501
Not surprised but Steve Lehto did a video on this.
https://piped.video/watch?v=B1_A_3hKI-g
If anyone wants a practiceing attorney's take.
I will preface this with this warning because I know in advance this will be a hot take
I think she's being unreasonable. No if ands or buts, I agree with the company that is suing her, this does not mean that I agree that they should have built the house in the first place; because it was not their property. However, they have tried multiple times to reach a resolution with her that would help both sides, she has turned down every offer so far stating she didn't want the house there in the first place.
This is a reasonable response, however let's go over what she's turned down so far:
-
she has turned down an offer of another plot of land, which was offered free of charge and still in the same area that her other house was which she has turned down because the coordinates are against her zodiac signs.
-
They have offered to sell her the house at a discounted value, what she is also turned down not because she doesn't think the house shows value, but because “It would set a dangerous precedent if you could go onto someone else’s land, build anything you want, and then sue that individual for the value of it"
This would be 100% understandable if it weren't for the fact that it is very clear that this was not their intention and also not what they are doing, they are suing the discounted value of it because they know they fucked up.
I agree with the company accusation, she is trying to take advantage of what was a mistake, if she truly felt the way that she feels she would bulldoze the lot or be trying to work with the company to have them pay for bulldozed costs, neither of which have been publically stated(not that the company would agree with bulldozing it). She wants to take advantage of this mistake and get a free 500,000 house out of it. I will be interested how this plays out in court, I'm not a lawyer but I hard disagree with this case being an open shut case like the practicing attorney video posted in another comment.
edit: to save people asking me for the eighth time the same question, yes I understand she has no obligation to propose a solution, but the fact that she has not done so also indicates towards the intent.
By this logic, if a person is driving and looking at their phone, runs a red light and causes an accident, they shouldn't be held responsible if they don't give the person reasonable compensation. It wasn't there intent to cause an accident, it was a mistake. Asking for the property she paid for in the condition she bought it is reasonable.
You are also leaving out the part where she is now paying 10x if not more for property taxes on a house she never wanted and it sounds like the house is damaged due to squatters, something that the developer should have made sure wouldn't happen. That house probably isn't worth what they are offering it to her.
Also, you have no idea what she wants from a 3 minute video. All we know is what the developer offered. She may have asked for the house to be demolished and they said no because it would cost them more money to do so.
load more comments
(2 replies)
She doesn't want the house, she has no obligation to pay for it or be given an adjacent lot. She is the one that should be sueing instead. She has every right to be made whole at the developers expense.
What I mean by that, is that since she doesn't want the house the developer is on the hook to demolish it and restore the land to its former condition.
Taking then adjacent land may not even be equitable. It could be less desirable, more difficult to build on, have different drainage, inaccessible without going through an easement. Any number of things.
The developers should also be in the hook for the increased property taxes.
If she wants the house removed, her land restored and some money to cover her costs that is perfectly in her right. If the company offers her options A, B, and C she is under no obligation to accept them.
I'll not even try to respond to everything you just said, but no; she's not in the wrong here. It's get plot. She doesn't want any other plot only because someone else messed up and built something on her property.
She's should not be expected to comply and move to other land only because the developer doesn't want to face the consequences of their mistakes. What should be done is get the developer take the house down and built it in the right property.
Please tell me what actions she took that caused this incident. It does not matter what the other parties want or think is reasonable, It does not matter that they think she is taking advantage, as they would have to prove she did something or failed to do something to instigate this issue (good luck with that).
Also as pointed out their intention does not even come into play here, neglect in this matter will have the same ruling.
edit: to save people asking me for the eighth time the same question, yes I understand she has no obligation to propose a solution, but the fact that she has not done so also indicates towards the intent.
Intent to do what? Are you trying to suggest she had a hand in this fuck up? Like she swapped signs to the lots loony toons style?
load more comments
(39 replies)
this post was submitted on 29 Mar 2024
501 points (100.0% liked)
News
23190 readers
2577 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS