- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
2
Posted on 3/28/24 at 8:56 pm to HubbaBubba
I would take 4 lots for the 1
Posted on 3/28/24 at 9:05 pm to Higgysmalls
I stayed in this neighborhood when I air bnb'd in big island for two weeks.
I love that area
I love that area
Posted on 3/28/24 at 9:35 pm to LoneStar23
I agree. They really don’t have a leg to stand on. It’s her property. She also needs to sue the shite out of them for bulldozing her property without her consent
Posted on 3/28/24 at 9:45 pm to SwampyWaters
quote:
the courts need to immediately shut down this company because it's only a matter of time until they do this again!
The courts won't because it's Hawaii - one of the staunchest liberal Democratic states. Anything to destroy private property rights is within the scope of possibility with a Dem judge.
Posted on 3/28/24 at 10:06 pm to HubbaBubba
That is an expensive accident.
Posted on 3/28/24 at 10:28 pm to DownshiftAndFloorIt
quote:
Her options should be to keep the house as is at no cost to her, or have the property returned to its original state at no cost to her, and in both cases have all her legal fees covered by the developer who fricked up
This seems to be the most proper course of action. She should say, "Move your house off my property and restore it to its original condition." Seems they wouldn't have a leg to stand on, because that's an entirely reasonable request.
Posted on 3/28/24 at 10:37 pm to Ricardo
Exactly.
Agree that she should be made whole, as far as returning her property to its previous state. Don’t think she should be awarded the house and the ability to profit from it.
Agree that she should be made whole, as far as returning her property to its previous state. Don’t think she should be awarded the house and the ability to profit from it.
Posted on 3/28/24 at 10:52 pm to HubbaBubba
lol that developer is fricked
Posted on 3/28/24 at 11:00 pm to zippyputt
quote:
In one case, a home was built on the empty lot right next to the one the person already owned. Rather than trying to tear it down or move it, the two property owners were able to work out a deal where they each got the other person’s deed.
Sounds like the property owner isn't interested in a deal. Why should she?
Posted on 3/28/24 at 11:31 pm to boudinman
The courts will likely force/via ruling, her to take a deal of some type or she’ll settle in some way.
Posted on 3/29/24 at 12:35 am to HubbaBubba
quote:dumbass f agent, they are all like this
“He told me, ‘I just sold the house, and it happens to be on your property. So, we need to resolve this',
Posted on 3/29/24 at 1:28 am to HubbaBubba
Read several articles on this and there are some key details that people have missed:
The development group is suing everyone:
The actual builders for fricking up and not surveying the area and the woman for being "unjustly enriched" by their own mistake.
The house is a POS. It was never locked up, has been vandalized by squatters, and is not close to what the land owner wanted for her future plans with the property.
Who TF cares how she wants to use HER land? She can sit on the property all she wants until it's her time to do something with it.
She deserves to have the house demolished, legal fees covered, and the land restored to what it once was, and punitive damages covered.
The development group is suing everyone:
The actual builders for fricking up and not surveying the area and the woman for being "unjustly enriched" by their own mistake.
The house is a POS. It was never locked up, has been vandalized by squatters, and is not close to what the land owner wanted for her future plans with the property.
Who TF cares how she wants to use HER land? She can sit on the property all she wants until it's her time to do something with it.
She deserves to have the house demolished, legal fees covered, and the land restored to what it once was, and punitive damages covered.
Posted on 3/29/24 at 4:21 am to HubbaBubba
She should offer the developer a deal.
Either I sue you for $10M and you spend even more money tearing down and removing the house or you leave the house and I drop all suits.
The developer will have a choice to make. And several people will be without a job soon
Either I sue you for $10M and you spend even more money tearing down and removing the house or you leave the house and I drop all suits.
The developer will have a choice to make. And several people will be without a job soon
Posted on 3/29/24 at 4:31 am to HubbaBubba
Must be an unjust enrichment claim.
Posted on 3/29/24 at 5:19 am to HubbaBubba
quote:
The developers say they offered to swap Reynolds a lot that is next door to hers or to sell her the house at a discount.
Posted on 3/29/24 at 5:39 am to jcaz
quote:
So they fricked up and want to sue her to buy it? WTF. Hope court awards her a free house and developer gets to pay the property taxes for 10 years.
Then turn around and sell the lot at its value before the house to include an improvement as is.
Posted on 3/29/24 at 12:22 pm to bakersman
This video shows the house AND the expensive fencing she put on the property, plus describes the additional property taxes she's incurred as a result.
some Hawaii TV station
some Hawaii TV station
Posted on 3/29/24 at 12:30 pm to CatfishJohn
quote:
I concur.
I hope the courts just give her the house
To the person who downvoted this, you are the problem with society.
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News