• Cosmic Cleric
    link
    fedilink
    15
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    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.

    She’s not under any obligation to do so.

    This was a business transaction, that was handled poorly. The onus is on the company selling the product.

    Don’t purchase victim blame.

    • Pika
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -9
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      I’m not purchasing victim blame I’m stating that they’ve acknowledged they fucked up they’ve tried to fix it she has not stated she wants it bulldozed nor has she accepted any of the Alternatives that they did.

      Being as she was informed of this mistake last year, she has had ample time to either propose a solution on her end or accept a solution on their end she has done neither. Which is why I led to my conclusion that she’s trying to get a $500,000 house for no cost

      They have sued her because she’s not being cooperative in any form, and then when she remained being non-cooperative they sued everyone else involved to make it so the legal system decides if she’s being unreasonable or not

      • Cosmic Cleric
        link
        fedilink
        107 months ago

        Being as she was informed of this mistake last year, she has had ample time to either propose a solution on her end or accept a solution on their end she has done neither.

        You do understand that she has no obligation to do so, right?

        Could you literally respond to that question in a yes or no manner.

          • Cosmic Cleric
            link
            fedilink
            10
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            Being as she was informed of this mistake last year, she has had ample time to either propose a solution on her end or accept a solution on their end she has done neither.

            You do understand that she has no obligation to do so, right?

            Could you literally respond to that question in a yes or no manner.

            yes.

            Thank you for responding, specifically and concisely.

            Your ‘purchase victim blaming’ because you keep putting (per your comments to various people in this thread) the onus on her to resolve the situation, when she has no obligation to do so, and when it’s the seller/developer that has the onus.

            The effort should be on them, and it should be whole and complete, and not substandard/lesser.

            • Pika
              link
              fedilink
              English
              -4
              edit-2
              7 months ago

              Sorry, I know I’m not amazing at explaining things.

              I’ll try rephrasing as a question. What should the company at this point of time do?

              The company incorrectly built a house on the wrong property plot, they realize their mistake far too late in the process due to someone’s negilance along the process whether it’s the development company or the construction company maybe even both.

              They have reached out to the person whose life they fucked up basically because they now have more in taxes and also now have to deal with squatters and vandalism on the house that they have stated they don’t want.

              The landowner has refused to talk it out with the company at all regarding any type of suggestions it’s just been a straight no to any proposal(which as stated multiple times already they were not obligated to do I understand this) while also not bringing anything new to the table including anything to do with restoration or bulldozing(again not obligated)

              Aside from bringing into the legal system what can that company do?

              I said before I think the right thing to do is completely bulldoze the lot to allow for the landowner to build what they want on it, but I find it very very weird that this is not been proposed by the party that would be most likely beneficial from this transaction

              • Cosmic Cleric
                link
                fedilink
                6
                edit-2
                7 months ago

                Sorry, I know I’m not amazing at explaining things.

                Honestly, to me you’re crystal clear, its just people, including myself, are pushing back for the reasons I’ve stated before, and again below.

                but I find it very very weird that this is not been proposed by the party that would be most likely beneficial from this transaction

                You just did it again. You are purchase victim blaming.

                Its not her job to propose anything, its the company/developers. She doesn’t have to propose/negotiate ANYTHING, they have to offer a recompense that she is satisified with and makes her whole. The onus is on the company.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                47 months ago

                They have reached out to the person whose life they fucked up basically because they now have more in taxes and also now have to deal with squatters and vandalism on the house that they have stated they don’t want.

                They in fact did not reach out at all. The property owner found out from the realtor who sold the house and not even in a we fucked up way. From the article above:

                She was unaware of the construction until she got a call last year from a real estate broker who had learned of the mistake.

                “He told me, ‘I just sold the house, and it happens to be on your property. So, we need to resolve this,’”

                • Pika
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  -1
                  edit-2
                  7 months ago

                  I am under the understanding that they were not even aware of the issue until that point, but I could be wrong there.

                  • @[email protected]
                    link
                    fedilink
                    47 months ago

                    That would be negligence if true then. The point still stands that the developer was not the one to make contact, it was the realtor (who would be working for their and the developer’s benefit) who reached out and tried to put the onus on her from the get go.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                37 months ago

                You are fine atgetting across your view, the issue people are having is that your views are really fucking stupid.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                17 months ago

                I’ll try rephrasing as a question. What should the company at this point of time do?

                If she wants the house removed and her land restored, then that is what the company should do.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        97 months ago

        she remained being non-cooperative

        No shit, and she has zero obligation or responsibility to. Keep in mind one of the “alternatives” was that she bought the house they illegally built on her land for a discount

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          137 months ago

          Yeah, this is just straight up a scam, she has no obligation to buy their fucking illegal scam house. House belongs to her, in my opinion, if she wants it, and if she doesn’t, it’s on company dime to bulldoze the entire thing, clean the lot, reseed it, and pay back the tax burden they forced.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            57 months ago

            Don’t forget the possibility of treble damages. I am honestly shocked that anyone can look at this and side with the developer.

        • Pika
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -67 months ago

          So then if they are being unreasonable her suggestion should be that they pay for the bulldoze correct? unless I missed it somewhere I have not seen it posted she suggested this at all.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            87 months ago

            Once again, she is under no obligation to suggest anything. The developers here did not make an oopsie this is full blown criminal and they are lucky that the law does not treat companies the same as individuals. If you or I did anything like this (trespassing, conversion, destruction of property, extortion, fraud etc.) we would not be free to carry on.

            • Pika
              link
              fedilink
              English
              -6
              edit-2
              7 months ago

              like stated prior, while she is under no obligation to suggest anything, the fact that she did not at all indicates her intention

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                57 months ago

                And her intention has nothing to do with anything in this case, no ones intentions here do. This is sadly not a criminal matter (it should have been) so other then modifying damages intent has no real bearing here.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                47 months ago

                What I don’t get is what’s with you suggesting that her wanting the house for herself is a somewhat morally wrong thing. It’s her house. Idiots build it on her land; tough luck shitheads, it’s hers now.