve it.
Should add, "to the the greatest extent feasible"
Yeah, what are they going to do now, take a wrecking ball to it and just leaving the shambles in place for her to deal with? They should be on the hook for $xxxxx in cleanup and removal of garbage.
She has to submit 3 companies to do the demolition. I'd presume she'll ask them to include removal of all debris. The court is going to choose the company based on the proposals, and it is being changed to the people that sued her. After that she can follow up with a lawsuit for the monetary damages to the property.
She’s allowed to file a follow up claim after the building is gone for all of that.
They should just have to do it in the first place, what's this noise??
There were extenuating circumstances. The defense argued that she swapped the house numbers on the construction permits. I pulled them myself just last month and I know she swapped those numbers. I knew it was 1216. One after Magna Carta. As if anyone could ever make such a mistake. Never.
For anyone who's lost and half-believed this comment... it's a reference to the TV show Better Call Saul.
Reach into the inside pocket of your jacket, Chuck.
This chicanery?? She’s done worse!
Sounds like another slipping Jimmy special.
Great reference
I remember this. The developer mistakenly built a house on that woman's lot, and then try to sue her for their own mistake.
The builder does have the option to remove the house to the proper lot.
It's honestly easier, cheaper and safer to just demolish and rebuild, no matter how wasteful it is. They'll knock down entire new homes after realizing they are built a few feet too close to the property line.
Also the house had squatters for a bit, and no one has shared the picture of the house's interior. Were the house all ripped up, all copper pipes and wires stolen, etc? Or in pristine condition?
The part where they skipped the survey should clue you in on how the rest of the build went. It's shoddy garbage.
IIRC, the original issue was that the construction company wanted her to pay for the house. At this point, it seems like it would be cheaper to just give her the house. Are land prices so high that a free house is irrelevant?
She doesn't want the house, the house is causing higher property taxes, and the house currently is housing squatters. Easier to knock it down and build the house she actually wants.
iirc she didn’t want the house and wants it demolished. She didn’t intend to build a normal home on the property
IIRC, whoever did the markings for the plots messed up. Housing company turned around and asked the lady to accept another house on a different plot (housing company sold the land and house to another person). Lady refused and told them to remove the house and restore the land and leave her alone. Housing company sues the construction company and the lady and claims they were defrauded and tried to make things right. It's ALOT cheaper for the Housing company to write off the house and walk away. But being the greedy a$$holes, they want to do things as cheap as possible. But yes in Hawaii you buy the land, not the house
She bought the land for ["about $22,500 at an auction back in 2018."](https://finance.yahoo.com/news/hawaii-property-owner-left-stunned-095700264.html)
It’s “a lot”.
> But yes in Hawaii you buy the land, not the house What does that mean?
Getting a good plot of land at a reasonable price is more important than the house that stands on it. If the land is great but the house is bad, people will renovate or demolish/rebuild.
She bought the land for ["about $22,500 at an auction back in 2018."](https://finance.yahoo.com/news/hawaii-property-owner-left-stunned-095700264.html)
Good! The builders had the nerve to sue the landowner an her taxes had quadrupled on the land.
Fun fact: During the 70s, this area -- the Puna District of Hawaii County, State of Hawaii, USA, was the most productive marijuana growing area in the US. During a DEA coordinated national sweep of illegal outdoor growing operations, the Puna district yielded more seized weed than the state of Missouri, the #2 most productive state, after Hawaii. It's almost a certainty that someone at least considered growing weed on that land at one time. Most of it was grown in plastic bags, hidden in the bushes. The population of the area was only a fraction of what it is today, but the pot industry most definitely changed the Puna district forever, and was the beginning of the insane growth it's suffered since then. People ask me if I ever want to go back, the answer is no, it's not there anymore. But then again, a lot more people are enjoying life there, than before, and that's a happy thing. Puna is something of a last resort for the local people who don't have a lot of money, or great family connections, but want a piece of land, to grow on, rather than live in some chicken coop apartment in town. That's not the Hawaiian way. Puna is the last affordable land in Hawaii.
Puna is also where folks go to disappear.
Intentionally, and not so intentionally. It sure seems that there a lot of missing persons if you follow the news. I mean LOTS.
