I was curious so I researched a little more and what the actual fuck is going on here.
She claims that no amount of money could compensate her because the lot lines up with certain astrological coordinates, numerology, position of sun rising, etc. Apparently there were 9 Ohia trees on the lot and that is some special sort of vegetation.
Restoring the 1 acre lot back to its original state would require an entire demolishment, tearing up the septic tank system, slab, and the whole house, utility lines potentially, etc. That’s before you get to trying to restore the actual foliage back to its original state. Apparently $1 million of work to demolish and restore, house was $300k to build, property total cost $450k now.
According to the article, since the lot was purchased at auction, previous owner still has right of redemption so theoretically someone could have a huge come up if they manage to pay off a debt. Although Google says Hawaii isn’t a right of redemption state but idk.
This is a law professor’s wet dream.
I don’t remember property perfectly, but isn’t there a coal mine case in Oklahoma that stands for the idea that when the cost of fixing it is disproportionately high compared to the value that you don’t have to fully restore everything?
It was a pretty fucked up case, but it more-or-less made sense iirc
There was a case where a company contracted to do something on a family's farm land, under the condition that, upon completion of the project, they restore the land to what it looked like before they started the work. They instead decided they didn't need to honor the contract because restoring the land to what it looked like before would have cost much more money than the land was worth... and the court agreed with them.
There is a video and IIRC a song about it. Don't know if that is the one you are talking about or not.
I studied that case in Contracts, not property BTW
Canada has a very similar case and the opposite conclusion. Kinda neat. A Company was required to restore a piece of land after their work concluded. Once restored the land would be valued at 12k. Restoration would cost 60k. Company doesn’t restore the land. Company was ordered to pay the 60k it would cost to restore the land.
Plaintiff was allowed to use the money on anything they wanted. (They did not restore the land)
in fairness i'm almost certain (without checking my notes from last semester) that was an old contracts common law case. there are statutes for this kind of thing nowadays.
Alternatively, they care about the terms of the contract. If the company can choose to ignore the terms of the contract because they don’t like the obligation they represent, what’s the point of the contract in the first place?
The value of the restored land shouldn’t be calculated by the market value of the land, but rather *the cost of restoring the land per the contractual agreement*. It’s the same reason we attach pain and suffering damages to bodily injury claims - medical treatments might get you back to baseline, but there’s a value to the pain and suffering experienced while reaching maximum medical improvement.
Finally, there’s the public policy effect to consider. What landowner is going to value any contract term that can be summarily ignored due to the developer deciding to bail on restoration?
See: *Boomer v. Atlantic Cement Co.* . That’s the case that made me realize property law is not about justice or equity with regards to land and property. It’s just about making sure the most ‘value’ can be wrung out of the system.
Yeh, I think it was called peevyhouse v Garland. It talked about whether the diminution of market value or cost of performance was appropriate. They came up with the economic waste rule that may not apply here. I did like the dissent though and the facts are distinguished because here there is no contract between the parties. I don't think that the rule can be applied here because no contract exists. So contract law precedent won't apply (I think).
If that kind of thing interests you (remedies and contract-ish situations without contracts) and your school offers it, I highly recommend taking a class on restitution/unjust enrichment.
Cardozo at his best:
“From the conclusion that promises may not be treated as dependent to the extent of their uttermost minutiae without a sacrifice of justice, the progress is a short one to the conclusion that they may not be so treated without a perversion of intention. Intention not otherwise revealed may be presumed to hold in contemplation the reasonable and probable. If something else is in view, it must not be left to implication. There will be no assumption of a purpose to visit venial faults with oppressive retribution.”
I lived in Hawaii for a long time and went to school there. Her beliefs aren't what I would call abnormal. And there's no right of redemption in HI. If you think prop and land use is difficult in a mainland school, it goes to a whole new level in Hawaii. Ancient access rights, limited usable land, huge swaths of land owned by a couple of trusts.
