|
QuarkJets posted:I like the idea of just burying an uncorrugated plastic tube in the yard and calling that a french drain You can Buy them solid, perforated, or slotted. Super common and normal way to install. Dig trench, pea gravel layer, put in the perforated Pipe, cover with pea gravel. I would wager that the vast majority of these drains are exactly as above. (Anecdotally they ~50 I installed working in construction growing up were basically as described above)
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2024 20:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 05:03 |
|
|
So apparently French drains were invented/popularized by American lawyer Henry French in a book he wrote. So calling them American or freedom drains is also correct. Also of note, that lawyer's dad was the sculptor for the Lincoln Memorial, whose father in turn was the chief justice of the NH supreme court
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2024 22:10
|
|
|
spwrozek posted:You can Buy them solid, perforated, or slotted. Super common and normal way to install. Dig trench, pea gravel layer, put in the perforated Pipe, cover with pea gravel. I didn't say anything about gravel, a FREEDOM DRAIN removes water via sheer force of patriotic will, not by lowering the water table (I think normally perforated or slotted tubing is for gathering water and then that may be connected to solid tubing just as a means of moving that water somewhere else, whereas solid tubes on their own probably wouldn't be very effective. And don't forget to wrap up those perforated tubes that helps prevent them from getting clogged!)
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2024 03:39
|
|
|
I don’t even know where to start on this. https://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/2024/03/27/are-you-kidding-me-property-owner-stunned-after-500000-house-built-wrong-lot/
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2024 03:48
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:I didn't say anything about gravel, a FREEDOM DRAIN removes water via sheer force of patriotic will, not by lowering the water table Oh it's a siphon!
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2024 03:53
|
|
|
I don't get how this isn't a slam dunk for the property owner. Anything from unlawful taking to criminal trespass......... Allowing anyone other than the property owner to benefit from this sets a very very bad precident where someone may think the penalty is well worth the gain.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2024 03:56
|
|
|
Motronic posted:Allowing anyone other than the property owner to benefit from this sets a very very bad precident where someone may think the penalty is well worth the gain. Punitive damages to the landowner in the 8 digits is the only outcome that doesn't result in exactly that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2024 04:10
|
|
|
Eric the Mauve posted:Punitive damages to the landowner in the 8 digits is the only outcome that doesn't result in exactly that. Lol, she's not getting that for a lot she bought for 22k 6 years ago that was not in use. She'll likely get comparable value of another lot and maybe a token amount extra. The developer likely has a larger damage claim from the construction firm than the property owner does.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2024 04:20
|
|
|
I would never suggest she will. Just pointing out that the likelier outcome you outlined makes it profitable for developers to just help yourself to any open land you see.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2024 05:28
|
|
|
Motronic posted:I don't get how this isn't a slam dunk for the property owner. Anything from unlawful taking to criminal trespass......... The obvious remedy, if the owner doesn't want to swap lots, is to demolish and remove the house, at the cost of whomever is responsible for the fuckup.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2024 08:26
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:The obvious remedy, if the owner doesn't want to swap lots, is to demolish and remove the house, at the cost of whomever is responsible for the fuckup. And to restore the land underneath to its original condition. Shades of tree law go here, I hope.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2024 08:27
|
|
|
Cassius Belli posted:And to restore the land underneath to its original condition. Right. It's just a trespass.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2024 08:35
|
|
|
Motronic posted:I don't get how this isn't a slam dunk for the property owner. Anything from unlawful taking to criminal trespass......... In the limit where time approaches infinity sure, she could maybe come out ahead - that depends on the Hawaiian legal system which can sometimes makes pretty bad choices. But in the meantime she may be spending multiple years dealing with legal fees, higher property taxes, and squatters in a house that she's not allowed to sell or inhabit. And since she doesn't live there she doesn't get any property tax exemption.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2024 12:15
