Discussion:
Woman sued by those who built home on HER lot
Add Reply
Adam H. Kerman
2024-03-31 04:45:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Woman owned vacant land in Hawaii hoping to built a women's retreat one
day. Instead, a home was built on her land instead. She is now defending
a lawsuit! Lehto declares the lawsuit the most frivolous of his entire
career.


shawn
2024-03-31 05:18:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 31 Mar 2024 04:45:29 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Woman owned vacant land in Hawaii hoping to built a women's retreat one
day. Instead, a home was built on her land instead. She is now defending
a lawsuit! Lehto declares the lawsuit the most frivolous of his entire
career.
http://youtu.be/B1_A_3hKI-g
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.
The Horny Goat
2024-04-02 09:10:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 31 Mar 2024 01:18:30 -0400, shawn
Post by shawn
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.

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.
shawn
2024-04-02 14:53:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Horny Goat
On Sun, 31 Mar 2024 01:18:30 -0400, shawn
Post by shawn
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?
Post by The Horny Goat
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.
Adam H. Kerman
2024-04-02 15:33:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by shawn
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by shawn
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?
The whole point of surveys and recording is to avoid exactly this
scenario. It's idiot proof. Alas, there's always a bigger idiot.
Post by shawn
Post by The Horny Goat
. . .
The Horny Goat
2024-04-02 20:34:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 15:33:10 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
Post by Adam H. Kerman
The whole point of surveys and recording is to avoid exactly this
scenario. It's idiot proof. Alas, there's always a bigger idiot.
Well said!
Adam H. Kerman
2024-06-28 16:49:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by shawn
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by shawn
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?
The whole point of surveys and recording is to avoid exactly this
scenario. It's idiot proof. Alas, there's always a bigger idiot.
The woman won many of her important points.

Gawd these people were idiots. The woman owned lot 114 in the
subdivision. The builder was supposed to put the house on lot 115, next
door. The guy responsible for siting the lot found it by counting
telephone poles and couldn't be bothered with a survey. Surveying is the
fool-proof step, so let's just skip it.

The court made a finding that the clear motivation of the parties was to
"cut corners". Wow.

By intentionally proceeding without a survey, the parties assumed the
risk of error. In the contract to build the house, a survey was
required.

In fact, in obtaining the building permits, the two parties made
misrepresentations to the municipality that surveying had been
performed.

As they had sued her, they are precluded from asserting equitable claims
(against her) by "unclean hands" as the structures are illegal. Relative
hardships cannot be considered where the parties "took a chance", again,
referring to the willful failure to conduct that survey.

She lost on obtaining an order to restore the folliage, as that's
impossible, but she's allowed to proceed to trial and the jury can award
damages based on what she lost. She entitled to attorneys' fees and
costs for prevailing in a mandatory injunction.


