[where's_the_Outrage?]

Previous FR posting explaining the issue:

‘A dangerous precedent’: Hawaii property owner left stunned after $500K home was mistakenly built on her Paradise Park lot. Now she’s being sued

[ansel12]

I hope they do a salvaging demolish rather than bulldoze it.

[TexasGator]

“PJ’s Construction has to pay for the demolition of the house on Reynolds’s property, “

Lousy remedy. Construction and demolition would obviously disrupt any spiritual connections that existed.

[AndyJackson]

Having owned several lots, I can assure you that a “reasonable” owner or builder is very careful to make sure searching county records, looking at development plats and getting a survey when it matters is just good practice. It’s amazion how many folks pay no attention to assuring that they have clear title and know with sufficiant precision [10 or 20 ft is good enough perhaps if you are not building anywhere near and no one else is building anywhere near that boundary. If you have to stay outside of setbacks or easements then a few inches matters] where all of their property boundaries lie.

[Beowulf9]

The law today is so without heart and consideration of the people involved at times.

[Michael.SF.]

From the linked to piece: "Reynolds planned to create a picturesque ocean view home using sustainable materials on Puna's Hawaiian Paradise Park lot to host her meditative healing women’s retreat."

Seems like a deal could have been made here, such as trading the lot next to it in exchange for keeping the house (that assumes the next door lot is both empty and an ocean view.

But I think I see the problem here: Reynolds, likely a far left whack job. She would rather see a $500,000 house torn down, so she could build a new place with "sustainable materials."

[FatherofFive]

Why doesn't she just keep the home as a 'gift'?

Seems like such a waste to knock down a $500,000 home

[Angelino97]

The decision is just.

Imagine if a developer could build on your land without your knowledge or permission, and then demand payment or the land itself.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Would she not accept a similar vacant lot near the original plus some dollar amount?

[DesertRhino]

The decision HAD to go this way. Otherwise, people would build on any land where they noticed the owner wasn’t physically around often and get away with it.

[alternatives?]

The builder made a mistake in building the house, but something should have been worked out. The list of things she had a right to do is longer than the list of things she should have done. Swap a lot with cash, get the house at a large discount, then sell it and buy somewhere else.

I wouldn’t buy a lot or house next to her or even close to her.

[monkeyshine]

They built a home on her land, and then sued her! The balls on those guys. Luckily they didn’t get away with it. Hopefully they cover her legal costs too.

[tired&retired]

Just move the house to the next lot.

[gloryblaze]

Isn’t this a case where title insurance would come into play?