Unfortunately, Puna has become way too crowded these days to disappear easily. The federal witness protection program has moved down to Ka'u / South Point - makes life safer if somewhat less interesting.
For real?
Sounds like King Solomon justice.
This story sounds very familiar. Did the owner post the situation on r/legaladvice a while back?
The original article did make Reddit front page when it first happened. Don't remember from which sub though.
I looked around but didn't see one for this specific one. There's been a few wrong lot post but not in Hawaii
It’s probably been set already, but my opinion, the developer knew exactly what he was doing. The lot they built on was more desirable and they thought they just could screw over the owner.
In reality it's because they expected the telephone poles to be accurate plot markets and decided to not use a real survey based on benchmarks/landmarks or whatever their called.
She should have owned the house outright and had the option to sell it and buy another open plot that suited her needs. You can’t possibly restore a parcel after it’s built on, and someone who builds on the wrong lot has zero right to anything whatsoever.
The house is screwing over her property taxes right now. What she likely wants is the property restored completely to before the demo and construction, but the court knows this isn't possible. Forcing the house demo alleviates the property tax issue while the owner of the property seeks compensation which would be equivalent to restoring the original plot, so that they can attempt to acquire a new plot of land with similar properties as the first, since there is no way the plot can physically be restored to its original appearance.
Unless the builder is a very well established company though, which probably is unlikely considering they built on the wrong lot, then the odds of getting any real compensation from them are very low. Not a good situation and not a good solution imo, ultimately there is no good fix, but taking over the home and selling the whole thing would have been her best chance at being made whole as she’d have had enough money to hopefully buy another piece of land in a better area. I hope she does get proper compensation from the builder but I wouldn’t hold my breath.
Real estate isn't fungible. Each property is individual, and you can't just replace it with one 'equivalent' in value. The property owner didn't want something 'in a better area'. She wanted the property she bought, in the condition she bought it.
Its not the property owners fault at all. The construction company goofed and the county goofed, too bad so sad. If i was the judge I would be telling that property owner congratulations you are the proud owner of a half mil home for free, and im locking your county taxes in at what you paid for the lot.
She doesn't want the house. That's the whole point.
I hope the person, can get some fair and just compensation, before this company declares bankruptcy, in order to fulfill its obligations. There should be laws that pertain to companies and people who use bankruptcy to shield themselves from court ordered damages.
Why don’t they just get a company to move the house to the proper lot rather than demolish it?
[https://apnews.com/article/hawaii-house-wrong-lot-legal-fight-b3681c1ab06cb8efdf31dea40bc56a56](https://apnews.com/article/hawaii-house-wrong-lot-legal-fight-b3681c1ab06cb8efdf31dea40bc56a56) [https://www.boredpanda.com/annaleine-reynolds-discovers-house-built-on-her-land-hawaii-paradise-park/](https://www.boredpanda.com/annaleine-reynolds-discovers-house-built-on-her-land-hawaii-paradise-park/) [https://www.mercurynews.com/2024/06/27/hawaii-court-orders-deconstruction-of-house-built-on-wrong-lot/](https://www.mercurynews.com/2024/06/27/hawaii-court-orders-deconstruction-of-house-built-on-wrong-lot/) Basically it's cheaper for them to destroy that one instead of moving it to the proper lot, because of where the lots are placed from the sounds of it. They were all underdeveloped and apparently the person developing the land 'counted telephone poles' instead of going through the proper procedure of getting a survey. I've seen a few videos on this including when the developer started suing her and a bunch of other folks involved in the actual construction, mostly from the same lawyer breaking down the basic information. The value of the property taxes went up around 10 times the amount yearly after the house was built, and she only learned about it after a person saying he sold the house called her. The house also apparently attracted squatters, according to one of the neighbors.
No wonder there’s never any pictures. What a fucking dump.
Stick framed houses aren't the easiest to move due to everything within the house fully relying on the foundation not only for support but for structure, and if the construction company was already cutting corners by not getting a proper plat survey done, they 100% absolutely cut corners in the construction of that house. Plus after having squatters living in it and potentially ransacking the copper and other valuable building materials, it probably is just a complete loss
How are developers this stupid? They tear down the wrong house, tear up the wrong lot. Inspection videos of 500k+ new builds are highlight the shotty work they produce. Anyone involved shouldn’t be allowed to work construction anymore.