Dimensional Traveler
2024-06-29 01:40:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by shawn
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by shawn
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?
The whole point of surveys and recording is to avoid exactly this
scenario. It's idiot proof. Alas, there's always a bigger idiot.
The woman won many of her important points.
Gawd these people were idiots. The woman owned lot 114 in the
subdivision. The builder was supposed to put the house on lot 115, next
door. The guy responsible for siting the lot found it by counting
telephone poles and couldn't be bothered with a survey. Surveying is the
fool-proof step, so let's just skip it.
The court made a finding that the clear motivation of the parties was to
"cut corners". Wow.
By intentionally proceeding without a survey, the parties assumed the
risk of error. In the contract to build the house, a survey was
required.
In fact, in obtaining the building permits, the two parties made
misrepresentations to the municipality that surveying had been
performed.
As they had sued her, they are precluded from asserting equitable claims
(against her) by "unclean hands" as the structures are illegal. Relative
hardships cannot be considered where the parties "took a chance", again,
referring to the willful failure to conduct that survey.
She lost on obtaining an order to restore the folliage, as that's
impossible, but she's allowed to proceed to trial and the jury can award
damages based on what she lost. She entitled to attorneys' fees and
costs for prevailing in a mandatory injunction.
http://youtu.be/Ntxd2jsszi0
I've been somewhat following this. The latest ruling from the court was
that the company that built the house has to tear it down at their own
expense.
--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.
The Horny Goat
2024-07-06 06:50:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 28 Jun 2024 18:40:19 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Adam H. Kerman
She lost on obtaining an order to restore the folliage, as that's
impossible, but she's allowed to proceed to trial and the jury can award
damages based on what she lost. She entitled to attorneys' fees and
costs for prevailing in a mandatory injunction.
http://youtu.be/Ntxd2jsszi0
I've been somewhat following this. The latest ruling from the court was
that the company that built the house has to tear it down at their own
expense.
I'm amazed the judge didn't award punitive damages given the one who
DID the damages sued. Like are you kidding me? And for sure the
company that did the damages should be the subject to a court order to
restore the property - if nothing else that would induce then to seek
an out of court which my grandfather's "builder" (the one who built on
his property) should DEFINITELY be "motivated" to make an out of court
settlement.
Dimensional Traveler
2024-07-06 15:35:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Horny Goat
On Fri, 28 Jun 2024 18:40:19 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Adam H. Kerman
She lost on obtaining an order to restore the folliage, as that's
impossible, but she's allowed to proceed to trial and the jury can award
damages based on what she lost. She entitled to attorneys' fees and
costs for prevailing in a mandatory injunction.
http://youtu.be/Ntxd2jsszi0
I've been somewhat following this. The latest ruling from the court was
that the company that built the house has to tear it down at their own
expense.
I'm amazed the judge didn't award punitive damages given the one who
DID the damages sued. Like are you kidding me? And for sure the
company that did the damages should be the subject to a court order to
restore the property
Restoring the property isn't physically possible. All the native
vegetation was destroyed and invasive species have taken it over. Even
the legitimate property owner agreed restoration wasn't possible.
--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.
Adam H. Kerman
2024-07-06 16:16:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Adam H. Kerman
She lost on obtaining an order to restore the folliage, as that's
impossible, but she's allowed to proceed to trial and the jury can award
damages based on what she lost. She entitled to attorneys' fees and
costs for prevailing in a mandatory injunction.
http://youtu.be/Ntxd2jsszi0
I've been somewhat following this. The latest ruling from the court was
that the company that built the house has to tear it down at their own
expense.
I'm amazed the judge didn't award punitive damages given the one who
DID the damages sued. Like are you kidding me? And for sure the
company that did the damages should be the subject to a court order to
restore the property
Restoring the property isn't physically possible. All the native
vegetation was destroyed and invasive species have taken it over. Even
the legitimate property owner agreed restoration wasn't possible.
Also, this was equity. If this goes to trial and the plaintiff prevails,
she could get punitive damages. She's entitled to economic damages for
loss of folliage.

The really big deal is the awrd of attorneys' fees.

More likely there will be a settlement but she's in a very strong
negotiating position so they'll have to offer her a boatload of cash.

Again, I cannot emphasize how the land recording system and basic
surveying techniques made this all idiot-proof, but they refused to do a
proper survey and they found the greater idiot.
anim8rfsk
2024-07-06 16:31:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Adam H. Kerman
She lost on obtaining an order to restore the folliage, as that's
impossible, but she's allowed to proceed to trial and the jury can award
damages based on what she lost. She entitled to attorneys' fees and
costs for prevailing in a mandatory injunction.
http://youtu.be/Ntxd2jsszi0
I've been somewhat following this. The latest ruling from the court was
that the company that built the house has to tear it down at their own
expense.
I'm amazed the judge didn't award punitive damages given the one who
DID the damages sued. Like are you kidding me? And for sure the
company that did the damages should be the subject to a court order to
restore the property
Restoring the property isn't physically possible. All the native
vegetation was destroyed and invasive species have taken it over. Even
the legitimate property owner agreed restoration wasn't possible.
Also, this was equity. If this goes to trial and the plaintiff prevails,
she could get punitive damages. She's entitled to economic damages for
loss of folliage.
Some places give triple damages automatically for loss of foliage because
it can’t be replaced
Post by Adam H. Kerman
The really big deal is the awrd of attorneys' fees.
More likely there will be a settlement but she's in a very strong
negotiating position so they'll have to offer her a boatload of cash.
Again, I cannot emphasize how the land recording system and basic
surveying techniques made this all idiot-proof, but they refused to do a
proper survey and they found the greater idiot.
One of Mom‘s crazy neighbors told the construction guy to bulldoze through
our property to make her a wider driveway. He just took her word for where
the property line was. I happened to come home for lunch and caught him or
they’d have gotten away with it. I showed him the surveyor stake was where
the property line met the street. That’s how easy it would’ve been to
double check what she was telling him. The blood running out of his face
was almost worth it.
--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.
trotsky
2024-07-06 17:36:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Adam H. Kerman
She lost on obtaining an order to restore the folliage, as that's
impossible, but she's allowed to proceed to trial and the jury can award
damages based on what she lost. She entitled to attorneys' fees and
costs for prevailing in a mandatory injunction.
http://youtu.be/Ntxd2jsszi0
I've been somewhat following this. The latest ruling from the court was
that the company that built the house has to tear it down at their own
expense.
I'm amazed the judge didn't award punitive damages given the one who
DID the damages sued. Like are you kidding me? And for sure the
company that did the damages should be the subject to a court order to
restore the property
Restoring the property isn't physically possible. All the native
vegetation was destroyed and invasive species have taken it over. Even
the legitimate property owner agreed restoration wasn't possible.
Also, this was equity. If this goes to trial and the plaintiff prevails,
she could get punitive damages. She's entitled to economic damages for
loss of folliage.
Some places give triple damages automatically for loss of foliage because
it can’t be replaced
Post by Adam H. Kerman
The really big deal is the awrd of attorneys' fees.
More likely there will be a settlement but she's in a very strong
negotiating position so they'll have to offer her a boatload of cash.
Again, I cannot emphasize how the land recording system and basic
surveying techniques made this all idiot-proof, but they refused to do a
proper survey and they found the greater idiot.
One of Mom‘s crazy neighbors told the construction guy to bulldoze through
our property to make her a wider driveway. He just took her word for where
the property line was. I happened to come home for lunch and caught him or
they’d have gotten away with it.
Gotten away with listening to your mother? That makes zero fucking
sense you idiot.