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Right. It's just a trespass. Unless Hawaii is very different intent is an element of trespassing. Considering the remedies they've offered here you probably wouldn't be able to prove they knew this wasn't their lot or they built a house to intentionally damage the lot. This is probably a dumbass loving up and it sounds like the construction company is going to owe the developer the biggest chunk of change here, but it's probably not criminal.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2024 13:32
|
|
|
Oh sure of course it's not criminal initially but it's an ongoing trespass. I mean yeah Hawaii may be different but in my state this would be fairy straightforward 1) notify house builders their construction is trespassing 2) get an order from a court compelling them to remove their trespassing construction 3) their problem She just needs a competent and mildly aggressive lawyer. No different from a fence built over a property line.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2024 13:40
|
|
|
The lawsuit by the developer against the actual landowner is pretty transparently an attempt to use the cost and stress of legal proceedings to bully the landowner into giving in. Unfortunately for the developer now this is making the rounds nationally and the likely result is that there will be all sorts of legal assistance being offered to the landowner which they would otherwise not be able to afford or organize.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2024 13:54
|
|
|
Shifty Pony posted:The lawsuit by the developer against the actual landowner is pretty transparently an attempt to use the cost and stress of legal proceedings to bully the landowner into giving in. It's not, the developer is suing the construction company, but they are naming the landowner because they want this done in 1 trial and not 4. If they didn't name the landowner the construction company could try to muddy the waters and try to pin blame elsewhere. If you have everyone in the same trial you can't try to blame a party who isn't there. The landowner is a victim but the developer paid this contruction company several times the value of the land to build the house and now not only can they not sell it but squatters have devalued it. They will happily recompense the landowner if it means getting their money back from the construction company. This isn't a bully tactic against the landowner, this is a fight between the developer and the construction company.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2024 14:01
|
|
|
Lockback posted:Unless Hawaii is very different intent is an element of trespassing. Considering the remedies they've offered here you probably wouldn't be able to prove they knew this wasn't their lot or they built a house to intentionally damage the lot. The fact pttern appears to be that they sold the house after they figured out it's not their land. Or at least didn't unwind the sale when they did. This is now intent. And the real property owner has to defend aganst whatever adverse posession Haiwaii has codified as well as evicting squatters. There are real, provable damages. Again, this should a slam dunk for anyone with the right lawyer(s). It's one of those cases that will, once again, prove the 2-tier justice system is real if it goes the wrong way.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2024 14:07
|
|
|
Shifty Pony posted:Unfortunately for the developer now this is making the rounds nationally and the likely result is that there will be all sorts of legal assistance being offered to the landowner which they would otherwise not be able to afford or organize. I don't really think the person buying investment properties off of tax auctions to sit on for 6 years is the kind of person who needs discount legal assistance.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2024 14:15
|
|
|
Her (and everyone) being in the lawsuit isn't surprising to me. Just sue everyone and let the courts deal with it "feels" common to me. (my dad was in a car accident where someone else struck the car behind him and his car was pushed into the car in front of him and one of the people sued all three other drivers)
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2024 14:16
|
|
|
Motronic posted:The fact pttern appears to be that they sold the house after they figured out it's not their land. Or at least didn't unwind the sale when they did. This is now intent. And the real property owner has to defend aganst whatever adverse posession Haiwaii has codified as well as evicting squatters. There are real, provable damages. It says the house is vacant. The broker sold the house then (i assume) couldn't transfer it so I don't think that sale went through. Reynolds says she is paying the higher tax on the property, so that implies no transfer of ownership ever went through. This is just taking the article at face value, but they aren't calling out new owners or anything.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2024 14:31
|
|
|
Ultimately I think this is going to be the issue for the developersquote:An attorney for PJ’s Construction said the developers didn’t want to hire surveyors. lol, glad you guys saved a couple grand!