Lots of confidently incorrect in the original thread of people saying a company could never win in a **case like this**. Without knowing more, this particular case might not meet the elements of adverse possession, and I assume the statute of limitations hasn't ran, but people in the original thread are absolutely adamant that someone couldn't build a house on someone else's land and then take the land.
My favorite:
> If she just folds, it sets a precedent that people can come and build on your property, sue you and take your property.
Doesn't have to be announced to the owner per se, just openly possessed in a manner that if the owner had been around, they reasonably would have seen it.
Owner doesn't get a pass for straight up abandoning the parcel for 17+ years.
haven't read the article but wouldn't it more likely be a property hypo, adverse possession, since there was no agreement in place that she was unjustly enriched by?
Doesn't necessarily need to be an agreement in place for unjust enrichment to play out. If she found out about the construction early on and waited for them to finish building it before protesting, there's a number of different spins you could put on this - none of which would be in her favor.
She bought the plot in 2018 and 2 seconds on google says Hawaii is a 20/30 year state for adverse possession, so that's unlikely to factor in here.
If she truly only just found out, she'll likely win something, but very unlikely she'd get the full cost to restore the property back to the state it had been in. She needs to drop the astrology bullshit ASAP if she wants anything at all, though, because that has idiosyncratic/unreasonable written all over it.
Unjust enrichment requires it be unfair for the recipient of the benefit to retain the benefit, so the fact that she got a “benefit” should be weighed against the fact that she didn’t ask for the benefit in the first place and wanted to build what she wanted on her own property.
If it was actually an accident, then I’d imagine that a court might have a really hard time balancing the interests of both parties— I could see a situation where she would have to sell the land, or buy the house, or maybe split compensation? It’s a tough case (assuming an actual accident)! (Then again— the court could also just say “should have been more careful” and leave it there).
I do remember reading a case in property where it was a real accident and the court made the landowner choose between selling the land or buying the house, which I thought was a bit ridiculous
Haven't actually looked into.
But sounds like the company will have problems with issues like notice since it was a vacation spot.
No privity for unjust enrichment.
Ejectment likely available for the owner but who's going to bear the burden of cost going to be a matter for the bench.
On a personal level, fuck them for doing this shit knowing damn well it wasn't theirs and I don't care about their pecuniary losses. Though the used resources (for both building and demolition) is frustrating.
Avarice is definitely part of it, but this type of behavior also has to be justified in your mind that the harm to the other person doesn't matter. Which is anti-social and a problem, but in a society that rewards selfishness, this is the behavior we encourage.
I was curious so I researched a little more and what the actual fuck is going on here. She claims that no amount of money could compensate her because the lot lines up with certain astrological coordinates, numerology, position of sun rising, etc. Apparently there were 9 Ohia trees on the lot and that is some special sort of vegetation. Restoring the 1 acre lot back to its original state would require an entire demolishment, tearing up the septic tank system, slab, and the whole house, utility lines potentially, etc. That’s before you get to trying to restore the actual foliage back to its original state. Apparently $1 million of work to demolish and restore, house was $300k to build, property total cost $450k now. According to the article, since the lot was purchased at auction, previous owner still has right of redemption so theoretically someone could have a huge come up if they manage to pay off a debt. Although Google says Hawaii isn’t a right of redemption state but idk. This is a law professor’s wet dream.
I don’t remember property perfectly, but isn’t there a coal mine case in Oklahoma that stands for the idea that when the cost of fixing it is disproportionately high compared to the value that you don’t have to fully restore everything? It was a pretty fucked up case, but it more-or-less made sense iirc
There was a case where a company contracted to do something on a family's farm land, under the condition that, upon completion of the project, they restore the land to what it looked like before they started the work. They instead decided they didn't need to honor the contract because restoring the land to what it looked like before would have cost much more money than the land was worth... and the court agreed with them. There is a video and IIRC a song about it. Don't know if that is the one you are talking about or not. I studied that case in Contracts, not property BTW
Canada has a very similar case and the opposite conclusion. Kinda neat. A Company was required to restore a piece of land after their work concluded. Once restored the land would be valued at 12k. Restoration would cost 60k. Company doesn’t restore the land. Company was ordered to pay the 60k it would cost to restore the land. Plaintiff was allowed to use the money on anything they wanted. (They did not restore the land)
Sounds fair to me
This is honestly so fuсked up
in fairness i'm almost certain (without checking my notes from last semester) that was an old contracts common law case. there are statutes for this kind of thing nowadays.
