Re: Woman sued by those who built home on HER lot

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.