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2024 14:42
|
|
|
Uthor posted:Her (and everyone) being in the lawsuit isn't surprising to me. Just sue everyone and let the courts deal with it "feels" common to me. It is, but it's extremely shortsighted because it forces this lady to get a lawyer and once she has a lawyer everyone other than her should be absolutely torched. They're all on her land without permission and she doesn't want them there. Adverse possession takes decades. They should have just quietly eaten the pain and moved the house and given her a nice apology letter as soon as they realized the mistake.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2024 15:33
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:It is, but it's extremely shortsighted because it forces this lady to get a lawyer and once she has a lawyer everyone other than her should be absolutely torched. They're all on her land without permission and she doesn't want them there. Adverse possession takes decades. The mistake goes beyond the house. She bought an undeveloped lot to use for undeveloped lot kind of things - that yoga retreat etc. Now even once the house is gone she's going to have a partially (perhaps even totally) cleared lot that likely lacks most of what made her buy it in the first place. A lot of what it takes to make that right is going to depend on how willing she is to negotiate. Is there an equivalent lot across the street? Maybe she takes that. But if they developed the whole area and now they're talking about giving her "equivalent" land somewhere else, well now you need to talk about location and views and everything else that makes the new place different from the old one. At that point the cheapest option might be to re-plant the lot that she had, but that can be a headache in and of itself depending on what was there and how long it takes to take root and mature. Clearing someone else's land is a big, big gently caress up. My two cents is that whoever this ends up landing on will probably just declare bankruptcy. edit: also you can't really just move a house, unless it's crazy valuable (historic homes etc) to the point that you're willing ot deal with the bullshit. Best case scenario is you send a crew in to salvage what materials you can (e.g. countertops, cabinets, fixtures) and then tear down the structure, but even then those are now used materials and frankly they're probably a modest fraction of the cost of the whole. REmember, a lot of those costs are on services namely design and labor.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2024 19:10
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:My two cents is that whoever this ends up landing on will probably just declare bankruptcy. And if it's the developer or the contractor, open a brand new business a week later that you know is completely different because it has a completely different name. Realistically though it's probably going to end up in the lap of the party with the least money, which is the landowner in this case. She'll end up with a negotiated agreement by which she receives a lovely piece of land no one wants 40 miles away and the other parties agree to pay her legal bills.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2024 19:15
|
|
|
Right and houses are financed by the developer too, they may literally not have the money to remedy this to the landowner's satisfaction, or they may have to go after their own insurance company - who may deny a claim based on the developer's negligence, since they apparently declined to use a surveyor meanwhile, every day that passes increases the likelihood that one of the responsible parties like the developer or contractors goes bankrupt or dissolves their company, so even when everything is done in the courts there's the question as to whether any damages assessed are actually recoverable; there's a possibility that the guilty parties are or will be judgement-proof it's a real mess and if I were in the landowner's position I'd be looking for any opportunity to recover my original land cost plus whatever I'd paid out in property taxes and walk away, rather than keep paying attorney fees and taxes for multiple years against some future hope of getting my yoga retreat on that land that is rapidly getting surrounded by new houses
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2024 19:17
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:
My play would be to get the assessed fair value of the land in light of the development around it plus lawyer fees. What would it have cost them to buy her out after building the neighborhood around her, based on the value of the developed parcels? That should be pretty trivial ot figure out, since mortgage companies only require you to cover the cost of replacing the insured structure, not the underlying land. Figuring out how much the land would be as an empty lot is a easy calculation. Take that, enjoy your annoyingly gained windfall, buy whatever yoga land you want with the proceeds.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2024 19:24
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:it's a real mess and if I were in the landowner's position I'd be looking for any opportunity to recover my original land cost plus whatever I'd paid out in property taxes and walk away, rather than keep paying attorney fees and taxes for multiple years against some future hope of getting my yoga retreat on that land that is rapidly getting surrounded by new houses Am I the only goon here cynical enough to wonder if "oh I wanted to use it someday for a meditative retreat" is the whole story behind her purchasing this property five years ago? The signs had to have been there five years ago that the location was in the likely path of near-future development.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2024 19:24
|
|
|
Eric the Mauve posted:Am I the only goon here cynical enough to wonder if "oh I wanted to use it someday for a meditative retreat" is the whole story behind her purchasing this property five years ago? The signs had to have been there five years ago that the location was in the likely path of near-future development. Nah, the thought crossed my mind as well, but at the end of the day it doesn't matter what the story is. I also think the yoga retreat idea is a bit unrealistic, so I guess a hedge on her just being a weirdo hippy with unrealistic goals. Either way, doesn't matter. She bought the land, it's hers to do with as she pleases, and she says that it pleased her to leave it in a natural state. Yoga retreat, nature preserve, feral cat refuge, place for homeless to camp, who the gently caress cares it's her thing and they hosed it up. edit: like even if the cynical thought is right that's still hosed because the solution to "it will be expensive to buy out the one hold out in our development tract" isn't "yolo build a house and then go oopsie well we'll pay you how much the land was worth when you bought it years ago."