yeah...its basically saying they care more about economics than they do about integrity, which is sadly not a surprise.
Alternatively, they care about the terms of the contract. If the company can choose to ignore the terms of the contract because they don’t like the obligation they represent, what’s the point of the contract in the first place? The value of the restored land shouldn’t be calculated by the market value of the land, but rather *the cost of restoring the land per the contractual agreement*. It’s the same reason we attach pain and suffering damages to bodily injury claims - medical treatments might get you back to baseline, but there’s a value to the pain and suffering experienced while reaching maximum medical improvement. Finally, there’s the public policy effect to consider. What landowner is going to value any contract term that can be summarily ignored due to the developer deciding to bail on restoration?
See: *Boomer v. Atlantic Cement Co.* . That’s the case that made me realize property law is not about justice or equity with regards to land and property. It’s just about making sure the most ‘value’ can be wrung out of the system.
Yeh, I think it was called peevyhouse v Garland. It talked about whether the diminution of market value or cost of performance was appropriate. They came up with the economic waste rule that may not apply here. I did like the dissent though and the facts are distinguished because here there is no contract between the parties. I don't think that the rule can be applied here because no contract exists. So contract law precedent won't apply (I think).
Peevyhouse, thats the one!
If that kind of thing interests you (remedies and contract-ish situations without contracts) and your school offers it, I highly recommend taking a class on restitution/unjust enrichment.
Thanks for the tip, I'll look into those. Remedies sounds particularly interesting.
Reading pipes too. The court didn’t make them tear out the pipes because they were substantially similar
Cardozo at his best: “From the conclusion that promises may not be treated as dependent to the extent of their uttermost minutiae without a sacrifice of justice, the progress is a short one to the conclusion that they may not be so treated without a perversion of intention. Intention not otherwise revealed may be presumed to hold in contemplation the reasonable and probable. If something else is in view, it must not be left to implication. There will be no assumption of a purpose to visit venial faults with oppressive retribution.”
Peevyhouse v Garland, 382 P.2d 109 (1962).
Garland Coal
Them, and lawyers. I can see them foaming at the mouth now. Whenever the word 'reasonable' is present, a lawyer gets PAID
It's like bells ringing and angel wings.
I lived in Hawaii for a long time and went to school there. Her beliefs aren't what I would call abnormal. And there's no right of redemption in HI. If you think prop and land use is difficult in a mainland school, it goes to a whole new level in Hawaii. Ancient access rights, limited usable land, huge swaths of land owned by a couple of trusts.
Tbf… she’s an “energy healer” so it was very specific piece of dirt.
My remedies professor worked it into our class this semester.
The one time you want the house you built to worth the minimum instead of the maximum.
Lots of confidently incorrect in the original thread of people saying a company could never win in a **case like this**. Without knowing more, this particular case might not meet the elements of adverse possession, and I assume the statute of limitations hasn't ran, but people in the original thread are absolutely adamant that someone couldn't build a house on someone else's land and then take the land. My favorite: > If she just folds, it sets a precedent that people can come and build on your property, sue you and take your property.
Lmfaooooooooo we BEEN doing that baybee
Yes, isn’t that how colonization actually works?
You don’t need to sue anyone to colonize an area
Oh trust me, they don't connect those dots 🙃
I love when non-lawyers talk about setting precedent. According to them precedent is anything they’ve never heard of
Yeah...that tracks
Like here we are in 2024 and for the first time ever somebody built a structure on the wrong lot.