I showed him the surveyor stake was where
Post by anim8rfsk
the property line met the street. That’s how easy it would’ve been to
double check what she was telling him. The blood running out of his face
was almost worth it.
shawn
2024-07-06 16:38:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 6 Jul 2024 16:16:03 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Adam H. Kerman
She lost on obtaining an order to restore the folliage, as that's
impossible, but she's allowed to proceed to trial and the jury can award
damages based on what she lost. She entitled to attorneys' fees and
costs for prevailing in a mandatory injunction.
http://youtu.be/Ntxd2jsszi0
I've been somewhat following this. The latest ruling from the court was
that the company that built the house has to tear it down at their own
expense.
I'm amazed the judge didn't award punitive damages given the one who
DID the damages sued. Like are you kidding me? And for sure the
company that did the damages should be the subject to a court order to
restore the property
Restoring the property isn't physically possible. All the native
vegetation was destroyed and invasive species have taken it over. Even
the legitimate property owner agreed restoration wasn't possible.
Also, this was equity. If this goes to trial and the plaintiff prevails,
she could get punitive damages. She's entitled to economic damages for
loss of folliage.
The really big deal is the awrd of attorneys' fees.
More likely there will be a settlement but she's in a very strong
negotiating position so they'll have to offer her a boatload of cash.
Again, I cannot emphasize how the land recording system and basic
surveying techniques made this all idiot-proof, but they refused to do a
proper survey and they found the greater idiot.
Which I might understand if this were some rural area in Wyoming but
this is Hawaii where homes tend to for a million dollars or more. With
that much money on the line why would anyone cheap out on doing a
survey?
Dimensional Traveler
2024-07-07 00:00:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by shawn
On Sat, 6 Jul 2024 16:16:03 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Adam H. Kerman
She lost on obtaining an order to restore the folliage, as that's
impossible, but she's allowed to proceed to trial and the jury can award
damages based on what she lost. She entitled to attorneys' fees and
costs for prevailing in a mandatory injunction.
http://youtu.be/Ntxd2jsszi0
I've been somewhat following this. The latest ruling from the court was
that the company that built the house has to tear it down at their own
expense.
I'm amazed the judge didn't award punitive damages given the one who
DID the damages sued. Like are you kidding me? And for sure the
company that did the damages should be the subject to a court order to
restore the property
Restoring the property isn't physically possible. All the native
vegetation was destroyed and invasive species have taken it over. Even
the legitimate property owner agreed restoration wasn't possible.
Also, this was equity. If this goes to trial and the plaintiff prevails,
she could get punitive damages. She's entitled to economic damages for
loss of folliage.
The really big deal is the awrd of attorneys' fees.
More likely there will be a settlement but she's in a very strong
negotiating position so they'll have to offer her a boatload of cash.
Again, I cannot emphasize how the land recording system and basic
surveying techniques made this all idiot-proof, but they refused to do a
proper survey and they found the greater idiot.
Which I might understand if this were some rural area in Wyoming but
this is Hawaii where homes tend to for a million dollars or more. With
that much money on the line why would anyone cheap out on doing a
survey?
_Because_ there is that much money on the line.
--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.
The Horny Goat
2024-07-06 06:47:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 28 Jun 2024 16:49:10 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
Post by Adam H. Kerman
She lost on obtaining an order to restore the folliage, as that's
impossible, but she's allowed to proceed to trial and the jury can award
damages based on what she lost. She entitled to attorneys' fees and
costs for prevailing in a mandatory injunction.
http://youtu.be/Ntxd2jsszi0
Good for her! I was only 6 or 7 when my grandfather had his
'situation' though he discussed it with me when I grew up. My parents
and grandparents built the 2nd and 3rd houses in that subdivision so
there was little built at the time. 50 years later there are about 300
homes in that neighborhood.
Loading...