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2024 19:28
|
|
|
Yes absolutely. I just won't be very surprised if the story that eventually emerges is along the lines of "developer told contractor to build on every lot, assuming they would soon purchase the lot in question from its owner as a matter of course -> when approached, owner refused to sell/demanded an outrageous price -> developer forgot (or "forgot", if you prefer) to tell the contractor "hey wait don't build on that one there's a holdup with the deed" -> here we are.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2024 19:31
|
|
|
Eric the Mauve posted:Am I the only goon here cynical enough to wonder if "oh I wanted to use it someday for a meditative retreat" is the whole story behind her purchasing this property five years ago? The signs had to have been there five years ago that the location was in the likely path of near-future development. nah, I think that's totally extremely common, people are short-sighted and a $20k land purchase to build a yoga retreat in Hawaii is exactly the sort of usually unfulfilled wishful purchase they make without much practicality behind it reminds me of the goon hawaii pig killing poo poo saga, the desert arrakis comic book funded facebook saga, and I think is often more or less the story behind every empty gap plot sitting in every lovely semi-rural subdevelopment that sells half-acres online there but for the grace etc. I've absolutely sat at my desk bored out of my gourd casually browsing cheap land in the klamath river valley going "what if..." I was just never rich or stupid enough to pull the trigger on a $25k purchase of some plot with no power, water, or sewer access in a dry as a bone forest fire waiting to happen spot hours away from a real city slowly accumulating $500k "log cabins" that are inhabited 6 weeks out of the year by powerboat-towing RV owners with more money than sense
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2024 19:31
|
|
|
Eric the Mauve posted:And if it's the developer or the contractor, open a brand new business a week later that you know is completely different because it has a completely different name. I hope so I hate to see capital be punished for their mistakes. Actually what am I saying the landowner is to blame maybe she should have paid attention to her land! Land should only be able to be owned by corporations. Duck and Cover fucked around with this message at 19:34 on Mar 29, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2024 19:31
|
|
|
like this poo poo, this took me 30 seconds to find https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/Fronts-Hwy-96-Klamath-River-CA-96050/2105389278_zpid/ someone will eventually buy that and probably never build on it, it's probably not buildable at all or has some serious problems with it, because CA land for under $12,800 an acre is not land you actually want to buy, ever and yet people buy it, people with dreaaaams e. look, in this picture you can see why this 40 acre lot is now $110k  wanna guess how many people paid ten times that within the last 15 years, to own their own piece of a forest fire ravaged landscape? Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 19:37 on Mar 29, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2024 19:35
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:My play would be to get the assessed fair value of the land in light of the development around it plus lawyer fees. What would it have cost them to buy her out after building the neighborhood around her, based on the value of the developed parcels? That should be pretty trivial ot figure out, since mortgage companies only require you to cover the cost of replacing the insured structure, not the underlying land. Figuring out how much the land would be as an empty lot is a easy calculation. The thing to do at this point is to file actions for tortious trespass and damage to real property and demand restoration of every tree cleared, yeah. Tree law them. Then settle for whatever windfall you get and walk away, yes. But the landowner needs to be a lot more aggressive. She's in position to push everyone else, not to be pushed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2024 19:39
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:The thing to do at this point is to file actions for tortious trespass and damage to real property and demand restoration of every tree cleared, yeah. Tree law them. A lot of this depends on what sort of person she is, to be frank. Obviously she had a few bucks to buy some land so she's not penniless, but I've also known my fair share of the sort of hippies that would buy land in hawaii with the idea of building a yoga retreat who would be too concerned with being sad for the trees and getting "what's fair" to get really aggressive legally and get paid.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2024 19:45
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:like this poo poo, this took me 30 seconds to find I'll tip my hat to the agent marketing this fire ravaged land as "black forest." Well played.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2024 20:36
|
|
|
Eric the Mauve posted:Am I the only goon here cynical enough to wonder if "oh I wanted to use it someday for a meditative retreat" is the whole story behind her purchasing this property five years ago? The signs had to have been there five years ago that the location was in the likely path of near-future development. Her story on it's face isn't terribly sympathetic. She made a speculative real estate purchase. It sounds like she didn't do anything legally wrong, so the legal system should be on her side to some degree. I for one don't think it should be to the same degree as a condo build encroaching on grandma's zucchini garden.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2024 20:39
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:A lot of this depends on what sort of person she is, to be frank. Obviously she had a few bucks to buy some land so she's not penniless, but I've also known my fair share of the sort of hippies that would buy land in hawaii with the idea of building a yoga retreat who would be too concerned with being sad for the trees and getting "what's fair" to get really aggressive legally and get paid. Sure but after a certain point if you don't want to fight that's your choice, enjoy losing. She's at that point now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2024 20:44
|
|
|
Is there a thread for making fun of listings?
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2024 22:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 05:03 |
|
|
Sir Tonk posted:Is there a thread for making fun of listings? I want to follow that thread. If it doesn't exist you know what needs to be done.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2024 22:33
|
|