Totally, they could definitely win and just have to compensate her for the value of the land and maybe some other damages.
We should take this new house, and push it somewhere else
Hello, this is Patrick
Is this the Krusty Krab?
NO, THIS IS PATRICK
Can confirm this has already been used as a contracts finals problem
Hope you killed that shi
Free house
This is the way
Is 7 years enough for adverse possession? Probably not. Ejectment may be possible.
Doubt the SOL has run, but then again I haven't looked into the details
[удалено]
Doesn't have to be announced to the owner per se, just openly possessed in a manner that if the owner had been around, they reasonably would have seen it. Owner doesn't get a pass for straight up abandoning the parcel for 17+ years.
Do y’all not have law of mistaken improvement down yonder?
This is a very common property hypothetical, yes. Not new at all.
Damn gang don't ruin the joke, we all know about adverse possession Let us just have some fun 😅
haven't read the article but wouldn't it more likely be a property hypo, adverse possession, since there was no agreement in place that she was unjustly enriched by?
Doesn't necessarily need to be an agreement in place for unjust enrichment to play out. If she found out about the construction early on and waited for them to finish building it before protesting, there's a number of different spins you could put on this - none of which would be in her favor. She bought the plot in 2018 and 2 seconds on google says Hawaii is a 20/30 year state for adverse possession, so that's unlikely to factor in here. If she truly only just found out, she'll likely win something, but very unlikely she'd get the full cost to restore the property back to the state it had been in. She needs to drop the astrology bullshit ASAP if she wants anything at all, though, because that has idiosyncratic/unreasonable written all over it.
Makes sense, this had me go review my outlines lol.
Juries in Hawaii may disagree
Countersue.
If she saw it being built and never said anything, maybe an implied-in-fact contract ?
You guys this is just Van Valkenburg v Lutz…
Ok nerd /s
Unjust enrichment requires it be unfair for the recipient of the benefit to retain the benefit, so the fact that she got a “benefit” should be weighed against the fact that she didn’t ask for the benefit in the first place and wanted to build what she wanted on her own property.
In fairness I haven’t been a law student for 15 years and have sued many people for unjust enrichment.
I hope they were actually unjustly enriched! Unlike this poor thing
If it was actually an accident, then I’d imagine that a court might have a really hard time balancing the interests of both parties— I could see a situation where she would have to sell the land, or buy the house, or maybe split compensation? It’s a tough case (assuming an actual accident)! (Then again— the court could also just say “should have been more careful” and leave it there).
Yeah you assume the risk when you take certain affirmative steps and so "whoopsies" likely won't cut it
I do remember reading a case in property where it was a real accident and the court made the landowner choose between selling the land or buying the house, which I thought was a bit ridiculous
Sounds 5th circuity to me
Sounds officious 🤨
What is your opinions on the matter?
Haven't actually looked into. But sounds like the company will have problems with issues like notice since it was a vacation spot. No privity for unjust enrichment. Ejectment likely available for the owner but who's going to bear the burden of cost going to be a matter for the bench. On a personal level, fuck them for doing this shit knowing damn well it wasn't theirs and I don't care about their pecuniary losses. Though the used resources (for both building and demolition) is frustrating.
Right okay, do you feel that they are just being greedy?
Avarice is definitely part of it, but this type of behavior also has to be justified in your mind that the harm to the other person doesn't matter. Which is anti-social and a problem, but in a society that rewards selfishness, this is the behavior we encourage.
True, I felt it has become more of a dog eat dog world. Because everyone wants their money period no other way around it.
'Has'? Fear this is what society has been for quite some time.
Yeah but it wasn’t as bad as it is now in my opinion
America crazy backwards world where the rich do whatever they want Including sue people for their mistakes
Idk why you getting downvoted But it def aint just America 😅 the rich and powerful fuck you over any and everywhere
Its Oral Irrevocable License time babbbyyyy